Talk:Symphony No. 30 (Haydn)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Alleluia Melody

A score snippet of the Alleluia melody might help. HCRL says the chant doesn't match modern scholarship's rendition of the chant but matches one of the corrupted sources that Haydn had access to at the time. HCRL quotes the "Brixen Compendiosa"'s version as "G>CDECDC|CDECDC|FDEDDC" which is almost an exact match for Haydn's score. (Alle- in the first secton, lu- in the second and ja in the third) I'm not that slick with scores, I'll see what I can do, but figured I'd post here in the meantime.DavidRF (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Movement

hi David, I noticed you disassociated the 2nd mvt characteristics from the 24/ii adaptation. I don't think there is a need to source the phrase "The second movement contains numerous solo concertante passages for the flute" since that is self-evident, but it would be good to have a specifically-paged source for the fact that it is distinct from the intent in 24/ii. The need for even that is only because HCRL makes an explicit connection, so it would be good to source the latest scholarship. (My content was a straight-up adaptation from HCRL's discussion.) This, btw, raises the larger issue of HCRL and others (Hodgson) as sources for the descriptive aspects of Haydn's output. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I must admit this might be a case of OR on my part. I listened to the two movement side by side and thought that 24 sounded like a movement from an actual concerto (cadenza-breaks and all that) while 30 just had a couple of virtuosic flute solos in an otherwise fully orchestral movement. Plus, solo passages become a bit of a Haydn trademark later on. It just seemed like grouping 24 & 30 together seemed not to be the full story. But you are right, after some follow-up research, I see several writers have grouped 30 in with 13 & 24 (and the maybe the double concerto of 36). I suppose to disagree with them would be OR, so you can put your edit back if you'd like. I wouldn't mind finding a writer who distinguishes between concerto and concertante, though. :-)DavidRF (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your view makes somewhat more sense. Thinking about it, I am not at all convinced that HCRL is right in making the link so directly. I think the more fruitful discussion may be in noting the evolution away from the concerto-aria style toward the concertante style, which itself anticipates the wind choirs of the later works. This is why I say it raises the larger question of how we cite authority. HCRL on dating is fine, but his stylistic observations are often amateurish (as opposed to, say, Rosen, even though CR was not trained as a musicologist). The Hodgson stuff is also, in my view, mostly unscholarly dross - e.g. at the moment, the major key symphonies of the 1760s are all labeled "festive" thanks to Hodgson's silly chapter heading, even though that is a meaningless term. In fact, I'll start expunging that unscholarly garbage right now. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if HCRL and Hodgson are amateurish and unscholarly, we're going to have some pretty short articles. Some comments should be allowed as long as they are cited. I wasn't commenting on wind choirs... I was talking about virtuosic solo passages. Quite common in Haydn... 41, 51, 95, 98, drawing a bit of a blank right now, but its quite common for there be be solos in Haydn movements. A choir-like wind instrumentation wasn't really Haydn I thought, I mean, I'm sure did it from time to time, but that was more of a "Mozartean" thing. Maybe we should just leave it the way it was before, perhaps saying it lacked the cadential passages of 13 & 24. I'm worried I went too far with the OR

Please keep the "festive" labels. That's actually real. They aren't just major-key works but C major and usually have predominant horn parts, often alto horns. A. Peter Brown mentions the term in his Symphonic Reportoire book. Scott Fogleson at the SF Conservatory has an article about them at his website [1]. Hodgson didn't make that up. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, why don't you rvv the edits here to your liking then. I didn't mean to imply that HCRL and Hodgson were generally unscholarly, only that the descriptive elements are mostly personal opinion (hence the "Italian style" of 27/ii, which is simply page-filler). Thanks for the additional information on the "festive" label. We should add that in, indicating the basis for the label. As for the wind choir, I only intended to signal Haydn's evolution of wind writing in slow movements. You are right that Mozart (inter alia) is more commonly associated with this. Actually this is the kind of general discussion more appropriate for our H&M daughter project. Eusebeus (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I tweaked the text a bit and added a bit more from Heartz. Prose is not my strong point, I'm more of a facts man, so apologies in advance for any grammatical oddities. DavidRF (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart?

Why are we mentioning K. 551 and K. 533 (Do-Re-Fa-Mi) when this is a different tune (Do-Re-Mi-Do-Re-Do)? There's many pieces that do use the Do-Re-Fa-Mi plainchant and it seems odd to mention it where its *not* used.DavidRF (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]