Talk:List of string quartets by Joseph Haydn

Untitled
What does FHE stand for? Something Haydn Edition? I've never heard of it, I think a note explaining it would be useful. --Camembert

FHE - First Haydn Edition We catalogue Haydn's music by 3 main lists:

Hoboken (Hob.) Opus (Op.) First Haydn Edition (FHE)


 * Hob. mostly used for identify Piano Sonatas, Trios and other miscellaneous pieces.
 * Opus used mainly for Quartets.
 * Numbers 1-104, Which are basically Hob.I, are for symhponies.

--- Of Course if you know the scale, it's highly suggested that you use it. ---

For Example: Joseph Haydn - Symphony No. 85 in B- flat major, Hob. I:85 (La Reine) - "The Queen" Some Smphonies and quartets have nicknames, non of which Haydn named himslef. But it helps identifying the pieces.

Presonally, I do not use the FHE, and it's actually pretty rare to see that. Maybe, somtimes when the subject is his early works,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.0.49 (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Supposed Opus Zero
According to Oxford Music Online - highly reliable, what has been claimed here as Opus 0, is incorrect - it needs to be under "Opus. 1, No. 0" or however you want to format it to that information  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.43.87 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Encoding of Flats and Sharps
It seemed like a nice idea to add html encoding to get the 'flat' and 'sharp' characters to show up, but the encoding does not work (at least on my machine). All I get is a faint empty square. 66.63.144.242

Accidentals work on my Mac. Stephen B Streater 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Extract
It's nice to hear what these pieces sound like, and here's a link to a right's cleared extract of Op 33 no 2: The Joke

I'd like to add this link in to the article, but it seems slightly unusual to add an external link to the middle where the piece appears, and adding a whole section to the end seems a bit excessive for one link. I'll leave it here in the talk section while I (and hopefully others) think about where this (and other links) could go. Stephen B Streater 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Opus 64
The 5 extant autographs are dated 1791. So why 1790? (see ) Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When were the earliest quartets composed?
DOH!: what i came to find, wasn't here to be found. And i might not be the only one. If it's not not known, maybe a note to that effect, and maybe the best guess? Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames for the sets
There's been a bit of edit/revert going on between a registered editor and an anon regarding nicknames for each set. The proposed nicknames are:
 * 20 Sun
 * 30 Russian
 * 50 Prussian
 * 54/55 Tost I/II
 * 64 Tost III
 * 71/74 Apponyi
 * 76 Erdödy
 * 77 Lobkowitz

The question is which of these are "standard" and which are not as common.

Personally, I'd vote to at least drop the "Tost" labels just because of the confusion of multiple sets (what good is a label if it doesn't disambiguate?). Also, when I have seen Tost used, I've see 54/55 together as "Tost" and more rarely I've seen 64 as "Tost II" or "Second Tost". I've never seen "Tost III".

Anyone else have any opinions? Its a relatively minor issue, but since there's been some edit/revert, I feel it deserves a few more opinions. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Geiringer writes that 54/55 and 64 are indeed sometimes referred to as the Tost quartets, after Johann Tost, a cloth merchant of almost no notability, whose relationship with Haydn is a mystery. If I hadn't looked in Geiringer I wouldn't know all that (and it's all in a footnote, no less!). Haydn himself never gave names to his quartets - the Joke, the Frog, the Rider, the Sunrise, are all names given by others.  All of which is to say, I guess, that the assignations that 70.190.6.38 has been applying so assiduously are correct, if unimportant.  I would leave them. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the booklet to DG 437-134-2, Haydn Streichquartette Op. 54 & Op. 55, Amadeus Quartet 1971-2, in an essay written by Anthony Burton,"'These [Op. 54 and Op. 55] quartets appear, like their successors, the half-dozen op. 64, to have been written for Johann Tost. Tost was a violinist in Haydn's orchestra at Esterháza, who gave up his job in 1788 to go to Paris. He later returned to Austria and married Prince Esterházy's housekeeper; eventually he became a successful manufacturer and merchant, playing the violin only as a hobby. It was certainly through Tost that the op. 54 and 55 quartets (as well as the symphonies nos. 88 and 89) came to be published in Paris. At the same time, none of the early printed editions of the quartets specifically identify Tost as their dedicatee, as do the first publications of op. 64. But there are many signs that the first violin parts of the earlier set are conceived for the same outstanding player as those of the later. The late Hans Keller, in his interpretive study of The Great Haydn Quartets, concluded on the basis of all twelve quartets that Tost must have been 'an exceptional musician with an intense and rich imagination'." Burton's phrasing is a little ambiguous, but it sounds like he's saying that Op. 64 was specifically dedicated to Tost. Then in his notes to DG 431145-2, a 3-disc set again with the Amadeus Quartet, including Opp. 51 & 64, Burton says"Like their predecessors, the two sets of three opp. 54 and 55, these quartets are dedicated to Johann Tost, a former violinist in Haydn's orchestra at Esterháza who had become a wealthy merchant in Vienna. Presumably because of this, they occasionally highlight the first violin part in brilliant passage-work or expressive high-lying melodic writing."Before this passage Burton mentions that Op. 64 was composed in 1790, "the year in which his employer Prince Nikolaus Esterházy died, leaving him free to accept the invitation to visit London ..." It might be speculated (Burton does not) that if Haydn's employment had ended, a "wealthy merchant" formerly in the orchestra may have paid Haydn something for the dedication. These DG publications say merely "Tost Quartetten" without specifying set numbers such as I, II, III. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of issues here. First, which nicknames have "stuck"?  Trying to "fix" a nickname after its been in use for a couple of generations is difficult.  Especially if the nickname is that of a patron.  Patrons commission lots of works and its not uncommon for only a subset of those works to acquire the patron as a nickname.  Secondly, these nicknames are supposed to help disambiguate.  In my opinion, this whole Tost I/II/III thing just adds more confusion.  You end up having to use the Opus number anyways.DavidRF (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no feeling one way or the other about the I/II/III numbering, but concerning the nickname "Tost", I think you're looking at the situation from the wrong point of view. Users will find a quartet or a set of them designated "Tost", and if that name is deleted from here they'll be confused and disappointed. It doesn't matter if the name doesn't disambiguate between them - the user can then go back to opus number, or Hob. number, and/or the key. But they will start with that nickname. In my own experience the nickname is very commonly used on CDs, etc. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Haydn Quartet CD will ever be missing the opus number. The nicknames for these are just added for color.DavidRF (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, of course. That misses my point. Not for "color", but for users who are not experts or scholars, but just plain people who find a nickname on a piece of music, and it piques their interest sufficiently to come look it up on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is written by experts (at least eventually), but for just plain ordinary people who are looking for information. So why be stingy with information that they came looking for? People who happen to hear and be taken by a Haydn composition couldn't care less about an opus number except to the extent that it helps them identify what they're looking for. Nearly all of these nicknames appear on discs, or may be announced on the radio or whatever, and that's why we should do our best to both provide and explain them. Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication, for scholars - it's for the general public. I certainly agree that some nicknames on compositions are very rarely used, and it's questionable whether it's more confusing or less so to include them - Beethoven's "Gassenhauer" Op. 11 is the closest example I can think of right now. I'm not personally familiar with the name "Sun" for Haydn's Op. 20; but once you get up to Op. 54, all of those names are very widely used. This is also why I think we ought to provide some explanation for the name "Tost", as I mentioned earlier, below, because this is exactly the sort of thing people are curious about. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that no one is ever going to see "Tost Quartets" on a CD or in a book without the opus number. Just the fact that multiple opuses (54+55 and sometimes 64) apply means that the phrase is not useful as an isolated label.  Its not like the Gassenhauer Trio... that *has* to be Op. 11.  Archduke Trio *has* to be Op. 97 (even though he may have written other works for that Archduke).  Now, of the Tost Quartets (or maybe-Tost Quartets), we certainly need to have "Razor" and "Lark" marked because those *can* be used in isolation (and they are so marked here).DavidRF (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right; and certainly the last thing I want is to get into an argument with you, so I'm going to leave the issue be. We're just looking at it from different viewpoints. Looking back at your original post here, you first said The question is which of these are "standard" and which are not as common. "Tost", alone, is unquestionably standard, though the I/II/III numbering is (I think) unquestionably not. But then you pose an entirely different question, (what good is a label if it doesn't disambiguate?), and I just can't see that criterion as being relevant. It seems to me that if someone finds a reference to "the Tost quartets", whether or not the opus numbers are also provided (and whether or not Johann was ever "officially" a dedicatee), leaving that nickname here on the page can't do any harm, and I don't think it's in any way misleading. I did at least find the answer to Ravpapa's question. Maybe the name could be footnoted with something to the effect that These quartets are nicknamed after Johann Tost, a former violinist in the orchestra that Haydn wrote for. Scholars are uncertain whether any of the quartets were actually dedicated to Tost. (I'm just making up that wording, because I don't have the sources.) Would that help? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm getting distracted by tangent discussions from three years ago. I added a note saying who Tost was.  We can go into more detail if these ever get an article.  This page is just supposed to be a list.DavidRF (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (Oops, I didn't see your response above before posting this): Clearly I'm looking at the situation from exactly the opposite POV from you. As you say, "Gassenhauer" has to be Op. 11. But the question I would ask is, does that work in both directions? Op. 97 is the "Archduke" trio, and is universally recognized by that name. Musicians will recognize a reference to "Op. 97" as being the Archduke, but to nonmusicians an opus number by itself is meaningless, while they might instantly recognize the nickname. Op. 11, on the other hand, is rarely but very occasionally called "Gassenhauer". People remember widely used nicknames, and wonder about them; only musicians think in terms of opus numbers. Nicknames are a hook that bring people to Wikipedia to start with, and they want to find out about them. Does this distinction make sense to you? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to footnote the name Tost to Johann - does anyone have access to a copy of Keller? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"FHE" numbers?
What are the FHE numbers assigned to each of the quartets, and where did they come from? No source is mentioned or given. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Top of the article says "First Haydn Edition". It must be old because the numbering is way off and still includes Op. 3.  I don't know anyone that uses them.DavidRF (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) "When in doubt, read the instructions." Milkunderwood (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Haydn and Mozart
We know that Haydn's Op. 20 influenced Mozart's Viennese Quartets (KV 168–173, followed by the quintet KV 174), and that Haydn's Op. 33 influenced Mozart's Haydn Quartets Op. 10 (KV 387, 421, 428, 458, 464, 465). Therefore it is amusing to note that the next quartets by Haydn are the singleton Op. 42 and the set for the King of Prussia Op. 50 (with Mozartian influence), and that the next quartets by Mozart are the single Hoffmeister Quartet (KV 499, followed by the quintets KV 515 and 516) and a set for the King of Prussia (KV 575, 589, 590). (And even though those were to be Mozart's last quartets, it has been speculated that the "Hungarian amateur" Mozart wrote the quintets KV 593 and 614 for was Tost, the dedicatee of Haydn's Op. 54, 55, and 64!) Alas, I would be surprised if any reliable source remarked on this coincidence, unless it could be demonstrated that it was more than such. Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Op. 103
"Assuming a first movement and finale that measured up to the dynamism of the two inner portions, it would appear that Haydn had something particularly formidable in mind, perhaps a bold demonstration of undiminished strength – to himself and to the world at large – even as he faced imminent collapse from inside.

As a consequence of the afflictions that darkened the last years of Haydn's career, Lobkowitz had to make do with an unfinished commission, Haydn's publishers were denied the satisfaction of even a half set of completed works to issue, and Griesinger was left with unfulfilled promises. Might it also be said that the oeuvre was deprived of a crowning masterpiece?" – The String Quartets of Joseph Haydn (Grave and Grave, 2006): p.335

"But this is not the only allusion to Haydn's previous works: the Seasons contains references to Haydn's music from years back. When he finished it, he was written out. The last years of Haydn's life, with all his success, comfort, and celebrity, are among the saddest in music. More moving than the false pathos of a pauper's grave for Mozart (who was only buried there because Baron Van Swieten advised the economy to Constanza) is the figure of Haydn filled with musical ideas which were struggling to escape, as he himself said; he was too old and weak to go to the piano and submit to the discipline of working them out." – The Classical Style (Rosen, 1971): p.373

Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and what could have been: in 1801 Greisinger wrote "Haydn macht jezt sechs Quartette für den Fürsten Lobkowiz und hernach will er dem Graf Fries sechs Quintette componiren; er hat sie schon vor mehreren Jahren versprochen." The thought of Haydn string quintets! Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Truly there is cause to grieve for wonders lost: I finally made it to op.77 and op.103 in my listening to the complete Haydn string quartets, and they are truly the most beautiful of all IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

List by keys
It seems like an interesting thing to have, something like: Double sharp (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The incipits
Why not post all of the first themes or first portions of first themes as many are already shown?Amoss1985 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

After you add all the incipits for Haydn quartets, please create a similar page for the string trios. Then, I will make a donation to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoss1985 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the fake quartets?
There are 68 quartets by Haydn. There used to be 83. What are the 15 quartets that got debunked? I think it would be an interesting addition to the article. And a matter of personal importance as well: have I been tricked into playing (and perhaps enjoying) string quartets by some phoney???!!!

Anyone have a list of the non-Haydn quartets? Thanks. Ravpapa (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If you're still waiting for an answer on this, check out the Hoboken listing. It has 83 items in section III for string quartets.  But 3 quartets in opp. 1 and 2 were dropped: one is actually Symphony A while the other two are arrangements of cassations.  Then there are the 6 quartets in op. 3, so that makes 9.  The other six come from the Seven Last Words, where Hoboken has separate numbers for each movement.  Those are now combined into a single quartet.  So that's how they got from 83 to 68. Davidrfox (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)