This was such a beautiful interpretation, particularly in the first movement where (unlike so many other performers) he kept the pulse and didn't let the fast passages get out of control and yet so effectively conveyed the excitement of them.
A truly sensational performance of what is the first ever incontestably great modern piano sonata, written astonishingly as early as 1768. Perfect tempo in each movement, beautifully shaped phrasing, a tonally fascinating work reaching the completely outre keys of d flat minor and B double-flat major in the D flat major slow movement (a key Mozart never used), and a fascinating development of the thematic ideas throughout, including in the rather JS Bach sounding slow movement. An inspired work from beginning to last, expressive, chromatic, profound, harmonically and tonally adventurous, and with three particularly well-balanced and contrasting movements. As I said - fantastic sonata, fantastic performance.
Dont you thing that the D major sonata XVI:19 is the "first ever incontestably great moder piano sonata"? Have you listen to Carmen Piazzini's version? I would say that in some respects the D major sonata is more advanced than this one: development section of the first movement and concertant style of the second one.
@@pepehaydn7039 This is the sort of thing that is a good debating point - though actually, there is no ‘correct’ answer; and yes, I do think it’s a great early sonata. Hob. XVI:19 does indeed probably just pre-date Hob. XVI:46, and if I had not suggested the A flat work as the first truly great modern sonata, then your suggestion of the D major is a really good shout. If pushed to explain my personal choice, I think the Adagio movement in the A flat sonata is greater by some distance to the Andante in the D major. Other early sonatas that I have considered as ‘first great…’ are as follows: B flat major Hob. XVI:2 G major Hob. XVI:6 E major Hob. XVI:13 (These are the best of the very early partita/divertimento type works mostly intended for pupils and the like, but well short of Hob. XVI:46 and 20). The c minor sonata Hob. XVI:20 (1771) I presume we would agree is the first great minor key sonata; there are some magnificent performances of this work on RU-vid by a range of the world’s greatest pianists both past and present. I will check-out the recording you suggest; at the moment my favourite performance of Hob. XVI:19 is Pogorelich who is sensational.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I think that Carmen Piazzini complete sonatas by Haydn in modern piano is a very good collection and should be the standard of these works played in modern piano. HOwever, it is really very difficult to find them.
The cadenza is so beautiful. It’s interesting. Before hearing the cadenza, I was thinking how much this sonata sounds like a piano concerto. The way Haydn structures the harmony, you can almost hear the orchestra accompaniment.
I just want to say that Haydn was the most heartwarming composer without the high intellectual refinement of Mozart and dramatic overpowering of Beethoven. Haydn is the sun that shines for all of us for now btw, obviously beethoven borrowed some motives of this sonata for the finale of his pathetique
I get your point in relation to some of Haydn’s other works, but I have to say that almost every note of this magnificent sonata contradicts almost every word of your first paragraph.
It was custom at that time that each fermata which the composer put out was an invitation to the performer to fill in with a short cadenza by his own. This was a right and a duty of the performer. We know that since Haydns contemporary Clementi wrote learly "senza ornamenti" when he wished that a fermata should NOT be decorated in this way by the performer. Thus we know that using a fermata by improvising a short cadenza was the rule and not doing it was the exception.
Sparkling Radiant Beautiful Haydn as Always!!! Very Well played again also!!! May God Bless y'all Richly and Jesus Peace!!! Merry Christmas y'all and Happy New Year!!! ❤😮😂🎉
@@Whatismusic123 We do not know if Haydn was or was not a great teacher, though Beethoven clearly thought not; there are no criticisms at all from any other of Haydn’s pupils. The reasons and circumstances are never properly explained, and Beethoven’s ‘I learned nothing from Haydn’ comment is used as a stick to beat Haydn without ever being put into context. Beethoven was annoyed with Haydn because he didn’t give him all the attention he thought he deserved; the context is that during 1793, Haydn had retreated to the Eszterhazy palace at Eisenstadt and was working frantically on new symphonies and the set of string quartets Opus 71/74 for the forthcoming second trip to England - ie his top priority. Haydn had little time to be dealing with hundreds of counterpoint exercises from Fux’s Gradus ad Parnassum that he himself had mastered forty years earlier. It’s worth remembering as well that there must have been a very good reason why it was Haydn who was chosen to be Beethoven’s teacher in Vienna above any other, in particular Albrechtsberger who *was* the best teacher and pedagogue in the city; perhaps it was because he was a better teacher than your comment suggests. When Haydn set off for England again, he recommended his good friend Albrechtsberger as Beethoven’s next teacher, advice Beethoven took; it should be said though, that whilst Beethoven’s criticisms of the counterpoint lessons with Haydn are well-known, Albrechtsberger’s of Beethoven are almost never quoted, but he found him wilful, difficult, and very hard work (as in fact did most people who came into contact with Beethoven). Maybe the problem was Beethoven, not the teachers.
@@Whatismusic123 Leopold Mozart is a separate debate; his initial work with his son was astonishing, indeed as a musical parent, probably unprecedented and unequalled. However, even as an 8 year old boy in London, the flowering of Mozart under the tutelage of Johann Christian Bach during the 16 months in that city as part of the Grand Tour was phenomenal, and moved Wolfgang into areas beyond the capabilities of his father.
Der 1.Satz wäre gut, wenn das ewige Staccato in der linken Hand nicht so nerven würde. Im 2.Satz gehen die langen Töne der liken Hand klanglich verloren und die zu lange Kadenz stört nur. Beim 3.Satz fragt man sich warum fast durchweg so ein brutaler Klang, dadurch verliert er das, was ihn ausmacht, nämlich die Freude an der Virtuosität. Im 2.Satz kann man die Triller auch mit Nachschlag spielen, es steht zwar nicht so da, aber hat auch seinen besonderen Reiz.
