Thanks for uploading this great pianist Wilhelm Backhaus' performance. I wish there are more of his recordings preserved in such clean and clear sound that we can enjoy the musical details and nuances, and learn from this great master the true art of piano playing. Whole-heartedly thank you!!!
Depends I suspect where you live in the world; in a piano concert series I’ve been attending this year, Haydn sonatas lead Mozart sonatas 3-2. As a general rule - and judging from comments across RU-vid - I think Haydn appears to be played less in the US than he is across Europe.
This piece is a wonder, you’re quite right, it’s arguably the greatest set of variations of the Classical period (c.1750-1800); got to disagree with much of the rest though, particularly ‘witty’ - what’s this obsession with listeners finding wit in Haydn where it clearly does not exist at all in a masterpiece such as this. The spirit of the work almost certainly derives from Haydn’s feelings following the sudden death of his close friend Maria Anna Von Genzinger; ‘witty’ it ain’t.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Perhaps by wit they mean clever inventiveness....and this work certainly has that in spades.....and anecdote....Mozart and Vanhal were listening to a work of Haydns together, and Vanhal was disparaging of this passage, that progression, etc....and said 'I never would have done it that way"...to which Mozart replied..."Neither would I, but then you and I are not nearly as clever as Haydn".....
@@daviddavenport9350 In the majority of cases, what passes for ‘wit’ and/or ‘humour’ in Haydn is nothing of the sort but is in fact playful ingenuity or ingenious playfulness if you like (it occurs in Beethoven too). The other ingredient is the impact on Haydn of being an almost full-time operatic composer, director, performer, repetiteur, conductor and everything else almost throughout his 29 years at Eszterhaza, and to saturation point at the expense of everything else from the late 1770’s until the death of Prince Nicholas in 1790.* The majority of the operas he performed at Eszterhaza - both his own and many other popular composers - were opera buffa or dramma giocosa types, this I think had an impact on Haydn’s writing in other forms such as symphonies, string quartets, keyboard sonatas, and even in his masses, the latter in particular where it was not always appreciated. The impact of opera on Mozart is also evident in his instrumental works, though in a slightly different way (the finale of the ‘Haffner’ symphony (K385) is pure opera buffa). It’s not a very well researched area, but wit and humour in the instrumental music of Mozart and Haydn derived from their experience as operatic composers and performers is I think an area worthy of further investigation as I think it more important than hitherto credited to be. * Haydn’s astonishing output in other forms was on top of his being a full-time operatic kapellmeister.
@paolo t.s. Mozart and Haydn pair well together don't they? Mozart composed a fantasia in f minor for organ K608. adagio and Allegro in f minor K594 and well as a prelude and fugue in f minor K404. Haydn wrote a string quartet in f minor op 20 no 5. It's interesting to compare these pieces to each other and they offer some hints how to handle similar works by Beethoven and Schubert.
Jason Brown Haydn was particularly fond of f minor, and there are a number of works in that key besides the quartet you mentioned: - Symphony 49 - String Quartet Opus 55 No 2 - Two songs - Fidelity, and The Spirit’s Song - Orfeo’s great second act aria in the opera L’anima del filosofo - Parts of his cantata Arianna a Naxos - Parts of the scena Berenice, che fai? f minor was a key Haydn used rather more often than Mozart, and it inspired some of his most profound thoughts; it was a very personal key to Haydn - in the manner of g minor for Mozart, and c minor for Beethoven - and all the works listed above are masterpieces in their own way.
according the history, this pieces may have been written in response of the premature death of Maria Anna Von Genzinger, who had a close relationship with Haydn, that after loosing the job of "kapellmeister" or music director in the Eszterháza palace, wasn't able to see with frequency, making a feeling of longing in Haydn, it was a blow to him when she die, making it, a possible inspiration for this works.
Haydn was continually employed by the Eszterhazy family from 1761 until his death in 1809; he served four consecutive Princes and was paid either a salary, or a pension, and from 1790 - both. Haydn did not lose his job as you suggest, what happened was that Haydn’s third Prince (Anton) - appalled at the cost of Prince.Nicholas’ musical establishment - disbanded the orchestra and abandoned Eszterhaza; Haydn was retained, but with only nominal duties - in effect he was a freelance composer with financial security from the Eszterhazy’s. This allowed him to make the two long trips to England where he made himself financially double secure where basically, he made a fortune. Haydn would have been able to see Maria Anna con Genzinger in Vienna from his return to Vienna in September 1790 until his departure to England in December of that same year, and from August 1792 - his return from England - until her death in January 1793. The whole idea of idea of Haydn being ‘inspired’ by the death of someone - Mozart as well with his a minor piano sonata K310 often said to reflect the death of his mother - is highly speculative; I have similar doubts about the slow movement of his Symphony 98 being a tribute to his recently departed friend Mozart, as is often suggested. But I maybe wrong… These musical memorials are I think more a 19th century thing, as with Mendelssohn’s string quartet in f minor Opus 80 which was clearly about the loss of his sister Fanny (Mendelssohn wrote ‘Requiem for Fanny’ on the score).
@@kiantamar Beethoven did not take this or anything else ‘…as inspiration’* from Haydn nor from anyone else, though he did note an awful lot of things done by Mozart and Haydn. Beethoven did not denounce any influence by Haydn on his education which is an absurd, generalised, and simplistic summary of a misinterpretation of one single comment that referred specifically to one thing alone. Beethoven’s well-known comment that he had ‘…learned nothing from Haydn’, referred *specifically and only to the counterpoint lessons* taken during the 14 months between Haydn’s two visits to England (November 1792 - Beethoven’s arrival in Vienna, until January 1794 - Haydn’s departure for his second trip to England). Additionally of course, it’s not absolutely clear about what Beethoven was speaking - was it the teacher, or what he was being taught ? Taken out of context, Beethoven’s comment is completely misleading - there is probably more of Haydn in Beethoven’s compositional DNA than there is of any other composer. * ‘Inspiration’ is possibly the most absurdly miss-used word by English-speaking commentators when referencing the origins of a piece of music; those same people then go on to over-use the word to ludicrous proportions.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 what's up with all of these Beethoven apologists? Even Beethoven himself loathed much of his own works so why must we all act like everything he created was pure genius? Supremely overrated artist on the tier of Saint Saens and Vivaldi.
For those trying to label Beethoven in this thread, as he is neither Classical in the sense of Mozart and Haydn, nor Romantic in the manner of Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Liszt, et al, I think it is helpful to use the term *post-Classical.*
Mozart died in 1791, this work was written in 1793 in Vienna in the time between the two trips to England. The great Haydn scholar HC Robbins Landon has suggested that there may be a link with the sudden death of Haydn’s friend Maria Anna Von Genzinger in January 1793. I’ll offer a more sensational alternative theory. This work underwent a number of revisions, and was extended. In 1793, Beethoven was staying as a performing house guest at the Eszterhazy palace at Eisenstadt where Haydn was working on music for the forthcoming second visit to England, as well as teaching Beethoven counterpoint. Did Beethoven perform the Variations at Eisenstadt ? Did Haydn hear Beethoven add an extempore coda - something like what is now the final section ? Did Haydn go away and write down something similar as his own final amendment ? I suggest this as the final section of this magnificent work is probably the most Beethovenian music Beethoven never wrote. Mozart - I’m not sure; by 1793, Haydn’s mind was full of England, and dealing with ‘the Great Mogul’. Anyway, three theories - take your pick.
@@Whatismusic123 My longer comment was a response to someone raising a point about something Andras Schiff suggested, so needs to be taken in context. The work was written specifically for one of Mozart’s most talented piano pupils Barbara Ployer: Haydn wrote on the top of the manuscript ‘Un piccolo divertimento, Scritto e composto per la Stimatissima Signora de Ployer da me giuseppe Haydn 793’. The work is of course not ‘…a minor variations piece’, but is written in the Haydn speciality of an alternating minor/major double variation form (cf the Andante più tosto allegretto movement of Symphony 103); you will find that almost every note of both Mozart and Haydn was written for a specific purpose (rather than ‘…just wanted to compose a minor variations piece’), and in this case, it was for Barbara Ployer. As indicated earlier, Haydn worked hard on this piece, it underwent serious revision, and is very carefully considered; it’s not therefore quite accurate to characterise it as ‘…this is what he came up with’ as it is arguably the greatest set of keyboard variations of the Viennese Classical period.* Hope that’s helpful. * By which I mean c.1750-1800 and exclude Beethoven whom I regard as post-Classical.
same question - where are the dynamics? haydn has the the ability to sound well with lots of interpretation. But it can be so much better with dynamics. the excuse that this is classical is no excuse. No excuse because i hear more dynamics in all of bach's work interpreted nowadays. Every single acclaimed interpretation of Goldberg variations with no dynamic markings has 100x dynamics here. The markings of ff and pp ignored here are unjustifiable.
Sorry I don't understand you precisely. Could you give us 1-2 urls (possibly with time position) fot the showing of dynamic differences. By the way were you the dislike man? ;)
1:02 - 1:19 3:06 - 3:12 4:39 - 4:44 4:49 - 5:00 7:00 - 7:18 (why are there frequent crescendo and decrescendo markings? Compare this short passage to the entire 5:05 - 6:00 where there are no dynamic indications) 8:04 8:30 - 8:36 (I understand why he disobeyed the first piano marking here, just here, but still, not necessary) 8:51 - 8:56 The above are just about entirely false ones. There are ones that he doesn't do enough, forte not forte enough, piano not piano enought etc Moreover, compare his piano somewhere to forte somewhere else, and hey! Piano is more forte than forte. And I'm sorry but I am indeed the person that gave the dislike. I like Haydn and I really don't like this interpretation. This "dumbed-down" version seems to fit into the anecdote that Haydn is lesser but I don't ever think he is. Nor is he not a genius compared to Mozart. Mozart cannot compare to Haydn's depth and wisdom most of the times.
I've come back to this video after 11 months, and I must say i am starting to realise why the pianist did this - he's imposing a Mozartian aesthetic on haydn! The unexpected runs that are marked Forte for example, they are played so delicately and light. It is, I can understand, still considerably pleasing. Unfortunately, that is not the intended effect of haydn.
![[Wilhelm Backhaus] Haydn: Piano Variations in f, Hob.XVII/6](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
