Customer Reviews

Haydn: 12 London Symphonies

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Jochum's London symphony set is amongst the best modern instrument versions currently available. Jocum's great virtue lies in his handling of Haydn's slow movements, which in unsympathetic hands can sound bland. His firm baselines and clear phrasing make for characterful performances full of light and shade. Listen, for example, to the often hackneyed 2nd movement of 101, or the stirring middle section of 99. Also notable are his finales, which fizz with energy. Listen for example, to the finale to no. 101, one of the best performances on disc (superior, for example, to Dorati's). His 97 gives trumpets and drums their head, while the finale to 98 is one of the most poised and flowing available.

For original instruments fans, Norrington's 99 - 104 on EMI are superior, but for those who want a bid price complete set by a conductor who has a fine understanding of the requirements of Haydn, then this is strongly recommended.

Haydn's "London Symphonies" are among the treasures of western civilization, and it is incredible how his work seems to always stand in the shadow of Beethoven and Mozart, who both knew exactly the extent of Haydn's genius. That said, these recordings stand as the perfect introduction to the man who essentially invented the classical symphonic form as we know it (as well as the string quartet, but that's another matter altogether). The "London Symphonies" are the last twelve Haydn wrote, and they represent, along with his oratorios and the final dozen or so string quartets, the summit of his stunning career. These are spacious, unrestrained, muscular interpretations, and I'm tremendously fond of Jochum's reading of them because they're the first I ever heard. Since then, I've ventured into the Davis, Dorati, and Slatkin recordings, which are in their own fashion just as good and certainly no better than those of Jochum, only you won't get all twelve at such a fabulous bargain price. For me the real highlights here are the "named" symphonies--The "Clock," "Military," "Surprise," "Drum Roll," "Miracle," and "London" (#104). However, the 98th and 102nd are also staggeringly good. In every instant, Jochum is forceful and expansive, and the beautiful singing quality of the strings leaves you in no doubt that the orchestra he's conducting is among the very best. While some original instrument purists might object to these '60s interpretations, just listen to the rather dry and lifeless original instrument recordings made by Tafelmusik under the direction of Bruno Weil (Sony), and I'm sure you'll agree that you just can't go wrong with Jochum.

We have a funny need in our age to rank even genius and to only have one or two in any field stuck in our mind while we let all the rest slip into the land of the forgotten. This is is an unfortunate tendency and particularly unfortunate in the case of Franz Joseph Haydn.

Haydn's life began before and ended after Mozart's and he was one of Beethoven's teachers. He invented and further refined almost all of the "classical" musical forms including the string quartet and the symphony. That he is talked about in condescending terms shows our ingnorance of his works and importance rather than our sophistication.

It is fair to say that in most periods of time people have understood that Haydn's music was more sophisticated and mature than Mozart's. This takes nothing away from Mozart's transcendent genius. It is simply that Haydn is a more profoundly important composer than most now apprecitate. And you may disagree who was the "greater" composer. I think it is a meaningless question. They are both profoundly important to the history of western art music.

These twelve symphonies can help us regain a proper perspective on Haydn's work. They are witty and funny and at times profound. Symphony 104 is one of the great works of all time.

This recording is also very good. We don't need to worry about it not being informed by period instrument considerations. Those recordings are available and the reasons for their existing are also well known. I agree with most of those reasons. But we now have champions of period instruments heading into the late 19th century repertoire.

And if we are going there (and we should), we must also remember that 19th century performance practice also included performing classic works with "modern" instruments. And if you want to believe that this recording is out of that tradition, well, good! I prefer to just hear the work and see if I am interested and convinced. These recordings both interest and convince me.

It isn't that other interpretations aren't possible. Of course they are. It is that these are just so good and fun and lively that you will be glad to own them and to get to know one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time (and who had probably the best musical gig of all time).

Feel free to email me with your thoughts on this music and these recordings.

Jochum and London Phil deliver the highest level of Haydn playing just like Colin Davis and Concertgebow do. I own both and tried to compare between two.

Jochum adds plenty of personal touches that decidedly grab your attention. You hear poignant romanticism or Beethoven-like roar in many places. Colin Davis, by comparison, lets the music flow naturally and makes it sound more balanced. In his set, you hear more of Concertgebow Orchestra than Colin Davis. I think it's the other way around in Jochum set. Concergebow's sound is more transparent and charmingly light-footed while London Phil sounds fuller and creamier without losing crispness. You get more agility and refinement from Davis set. You get more expressiveness and warmth from Jochum's.

Let me emphasize that all of the good qualities I attributed to either of the sets actually exist in both (they are inherently in Haydn's writing). It's just that some qualities are more apparent in one than the other.

As to the recording, Colin Davis set has more sparkle and vividness. It sounds more modern. Jochum's has a typical old-fashioned analogue sound in a very good way. It has plenty of natural ambience but doesn't sound muddy.

I recommend you buy both of these delightful and affordable sets. I never regretted doing so :-)

I first purchased the Jochum performances piecemeal on LP in the late 70's to satisfy my desire for all twelve "London" symphonies, having been spoiled by Szell's legendary readings of Nos. 93-98 from the 60's. Having heard a number of versions of Haydn's masterworks over the intervening years, I have a greater appreciation today of Jochum's achievement in fashioning this stellar set. More than any other aspect, what sets Jochum apart from most of the remaining field is his sense of the right tempi for these works. For instance, many conductors choose a plodding pace in Haydn's introductions...even Davis---brilliant as he is otherwise in his approach---seems stodgy in this regard...Jochum seems to "get it right"...plenty of contrast throughout, but Haydn is an energetic composer; even his lyrical slow passages carry momentum, and Jochum captures this forward thrust consistently. The LPO plays well throughout the set, and the DG recordings are characteristically rich and atmospheric. Even if Szell still seems to have been born with these works in his blood, he still did not get around to recording all twelve of Haydn's culminating symphonies in his lifetime. Fortunately for us, Jochum completed this task in a most laudable fashion. To my ear, this is the front-runner for anyone wanting to own the complete "London" set in a single collection.

The only thing "wrong" with these interpretations is the sound, it is too big to feel period informed - but Jochum doesn't pretend any period information either. In the booklet however, we are informed that he uses less strings than usual; well, the recording were made in the beginning of the 1970ties... It is just like the big sound gives a Haydn looking forward to the romantic era and I feel some even hints of Bruckner in the 102nd symphony. This bigness of sound doesn't fit Haydn, but it cannot hide the inner quality of Jochum's reading and the wonderful playing by the London Philharmonic. These performances have both poise and fun. I find more fun and less poise by Adam Fischer, more energy by Sigiswald Kuijken; still I feel that knowing these other performances helps me returning to the quality of Jochum's readings, which have both fun and poise.
It is something deeply satisfying here. Recordings I certainly will return to. I remembered I had difficulty getting used to the big sound, but now I am very happy for the perfect balance and great joy of these performances.