Talk:Piano Sonata Hob. XVI/52

Haydn Piano Sonatas

Well, if we are going to be doing pages for the Haydn Piano Sonatas, we're going to have to discuss logistics. A page for each work, or can they somehow be grouped? Which numbering scheme to use (to many, this is No. 62)? DavidRF 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

French overture theme?

Please explain. :-) — Pladask (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with dotted rhythms but I don't have a citation and it could be worded better... I added a fact tag.DavidRF (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a citation for this:

Its opening sonorities and dotted rhythms were to be Haydn's most impressive opening keyboard gesture. This ceremonial march, derived from the French overture, has nothing to do with the galant ones from the previous sonatas.

"Joseph Haydn's Keyboard Music" by A. Peter Brown, p. 361, 1986, Indiana Univ. Press ISBN 0-253-33182-X. DavidRF (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dedication

Who is this dedicated to? Therese Jansen? Can someone confirm?DavidRF (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello David, Karl Geiringer and Daniel Heartz's books indicate that it was "written for" Jansen, but dedicated to Magdalene von Kurzböck, the daughter of one of Haydn's publishers. I'm not sure what "written for" means but will try to nail this down... Opus33 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My guess is that it was for Jansen to play. She had considerable skill and Haydn could write more virtuosic pieces if he knew she was going to be playing. I don't have a citation for that though. .DavidRF (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unflinching"

Would whoever wrote "unflinching" in reference to sonata structure maybe try to clarify or reword? Sonata form came very naturally to Haydn and it is hard to imagine him ever flinching about it. Opus33 (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Number

In which numbering system is this No. 62? This ought to be moved back to Piano Sonata No. 52 (Haydn) urgently. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I found that Landon calls it No. 62. My point still stands as nobody else does. Which recording calls it No. 62? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A Google check indicates about twice as many references under the number 52. Opus33 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've found a recording which uses Landon's system for Nos. 59 to 62 (Naxos). Still, Landon's numbering scheme seems to not be widely accepted, including in Wikipedia articles. Only three, No. 9, No. 50 and this one use it. Again, I suggest to move them all to their Hoboken numbering. After all, we are not likely to see articles on Landon's numbers 21 to 27 or 19 vs. 57. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)