Ah, an old friend of mine: te only Haydn sonata I have learnt and so I know it more than somewhat. I enjoyed your playing and, if at fisrt being overwhelmed byyour speed, I soon adjusted and realised it semms quite adequate.
Thanks, Richard. Good that you learned this one too. I was thinking it was odd that it wasn't on the site before I recorded it, but I guess while it is a very great sonata (IMO), it is somewhat unsung.
I like the way you observe all repeats, which so often on commercial recordings are ommitted.
Actually, I do omit one -- for the second half of the first movement as I often do for a classical sonata movement in regular exposition-development-recap form.
avoid being branded as one who makes mistakes while playing, I still believe pianists ought to sumit also the publishers of their particular edition.
Possibly, although to be honest I don't much believe in the sacrosanctity of the score. After all, the composers themselves who played their own works all the time, like Mozart and Chopin, would often play many different versions of the same pieces in performance with different touches, dynamics, and even notes in some instances. I don't think that a mere performer has leeway to change such "fixed" elements as notes and rhythms, but I think dynamics and touches surely fall under the umbrella of "interpretive elements." That is, once one has studied the score, one has some leeway in adjusting such elements to suit one's own conception (as long as one can justify it) because I think the composer himself only put them in as a guideline to his own conception of his own work. Dangerous territory perhaps nowadays, but I believe it is the only honest approach. Otherwise one would only be doing something one didn't believe in, and such an attempt risks failing to be convincing to listeners. Sorry if this is a bit of a diatribe but I think you raised an important and interesting issue here.
I also do admit that when I examined the score more closely (I was at work when I saw rainer's comments before), I saw that rainer was in fact right about many of the details he raised (i.e., they were my oversights rather than conscious decisions, although I actually don't like the slurs on those thirds to end the development in the first movement and would probably still play them staccato
). Always good to have a second set of eyes reviewing the nitty-gritty, and sometimes things tend to go a bit sour in the memory after a while.
Last I take exception at Riley's comments that seem to equate amateur with amateurish. There are plenty of concert pianists who make a mess of anything they touch, while there are superb "amateurs" around from whom we would do well to learn.
Absolutely, and I definitely agree with this in principle. "Professional" becomes a loaded term when one attempts to apply it to anything other than what it, of course, literally means: one who does something for money. Yet such is the danger with the nature of words like adjectives: they take on a qualitative sense that is a bit hazy compared with the nouns from which they are often derived (it's why, IMO, they should be the words that good writers question more than any others). No one, I believe, could convincingly argue that there is just simply a rift between amateur and professional playing that in all cases makes "professional" playing better than "amateur" playing. In fact, you're right, it is often the reverse.However,
that said, I also believe there is a dangerous trap that some amateurs fall into (I'm certainly not saying you do) to think that because they or others seem to find their playing interesting or artistic, there are no basic standards for tempo, rhythm, evenness of touch, control, polish, freedom, etc. I think it is best to think of the word "professional" in this light. That these are standards that anyone, professional or amateur, should be striving to attain. And that, too, there is a general
difference (but always individual exceptions) between the level of amateur playing and professional playing in these respects, no matter how much one may disagree with the player's interpretation. This is why the only thing in what you say I would take issue with is that professional pianists make a mess of anything
they touch. Even professionals have their bad days, of course, and occasionally may even make messes, but they wouldn't survive in the market if they did this too often.
I would end with a disclaimer by saying that I in no way think I have ever met "professional" standards but that I always examine what they are and attempt to achieve them because in the end, it is what helps me improve.