Sonata in E-flat Hob.XVI, No.52 L.62 ~ Haydn

Hello,

I hope you enjoy the piece, and please list your critiques! I'm actually a bit nervous to post these files; I hope I do Haydn at least some justice!

Best,

Brett

Haydn - Sonata in E-flat Hob.XVI, No.52 L.62, Mov.I ( 06:28 )
Haydn - Sonata in E-flat Hob.XVI, No.52 L.62, Mov.II ( 06:46 )
Haydn - Sonata in E-flat Hob.XVI, No.52 L.62, Mov.III ( 04:44 )

 

I am not an expert on music from these period, but this sounds excellently played to me. I particularly like the vigorous introduction chords. The piano sound seems ideal for this repertoire, with just a touch of the fortepiano. I only listened to the 1st movement but will assume the rest is just as good. Great job !
This one is up on the site.

 

Hey Brett,

I don't know why you would have any trepedation about posting those. They were beautifully performed and I doubt that Franz J. would have any objections.

I agree with Tech. that the piano had a sound remeniscient of a fortepiano that worked well with this.

From your performance, I got the sense of music from an Opera Comique of the period. (I've been reading Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style", which delves into the opera roots of the sonata forms.) This was very much like an opera where you get to hear all of the good stuff without having to sit through all of that tiresome singing.

Your choice of tempi worked well throughout.

Now for a few nit-picks for you to consider:

First Movement.
Personally, I would love to have heard the exposition repeated. I think that it would have increased the dramatic return to the opening in the recap particularly since that idea is nowhere in the development.

Also, the tempo seemed to sag a little in the last 12 measures of the expostion (and the analgous place in the recap) where there is the interplay between the R.H. and L.H. on the 3 16th / quarter pattern. I mention this since it did happen both places.

In measure 23 - 24 (and again in recap), there is that repeated descending scale bit that the second time seemed to draw back slightly. In the Peter's ed., the editor indicates a "p" for the second time for an echo effect (which may be too baroquey and may ruin the drama of the indicated "piano" in measure 24). I think the main thing was that it didn't sound intentional. Either go for the echo, use the same dynamic throughout, or start closer to "mf" the first time and let it grow into the note before the "piano" in m. 24. Be intentional.

The only other thing in the first movement is that I would like to hear the last few measures before the recap to grow into the recap of the opening chord. The edition I have from IMSLP (Peter's ed. 1937) does have a "cresc." on the last measure into the recap. You might try letting the first chord of the recap to be the logical end to that "cresc."

The second music was beautifully conceived and the tempos seemed ideal. My only comment is that from time to time on long notes a fraction of the beat is missing which does not allow us to savor those moments. It gives a little feeling of impatience. Let us savor these moments.

The last movement is again wonderfully playful and a perfect foil to the previous 2 movements. (I still feel that sense of operatic drama). Again, I would like to hear the repeat. There were a couple of times when the tempo sagged a little bit on the repeated note theme when it recurred in different guises (particularly in the beginning of the 2nd part).

All in all, you have given a wonderful and exciting performance.

Scott

 

Many thanks for your critiques and comments, both Chris and Scott!

The detailed list of critiques was great; it gives me a lot to look for. My personal instructor was gone for this past semester of university due to illness (she is now well, and is returning in the new year), but unfortunate as her illness was, the university had me take lessons from a now retired professor, Dr. Lawrence Jones. He's a great music historian, and really used this in trying to shape my interpretation of the piece. Though it was a great experience for me, the detail he went in to on this piece made me very conscious of my playing and possibly a bit insecure about playing it publicly! I do feel this is a good thing, because listening back on the recordings I can hear all the little things on interpretation that I didn't do as well as I would have liked, and can work more in depth on these bits in the future.
The second movement in particular I was nervous of posting, because I'm not consistent with my subdivisions on the 32nd notes, and I think at times it can really break the flow. Actually, my sense of rhythm over-all was one of the things I was most concerned about in all these postings, and one area that I need to really step up.

Thanks again for the comments and criticisms! It's much appreciated.

Brett