MiV Home
University Centre Auditorium
March 28, 2015
"Among other observations His Majesty [George III] said: 'Dr. Haydn, you have written a good deal'. Haydn modestly replied: 'Yes, Sire, a good deal more than is good'. His Majesty neatly rejoined: 'Oh no, the world contradicts that'."
Adalbert Gyrowetz wrote his memoirs some half century after befriending Haydn in London and so it is possible that his recollections were not completely accurate - was Haydn really comfortable enough in the English language to be making puns (however feeble)?
Nevertheless, the king's point is well-taken and even after completing his twelve "London" symphonies, Haydn still had a "good deal more" music in him, including his six late mass settings, of which the D minor, the "Missa in angustiis" or, more commonly, the "Nelson" Mass may well be greatest.
However, modern performers have a potential problem, which score to use?
Most people probably fondly imagine, as did I, that matters of Haydn scholarship and authenticity had been settled once and for all by H.C Robbins Landon in the 1940s and 50s, so the choice for the modern conductor was to use the Critical Edition or an older, corrupt edition (Beecham's final recordings of the London Symphonies, for example, postdate Robbins Landon but adhere to the older versions of the scores).
Unfortunately, certainly in the case of the "Nelson" Mass, matters are not so simple, as described by David Janower in an article for the Winter/Spring 1989 edition of the Journal of the Conductors' Guild.
As is well known, Haydn scored his accompaniment for the relatively austere combination of trumpets, timpani, organ and strings - largely because in 1798 the Esterházy family was "practising economy...The princely Feld-Harmonie was now dismissed, leaving a small nucleus of string players and singers", leaving Haydn little choice for his orchestration and resulting in the austere trumpets, organ and strings scoring.
Some years after the composition of the "Nelson", Breitkopf and Härtel announced plans for publication of Haydn's masses. Haydn seemingly considered rescoring the "Nelson", but there is no evidence that he did so. G.A. Greisinger, Haydn's biographer, wrote to the publishers claiming that "Haydn told me that in the Mass...he put the wind instruments in the organ part, because at that time Prince Esterházy had dismissed the wind players, but he advises you to put everything that is obbligato in the organ part into the wind instruments and to print it that way".
It is known that a version of the "Nelson" with enlarged scoring (flute, two oboes, two clarinets, bassoon and two horns) existed in the library at Eisenstadt, of which Haydn was apparently aware and which he may perhaps have supervised. We also know that Haydn's successor at Eisenstadt, Johann Nepomuk Fuchs, rescored several of Haydn's masses and it is assumed Fuchs's wind parts are those which appear (in small print) in the Complete Works.
Without reproducing Janower's article in its entirety, I shall simply point out that the situation is in fact even more complex than I have outlined (there are also changes to the vocal lines); as he points out, by the time of Haydn's death there were already three versions of the "Nelson" extant, only one of which we can indisputably attribute to Haydn.
I mention all of this to make the point that in employing the extra wind (I confess, if there was a bassoon it was obscured from where I sat) Ajtony Csaba was not committing some heinous crime against Haydn. I should also point out that the music had been progressing for a few minutes when I suddenly realised that there were several "interlopers" in the orchestra.
We might as well get this out of the way before dealing with the performance as a whole. There are those who will argue that had Haydn had access to the wind players as of old, he would have employed them in the "Nelson" Mass.
While this is undoubtedly true, I cannot help but wonder whether Haydn would have written exactly the same work. For me, a good deal of the attraction of the work lies in the sparseness of its orchestration; if you add the wind players then no matter how well they play - and in this instance they played very well indeed - the work will, in my opinion, suffer.
So, while I am happy to have heard this version once, I would be perfectly happy never to hear it again.
That having been said, Csaba directed a fine performance of the "Nelson". The opening "Kyrie eleison" was crisp and dramatic, with excellent choral singing, although perhaps the word "eleison" (have mercy on us) might have been a little more supplicatory.
The "Gloria" was exuberant, the "Credo" perhaps too fast for comfort, the "Sanctus" was suitably reverential with a joyful outburst at "Pleni sunt coeli", the final "Dona nobis pacem" not quite as "in your face" as one often hears.
Throughout the chorus were very good indeed, although I found their somewhat staccato singing in the "Qui tollis" ("de-pre-ca-ti-o-nem-no-os-tram") a little bizarre; overall though, diction was good and balances not at all bad (as usual altos and tenors tended to be somewhat light in numbers). Kudos to choirmaster Adam Jonathan Con.
The orchestra also played well, even though the scoring distracted on occasion - most notably in the "Qui tollis" where the delicious descending phrase normally heard on the organ was played by the oboe.
The solo quartet was one of the finest and best balanced I have heard in a long time. Soprano Margaret Lingas had the most vital rôle, of course, and acquitted herself admirably, producing a lovely tone and managing the more florid passages with aplomb. The other soloists also impressed, although they do not get such "plum" parts. Mezzo Kelsey Wheatley, tenor Tristan Chalcraft and baritone Xuguang Zhang all sang beautifully, whether individually or collectively.
Despite my reservations about the score employed, this was undoubtedly one of the finest performances I've heard from the UVic Chorus and Orchestra in some time.
According to George Gerwshin, replying to his critics, his 1928 symphonic poem An Amercan in Paris, is "not a Beethoven Symphony, you know... It's a humorous piece, nothing solemn about it. It's not intended to draw tears. If it pleases symphony audiences as a light, jolly piece, a series of impressions musically expressed, it succeeds."
The first "half" of the programme consisted of a performance which showed the orchestra (considerably larger than in the Haydn) at its best, from the colourful, easy-going opening to the terrific final crescendo.
The sheer sound throughout was wonderfully transparent, with the exception of some tutti passages, in which I am quite prepared to blame Gershwin, who was fairly new to the skill of orchestration (Rhapsody in Blue was originally scored for jazz band by Paul Whiteman and then for full orchestra by Frede Grofé; only the Piano Concerto came between, thus making An American in Paris only the second work that Gerswhin orchestrated himself).
The performance was characterised by great precision in the playing, but in the "jazzy" passages the music never really seemed to swing, which slightly let the side down.
An interesting evening.
MiV Home