Talk:Symphony No. 91 (Haydn)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Letter T
[edit]All letters for Haydn's symphonies mentioned by Wikipedia check out in the 1909 Catalogue of Printed Music from the Royal College of Music except this one. A Google search to confirm T = 91 turns up Wikipedia and Amazon pages. James470 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Plus Allmusic.com which is not a great source either. The allmusic/amazon letters are collected here: Talk:List_of_symphonies_by_Joseph_Haydn#The_Letter_Nicknames. Anyone know where these letters come from? Does the 1909 source say? Is it some pre-Mandyczewski catalogue? If so, is there a full list out there? I've always been very curious about these. V-W-R-T-Q is an eclectic group of letters for 88-89-90-91-92. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't say. But the 1890 Grove does, p. 721: "The letters ... are those in the Philharmonic catalogue, by which these Symphonies are designated in the Society's programmes." The incipit given there for Letter T matches the first violin part for I:91, but the words "1787, for Paris," don't quite square with this article. The 1909 catalogue matches up some of these letters with the Hoboken numbers (e.g., Q = 92 = Oxford on p. 166) but Letter T is absent there. James470 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's good enough. I don't think any of the other symphonies from this time period have a similar incipit. Well, if its for the introduction and not the Allegro then the #89 looks a bit similar but if the incipit contains an E-flat key signature, that should be positively identify it. Also, a summation of different musicologists estimates of composition dates found in A. Peter Brown's book [1] (p. 32) states that Mandyczeski thought the work was composed "ca. 1787" while later scholars zeroed in on the 1788 date (dated autograph must have been found later?). I don't have the original Mandyczewski reference though. Its is: Mandyczewski, Eusebius et. a. J. Haydn Werke. 10 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1907-1933. DavidRF (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- A discrepancy of one year is hardly worth comment, but what do you make of the words "for Paris?" James470 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. Like the Paris symphonies 90,91,92 were also commissioned by Comte d'Ogny for the Concerts de la Loge Olympique. There's a mention of it in the article for #92 but I can also verify it on page 232 of APBrown. I'll add a note and a citation. DavidRF (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- A discrepancy of one year is hardly worth comment, but what do you make of the words "for Paris?" James470 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I forgot about the French count. Going back a few comments, did you mean there are no other Haydn "symphonies from this time period have a similar incipit" or no other symphonies by any composer with a similar incipit? James470 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was looking at Haydn incipits from symphonies 82-92.[2] The Allegro for 91 is pretty distinctive with its chromatic four-note rise. If its for the slow introduction, then 89 looks a bit similar on paper at first glance but its in a different key. The only other work from this period with three flats in the key signature is #84 and that starts completely different. I can't see what you are seeing in 1890 Grove, though. Sometimes these old historical incipits are quite explicit but sometimes it takes some work to see the resemblence to what is in a modern score.DavidRF (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- The 1890 Grove only has first movement incipits, and only of the slow introduction when there is one. In the case of "1787, for Paris" in E-flat, the incipit is practically the same as what haydn107.com shows for #91: double stops for the violin involving the G- and D-strings. James470 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was looking at Haydn incipits from symphonies 82-92.[2] The Allegro for 91 is pretty distinctive with its chromatic four-note rise. If its for the slow introduction, then 89 looks a bit similar on paper at first glance but its in a different key. The only other work from this period with three flats in the key signature is #84 and that starts completely different. I can't see what you are seeing in 1890 Grove, though. Sometimes these old historical incipits are quite explicit but sometimes it takes some work to see the resemblence to what is in a modern score.DavidRF (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's good enough. I don't think any of the other symphonies from this time period have a similar incipit. Well, if its for the introduction and not the Allegro then the #89 looks a bit similar but if the incipit contains an E-flat key signature, that should be positively identify it. Also, a summation of different musicologists estimates of composition dates found in A. Peter Brown's book [1] (p. 32) states that Mandyczeski thought the work was composed "ca. 1787" while later scholars zeroed in on the 1788 date (dated autograph must have been found later?). I don't have the original Mandyczewski reference though. Its is: Mandyczewski, Eusebius et. a. J. Haydn Werke. 10 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1907-1933. DavidRF (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't say. But the 1890 Grove does, p. 721: "The letters ... are those in the Philharmonic catalogue, by which these Symphonies are designated in the Society's programmes." The incipit given there for Letter T matches the first violin part for I:91, but the words "1787, for Paris," don't quite square with this article. The 1909 catalogue matches up some of these letters with the Hoboken numbers (e.g., Q = 92 = Oxford on p. 166) but Letter T is absent there. James470 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)