Talk:List of piano trios by Joseph Haydn

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

Princess names

"Princess Anton Esterhazy" and "Princess Nicholas Esterhazy". Is this the correct way to address them? Its causing some confusion. DavidRF (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should find out what the princesses' own names were and use them. I believe these odd namings ("Princess Male X") were my own doing, and I got them from a source that I neglected to cite at the time (perhaps Charles Rosen's The Classical Style).

Presumably, this sort of name usage is similar to what is still occasionally heard in English; "Mrs. John Smith." Opus33 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it was actually me that introduced those lines and I did get the names from The Classical Style, pages 356 & 358. It is causing some confusion. An anon tried thought it was a typo and tried to fix it. DavidRF (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the genealogy link at the bottom of the House of Esterházy article, it looks like Anton's wife was "Mária Terezia Erdödy de Monyorokerek et Monoszlo" (yet another Maria Theresa), while the younger Nicholas's wife was "Maria Josepha von und zu Liechtenstein". What's the appropriate way to address those?

Princess Maria Theresa, wife of Prince Anton Esterhazy
Princess Maria Josepha, wife of Prince Nicholas Esterhazy

Something like that? I feel like there might be rules I'm suppose to follow, but don't know about. DavidRF (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine to me. Opus33 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

An anon corrected the name of the Anton's wife. I mistakenly said "Maria Theresa" who was the first wife who died in 1782. Maria Anna is evidently the second wife who he married in 1785 and was the wife at the time of the composition of the trio. See [1].

A1. Antal 6.Fürst Esterházy de Galántha, *Wien 11.4.1738, +Wien 22.1.1794; 1m: Wien 10.1.1763 Gfn Mária Terezia Erdödy de Monyorokerek et Monoszlo (*23.11.1745, +1.5.1782); 2m: Wien 9.7.1785 Gfn Maria Anna von Hohenfeld (*Linz 20.4.1768, +Wien 2.4.1848)

Thanks for the correction.DavidRF (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I am parking this stuff here for the moment, since I am terrible with the whole wiki formatting stuff.

Haydn's Piano Trio Textures, W. Dean Sutcliffe, Music Analysis, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Oct., 1987), pp. 319-332, http://www.jstor.org/stable/854208

Roger Chapman, ""Modulation in Haydn's Late Piano Trios in the light of Schoenberg's Theories," Haydn Studio (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981)

Regarding Rosen's chapter

Perhaps one would be confused by his statement "There are twenty-six such trios; the thirty-one usually published under his name include two by other composers...and three for flute, piano, and cello, pleasant works of no great interest." I assume the two spurious ones are Hob XV:3 and XV:4, both by Pleyel, and the three flute-piano-cello trios are Hob XV:15, 16, and 17. I think what has happened is that originally, only the trios Hob XV:1–31 were known, and the catalogue was later expanded to accommodate new discoveries (like Hob XV:32), as well as works that Haydn is known to have composed but have disappeared (like Hob XV:33).

When Rosen says "Two trios are very early (before 1769)", he therefore probably means Hob XV:1 in G minor (No. 5) and Hob XV:2 in F major (No. 17). Now we have more examples of this, but we still see a large gap between Haydn's early trios composed in his mannerist period and Haydn's late trios composed in his most mature style. I confess that I cannot figure out what the "one before 1780" might be, but the "nine between 1784 and 1790" must be Nos. 18–27 on this list. Here we need to insert No. 31 in G major (1792), before getting to the fourteen masterpieces of 1793–1796: the four triads (for the Princesses Nicholas and Anton Esterházy, Jansen, and Schroeter) and the two final stand-alone trios No. 41 and No. 42. So, summing them all up, we have twenty-four mature trios that show Haydn in his latest style, ranking along the late symphonies from the 1780s onward and the quartets from op.33 onward. Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems that there is more of a problem with regard to No. 31 (Hoboken 32) in G major. Artaria published it as a violin sonata: soon afterwards two different sources appear in England, giving two different cello parts. (See the Henle edition's preface.) This is uncharacteristic and suggests that the cello part may not actually be authentic, so that this would actually be Haydn's only violin sonata.

So, to Rosen's total of twenty-six we need to add ten more works: given that I'm still not sure what the "one before 1780" is, the remaining works (none postdating the 1760s) are numbered 34–38, 40–41, C1, and f1 in the Hoboken catalogue. This gives thirty-four piano trios, with "twenty-three...being written after Haydn was fifty years old, fourteen of them after he was sixty." Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started listening to these piano trios, starting with the set for Rebecca Schroeter, and I think I've fallen completely for these works. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]