Haydn - Symphony No. 39 in G minor (Il Giardino Armonico, Giovanni Antonini) 

If I could love this comment for life I would

You’re quite right, but better ‘model’ than ‘inspiration’ which is rapidly becoming one of the most mis-used words in the English language when related to musical compositions.

The chances of Haydn knowing any of Handel’s music as early as c.1767 when this symphony was written are next to zero. Haydn did come across some Handel in Vienna in the 1780’s through Baron van Swieten, and then obviously a lot more when in in England 1791-92 and 1794-95, the latter contact through innumerable performances in London over his two long visits having an overwhelming impact on him. So no, I would suggest you’re not hearing anything of Handel in this symphony, it’s simply too early. It also has to be said, that even after Haydn’s exposure to Handel’s music in England, after which you might expect to find it - for example in The Creation, and in The Seasons - any trace of Handel is conspicuously absent from there as well.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 thanks Eline for your comments.

Thank you Elaine for educating me

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you Elaine for educating me.

Non giudicherei dalla faccia... grandissima interpretazione, appassionata e vibrante

Rubbish! They are Italian!!! The communication between the conductor and the players in this orchestra is unparalleled! This was a phenominal performance of the very finest example of a 'Sturm und Drang' symphony.

@@ianbrown3687 I agree; neither do I think Antonini is guilty of ‘extreme showmanship’. You are quite right that this is an exceptional performance of a very fine and seminal symphony.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 I only meant that all would have been allright without seeing the performance. I find the rolling with the eyeballs and jumping around distracting. Of course this is as much a fault of the video director focusing on this. Seemingly the authenticity is not sought for concerning the visual part of the performance. Is it known how exactly a symphony was played at Esterhaza? Were the musicians seated or upright, where was Haydns' position as conductor and what gestures did he make ?

@@christianwouters6764 Haydn would have played the violin in the symphonies at Eisenstadt and then Eszterhaza, not the harpsichord. Most of the players would have stood whilst performing the symphonies, rather than sat - as is seen in the Haydn 2032 series with which you are familiar. They were however all seated for the opera performances. Regarding roles, we can only speculate on how the leadership of the orchestra was organised between Haydn himself, and the lead first violin or Konzertmeister Luigi Tomasini. As Haydn was himself a more than competent violinist, it would seem likely that Tomasini’s role would for example have been more related to playing the solo’s, and leading the 1st violins. I suspect Haydn played 2nd violin; that would allow for Tomasini and Haydn to be the last two players on stage at the end of the ‘Farewell’ symphony. It is inconceivable that Haydn would not have had overall direction, and he was clearly far more involved in performances than Quantz for example at the court of Frederick the Great in Berlin who did little more than indicate tempi from afar. (Interestingly, the tempo was set by Quantz, *not* by the court harpsichordist CPE Bach who was reduced to simply filling in the basso continuo, rather than the more modern notion of ‘directed from the harpsichord’). We know that Haydn was insistent on proper rehearsals, and whilst accounts are scarce regarding the orchestral concerts at Eszterhaza (details about the operas are better), it is clear that whilst in London, the rehearsals* were led by Haydn, and were little different from what we would see anywhere today. The orchestra, which grew from about 14 in 1761, to about 24 in the 1780’s, was very highly regarded: the composer Kraus who visited Haydn at Eszterhaza in 1784 as part of a four year musical tour around Europe, described the orchestra as one of the best he had heard. Regarding gestures: I think much of the work would have been done in rehearsals - this is a key point - and certainly at Eszterhaza, there was no need for a conductor in the modern sense. Even with the orchestra numbers rising to 24, the players were always part of an in-house, highly competent, and very good professional orchestra. This meant there was a degree of stability, with a reasonably settled personnel including some of the finest players in Europe, and that they played together regularly, and played Haydn’s music regularly. In short - they knew what they were doing, they understood Haydn as a composer, and as competent musicians, by all known accounts, did it very well. * There are some fascinating details in Volume 3 ‘Haydn in England 1791 - 1795’ of HC Robbins Landon’s five volume biography of the composer ‘Haydn: Chronicle and Works’.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Why should you not suppose that even at Esterhazy, Haydn did not conduct from the harpsichord? I have a recording of symphony #98 in Bь Major which preserves Haydn's original harpsichord solo at the end of the 1st movement and it is performed on a large harpsichord, not a Steinway or fortepiano. I must commend you for your excellent enlightening comments.