[Kreisler jr]

I have not heard the ongoing Haydn 2032 series but there are few period instrument recordings of these "intermediate" symphonies (ca. 50-80, roughly after the ones included in Sturm & Drang sets and before #82). As written, Hogwood got through 75 (and there was single BBC? disc with 76+77) and I have 3 or 4 of these fat 3 disc volumes but he sometimes tends to dutiful dryness. Goodman is more lively but his suffers from too prominent harpsichord and (in some pieces) lack of trumpets/timpani. And he did only 70-78.

I have heard 5 of the 7 or 8 Orpheus discs, kept 4 and find them often a bit too squeaky clean and interpretatively "neutral". The best disc IMO is the one with 22/63/80 that is really excellent. Next 53/73/79 although I clearly prefer the more "earthy" Harnoncourt in 53+73. I keep 44+77 and 45+81 from a mix of 1980 nostalgia and 77, 81 but I find the two "Sturm & Drang" pieces on the dry side (that's also why I didn't keep 48+49).

 

[sqorda]

I have not heard the ongoing Haydn 2032 series

 

[philpam1]

I bought the Adam Fischer set some years ago because it was cheap. The performances are very good in general but for the Paris and later I prefer Kuikjen, Davis or Bernstein. I would have preferred period instruments for the early to middle symphonies. Back in the LP days L'Estro Armonico under Derek Solomons made recordings of many of the middle period symphonies. Two 2-CD sets of 12 symphonies were released on CD but not the rest. They're excellent and I consider myself fortunate to have obtained them because I don't think they're still available. They used a very small orchestra that was supposed to match what they had at Esterhazy and it works very well.

 

[Kreisler jr]

I think the Fischer/Brilliant (originally Nimbus) is quite uneven, both in recorded sound and interpretation. Usually the ones recorded later on are much better. But these "intermediate symphonies" are among his best. (Good are also #26 and #39 whereas e.g. #22 and #45 are not impressive.)

I like the ones by Solomons I have, esp. 45, 48, 49, 59 (I got one of the 3 disc sets and two later single discs with one overlap, together 11 symphonies) but it is a very small orchestra. Far more energetic than Hogwood; it's a pity they were not all issued on CD.

 

[philpam1]

I think the Fischer/Brilliant (originally Nimbus) is quite uneven, both in recorded sound and interpretation. Usually the ones recorded later on are much better. But these "intermediate symphonies" are among his best. (Good are also #26 and #39 whereas e.g. #22 and #45 are not impressive.)

I like the ones by Solomons I have, esp. 45, 48, 49, 59 (I got one of the 3 disc sets and two later single discs with one overlap, together 11 symphonies) but it is a very small orchestra. Far more energetic than Hogwood; it's a pity they were not all issued on CD.

You're probably right about Fischer. The late symphonies are okay but not the best so that's probably true of some of the others. For most of the symphonies Fischer is all I have but they seem mostly good enough. There's a 6-CD set of middle period symphonies by Pinnock which is still available. I generally find Pinnock reliable and would have bought it years ago if I didn't have Solomons which it largely duplicates. But I have other musical fish to fry.

 

[RobertJTh]

Team Fisher here too, and mostly happy with it. Solomons does wonders with the Sturm und Drang symphonies, but for the later ones I prefer a traditional big band. Even Bernstein's bigger-than-life DG remakes, why not.
A teacher once said to me that one of the reasons why Haydn was such a great composer is that his music is basically foolproof. You don't need a top orchestra to get good results and the music doesn't require any musicological fine tuning to be accessible and understandable.
My first Haydn symphony collection was a mix of all kinds of budget recordings, often with 4th rate orchestras and ditto conductors. But the music shines through nevertheless.

Mozart is a completely different matter, it's quite easy to butcher a Mozart symphony. I remember an abysmally bad ultra-budget (complete?) box set by an Italian chamber orchestra. They should have played Haydn instead (or nothing at all, preferably).

 

[sqorda]

Team Fisher here too, and mostly happy with it. Solomons does wonders with the Sturm und Drang symphonies, but for the later ones I prefer a traditional big band. Even Bernstein's bigger-than-life DG remakes, why not.
A teacher once said to me that one of the reasons why Haydn was such a great composer is that his music is basically foolproof. You don't need a top orchestra to get good results and the music doesn't require any musicological fine tuning to be accessible and understandable.
My first Haydn symphony collection was a mix of all kinds of budget recordings, often with 4th rate orchestras and ditto conductors. But the music shines through nevertheless.

Mozart is a completely different matter, it's quite easy to butcher a Mozart symphony. I remember an abysmally bad ultra-budget (complete?) box set by an Italian chamber orchestra. They should have played Haydn instead (or nothing at all, preferably).

I agree that Haydn doesn't get butchered a lot (it does happen on occasion, though). But I also believe that there are few conductors that do him really well. I actually think he's a tough nut for many conductors.

 

[Kreisler jr]

I don't agree that Haydn is "foolproof". On the contrary, I think lukewarm interpretations were/are one cause of his reputation as trite, old-fashioned, second rate compared with Mozart or Beethoven etc.
But many common and affordable recordings, like the half dozen or so Naxos symphony discs I have heard were mostly quite solid or better and good enough to appreciate the composer.

Solomons is very lean and mean and while I love his #48 I find e.g. #42 too lean and small scale. The Pinnock box of "Sturm and Drang" is really excellent, more mainstream and less extreme than e.g. Solomons.
I also like bigger orchestras for the later symphonies often better. Sure, there are some period instrument performances with large ensembles (or at least not lean sounding) although except for Harnoncourt, I am not sure which ones (at least before the Paris symphonies and some, e.g. Bruno Weil's Paris set are very lean and smallish sounding, IIRC).

 

[hammeredklavier]

These strike me as peculiar for their use of shock; listen to the timestamped sections-

No.60/i

No.65/ii

No.83/ii

Are there any others of this kind (outside the famous Londons)?