Renato Vinicius wrote:

>Some doubts on these CDs; if you could help me, please...
>
>1 - The CD with Haydn quartets opus 74 (1, 2 & 3"Rider")
>   These three quartets, with the three opus 71 were done to a Haydn's
>friend Annody - or something like that. Which are there numbers of these
>quartets opus 74 among ALL Haydn Quartets? And How many did he write.
>I didn't find that information on my encyclopedia nor in the text on the CD
>cover.

In the Hoboken Catalogue Op71 1 to 3 are numbered 69,70,71 and Op74
72,73,74.  These two opuses are dedicated to Count Anton Apponyi.

Hoboken numbers 83 quartets plus II/6 (op1/1) but op 3 1-6 are spurious.
So thats 78 quartets.

The Kodaly's have recorded most of them.  But only opus 2:  1, 2, 4, 6.
They say that the others (3,5) are not authentic in their notes.  But in
her book Rosemary Hughes says that these works were orignally divertmenti.
So my reading is that the quartet adaptation is supposedly not by Haydn.

However all these Opus 1 and two works are available in an Arte Nova boxed
set where they are described as Divertmenti.

The numbering of some of the early quartets is shambolic to say the least.

The kodaly's have recorded a quartet marked on the CD case as OP1 no 5.
But the music is identical to the English Quartet's recording of what they
describe as OP0 No 0.  To confuse matters more the Kodaly's sleeve notes
describe the quartet as OP1 No 0.

My theory is that this is the Quartet II/6 listed above as this is E flat
too.

So the means that the Kodaly's have not released OP1 number 5.  They give
no explanation for this but Rosemary Hughes' book describes this quartet
as originally a symphony.

Therefore I deduce that the Kodaly's have recorded all except OP1/5 OP2/3,
OP2/5 and all of op3.  This is a total of 75 quartets.

But wait there's another problem.  Hoboken lists the seven last words OP51
as 7 quartets.  Can this be right? To me it's only one quartet of seven
movements!

So in the Draper catalogue there are 69 quartets.  But I advise you to
check my reasoning and Math!

The early quartets are often not given a great deal of credit.  For
instance it's been said that the first great quartets were Haydn's OP33.
Rubbish.

Take that II/6 for instance.  This is a masterpiece in my view.  When
critics say 'great' I reckon that what they seem to be looking for is
Bachian/Mozartian counterpoint but I think this is entirely wrong.  Is it
really necessary to have each member of a quartet to be employed on some
complex theme? Imagine if such judgments were applied to Mahler's second
symphony, where the soprano sits around until the last movement.

In these early Haydn quartets it is true that the cello, for instance, is
often given only a small supporting role.  But the structure of the other
three instruments is excellent.  Much better than in some early Haydn
symphonies in my view.

This is because Haydn has been much more successfull in marrying the
central european with the Italian styles in these early quartets than
he is in some of his early symphonies.(I intend to write about these in
another post soon)

In that II/6 at first sight some of the accompanyment seems to be simple.
But somehow there is a rightness about it.  How can this be? Closer
inspection reveals the answer.  The acompanying instruments are actually
playing a theme that wanders around in a complex Haydnesque way.  The
genius is in the subtly of it so much so that it is far from obvious.

Haydn did not write a bad quartet in my view.  So, if you have ignored
these early works because of dumb critics, buy the Naxos releases and be
amazed.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]