The following article was written by Roger Fedelleck, currently instructor of wood wind instruments for the Cedar Rapids, Iowa public schools and a doctoral student (oboe) at the University of Iowa. Mr. Fedelleck has an undergraduate degree from the University of Northern Iowa and his M.A. from the University of Iowa. Previous to his present position he held a similar position with the Oconomowoc, Wisconsin public schools and was an oboist with the U. S. Air Force Band in Central and South America. He has been a member of the I.D.R.S. for several years
The Concerto in C Major for oboe and orchestra, attributed to Joseph Haydn, is one of the most popular selections from the late 18th century concerto repertoire. At least seven recorded performances by as many different artists representing performance on student recitals attests to its recognition as an important choice for study and performance.
The writing is attractive to both the performer and audience because it has virtuosic character as well as tuneful, appealing themes. Besides offering the satisfaction of an attainable challenge, it seems to have lasting appeal and charm so that younger as well as mature musicians find it aesthetically agreeable for both performance and study. Recently a new edition became available through C. F. Peters. It is sufficiently different from the other two published editions to cause renewed interest in the work. The purpose of this article is to point out some of the differences in the editions and to give some background on the period elements that might help to shape one's perspective of the work.
The following published editions of the Concerto in C Major attributed to Joseph Haydn are currently available:
1926 -- version for oboe and piano arranged by Alexander Wunderer and published by Breitkopf and Härtel Musikverlag, Leipzig. Nr. 5349.
1937 -- score and parts for the version above,
oboe solo, 2 oboes, 2 trumpets, 2 horns, 2 violins, viola, bass, timpani1964 -- version for oboe and piano edited by Evelyn Rothwell (piano reduction by Eric Gritton) and published by Oxford University Press. Available with full score and parts.
1977- version for oboe and piano arranged by Rolf Julius Koch (includes the piano reduction and cadenzas) and published by Henry Litolff's Verlag/C. F. Peters. Nr. 8233. Available with orchestra material.
The manuscripts from which these editions were prepared include the following:
- Zittau, East Germany -- Gymnasialbibliothek
- Orchestral parts only--Hoboken indicates that the string parts are missing.
- Vienna, Austria--Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde
- A score made by Haydn scholar Mandyszewski from the available parts in Zittau is to be found here.
- Dresden, East Germany--Saxon National Library
- Apparently another manuscript is located here and it was used in comparison with the Mandyszewski score to prepare the recent Peters Edition.
The original manuscript is anonymous. Haydn's name was added. This addition appears to have been different than Haydn's signature, and it was applied over a faded signature. This, too, was crossed off and replaced with several additions.
The following recordings are to be found:
Edition from Oxford University Press.
Pye CCL 30127
Evelyn Rothwell, oboe
Halle Orchestra
Sir John Barbirolli, conductorEditions undetermined from the available data (probably based on the Breitkopf and Härtel version).
VOX PL 14.300 M. 2616
Friedrich Milde, Oboe
Pro Musica Orchestra, Stuttgart
Rolf Reinhardt, ConductorMercury SR90396
Haakon Stotjin, oboe
Netherlands Chamber Orchestra
Szymon Goldberg conductingCR-ST-7283
Peter Pongracz, oboe
The Hungarian Radio and Television Symphony
Janos Sandor, conductor
(program notes by Denis Stevens)Current Schwann (May 1979) listings:
Vanguard 2036
Lardrot, Prohaska, Vienna St. Op. Ch. Or.
Turnabout 34646 Roseman, Kapp,
Phil. Virtuosi of NYCurrent Musical Heritage Society listings:
MHS 3777F
Zanfini, Rosada, Angelicum Orchestra
Every source that discusses matters directly relevant to this concerto stresses that the manuscript being that of Joseph Haydn is speculative at best. Even though this particular concerto is mentioned in several scholarly works, such as the Hoboken Werkverzeichnis, to my knowledge not one source confirms that Haydn wrote an oboe concerto.
Publishers have enjoyed the salability of the work under Haydn's name. Indeed this may have been how it first came to be attributed to the master composer. "The wise one" (Kluge), which once appeared on the manuscript in Zittau, may well refer to the one who originally gave the work the distinction of Haydn's name.
Musicologists and reviewers have mentioned other composers who might have written this concerto. While it would take a great deal of time and expertise to evaluate the feasibility of any one of these suggestions, the following possibilities are offered for consideration.
Beethoven was a pupil of Joseph Haydn. H. C. Robbins Landon makes the tentative suggestion that this may be the lost work of Beethoven referred to in a letter of November 23, 1793 from Haydn to Maximilian Franz. [1]
Mozart sold a copy of his C Major Concerto (K. 314) to the principal oboist of Prince Esterhazy's orchestra in 1783, as is verified in a letter Mozart wrote to his father on February 15, 1783. In this same letter mention was made of a new concerto commission, but no proof exists that this ever came about. We might assume that the new concerto could have been this work, written for an Esterhazy oboist, probably Czerwenka. [2]
Carlo Besozzi was the oboist with the Dresden court orchestra from 1754 to near the time of his death. He was also a composer who wrote concertos for his instrument and 24 sonatas for 2 oboes, 2 horns, and bassoon, which are preserved in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. [3] Or, this may have been composed by Carlo's uncle Alessandro (1702-1793) for Carlo who was the true virtuoso oboist of the family. [4]
Dresden oboe makers Grenser and Grundmann were experimenting with new designs which would have made this work more easily playable. It is interesting to note that the parts in manuscript are in Zittau, a city not far from Dresden. This area is a considerable distance from the Austrian area where Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn worked. This information puts the key elements within a common geographical area.
In order to attribute a concerto to any one of the above composers, and certainly to Haydn himself, one must clearly regard the piece to be of the highest quality. Happily, many artists have looked beyond this curious anonymity to find a concerto which audiences and performers alike can and do enjoy.
In looking at the music one quickly discovers that the differences between the more recent Oxford University Press edition and the older version from Breitkopf and Härtel are essentially in the editorial markings, the cadenzas, and the piano reductions. Evelyn Rothwell has put into her edition the descriptive words, phrasing marks, articulations, dynamics, and added notes to make the trills accurately performed. Her markings reflect good taste and judgment and they allow little opportunity to misinterpret her intentions.
The Breitkopf and Härtel edition also seems to be well edited, but more latitude is present for individual touches. For example, the proper execution of the trills would have to be considered by each performer.
The newest edition from C. F. Peters is structured differently in its deployment of themes. Some are simply varied while others are not included at all and still others have been added. The editing marks seem to be well conceived and tend to be helpful for shaping sections of music even more than individual notes or phrases. As in the Breitkopf and Härtel edition considerable familiarity with historical performance practice is presumed rather than delineated.
The piano reductions are considerably different from edition to edition. The recent Peters Edition is by far the most basic and simplistic in design. At times it seems to have sacrificed some of the grandeur and motion necessary to give drive and momentum. The Oxford edition is considerably more involved pianistically. While it is far from unplayable, it is not as easily handled as either of the other editions. I consider the older Wunderer reduction to be very satisfactory and playable, perhaps falling between the others in difficulty and possibly the most effective of all three.
In each edition the cadenzas for the first movement seem historically reasonable and playable. It is unlikely that an artist who extemporizes his cadenzas would play the same one twice, and yet both the Wunderer and Rothwell arrangements repeat the cadenza from the first fermata at the second fermata. Only the Koch arrangement offers variety at this point. The final and major cadenza utilizes thematic material from the movement and remains within a logical range and length to compliment the scope of the movement.
The second movement cadenza needs little comment, but the third movement cadenzas are quite a different matter. The Wunderer cadenzas use the low b frequently, which is not a note known to have been available on the oboe of this time. The Rothwell version avoids using the low b, but does include our highest g (g'''). Curiously, this high g is more likely to have been playable than the low b, and it is included in a fingering chart from Wragg's The Oboe Precepter (London, 1792). The Peters Edition also includes an added variation in the last movement which descends to a low b. Koch chooses not to use the cadenza points in the final movement for technical showcases, but rather treats the fermatas as slight melodic extensions. Rothwell gives the soloist six cadenzas, each of which becomes successively more virtuosic with the final one ending on a skip to high g. These distinctions in the cadenzas illustrate the most dramatic differences in the way each arranger has conceived of the concerto as a whole and the role of the soloist as he interprets the work.
The form of the Concerto in C Major is typical of that expected in late 18th century Classical concertos. The following analysis of the first movement points out the use of thematic material, key schemes, and intersections of soloist and tutti in comparing the Peters Edition with the Breitkopf and Härtel edition. This has been done in such a way that readers owning the Breitkopf and Härtel edition (the Oxford University Press edition being nearly the same) can make a comparison with the Peters Edition which may not be as widely owned at this time.
The final cadenzas are unique to each arranger and are not dependent on anything believed to exist at that place in the manuscript. The custom of extemporizing a cadenza directed the performer to draw upon existing thematic material.
The following points draw attention to specific measures in the BandH score that are different in the PE score. (1st Mvt.)
B&H 10-28 omitted in PE.
43-49 omitted in PE.
51-53 omitted in PE.
57 is 2 measures in PE.
59 top voice leads from d" to c."
74 not written out in PE 48.
PE 57 trill on f' and turn ending.
72 four eighth notes instead of four sixteenth notes.
PE 73 theme drawn from measures 11-19; this is B&H 28-36.
B&H 36 is the substance of PE 81-81; PE 84 is B&H 116.
B&H 179-180/PE 140-141 PE varies the melody.
PE 150 trill on f' (B&H 188).
B&H 226 omitted in PE.
PE 189-192 solo line is considerably embellished (B&H 229-232).
PE 200 varied from the original statement.
PE 209 adds a trill on low eb and turns the ending (B&H 250).
PE 211 V chord omits the 7th (B&H 252).
B&H 253-254 omitted in PE.
B&H 298-269 omitted in PE.
PE 225 and 227 use four sixteenth notes
instead of the quarter note in B&H 300 and 302.
PE penultimate measure has the bass line filled on each beat.
Having put forth a detailed study of the first movement, I will summarize the most important differences from the second and third movements. In the second movement a three-measure section appearing as measures 16-18 in the Breitkopf edition has been shortened into a two measure section in the Peters Edition by eliminating one repetition. This passage recurs at the end of the second movement in a similar manner. In the third movement there are two differences yet to be mentioned. First, the new variation in the Peters Edition (measures 81-88) is essentially a thorough reworking of those same measures (81-88) in the Breitkopf edition. The variation is flowing in nature and ascends to high e"' and returns to low c'. Second, the ending is changed in the Peters Edition to a short, four measure closure that has quite a different impact from the full tutti found in both other editions.
The overall effect one has from experiencing a performance is truly a subjective interpretation. Personally, I would describe the performances following the Breitkopf (or Oxford) edition as capturing the charm and elegance I associate with a Classical concerto while still portraying both the serious and the lighter attributes. In contrast, the Peters Edition seems to have a fresh approach that tends to remind one occasionally of C. M. von Weber. There is variety in the lines, but more a theme and variations idea than an artistic spinning out of the phrase.
To say the least one could revise his concept of this piece and perhaps of Haydn himself by becoming acquainted with the Peters Edition. Ultimately we will satisfy our curiosities of what is extant by a first hand study of the manuscripts from which these editions have been prepared.
[1] H. C. Robbins Landon, The Collected Correspondence and London Notebooks of Joseph Haydn (Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Essential Books, 1959),141-143. [return]
[2] Emily Anderson, The Letters of Mozart and His Family, 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1938) 2nd ed., 2 vols., ed. A. Hyatt King and Monica Carolan (London: Macmillan, 1966), II, 840. [return]
[3] Sonatas Nr. 11, 13, and 20 are available in a modern edition arranged by Daniel Nimetz and published by F. E. C. Leuckart, 1973. [return]
[4] Denis Stevens, record jacket notes for Haydn's Oboe Concerto in C Major, performed by Peter Pongracz, oboe and The Hungarian Radio and Television Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Janos Sandor (CR-ST- 7283,1967). [return]