@@jumbobwana Perhaps it is not, but Joachim's statement remains true. Actually, the first and third movement are not very good, but the slow one is excellent. If Haydn did not compose it, who did? Something similar happens with the "second" horn concert: it may be attributed to Michael Haydn instead of Joseph. If so, Michael wrote probably the most excellent slow movement of a horn concert of the era. The problem is that something similar happens in other fields of Haydn`s output: in the early string quartets the "best" movements are, by far, some of the slow ones; in the early piano sonatas somethin similar happens: the "best" movements are the trios of the menuets. I would dismiss the authorship so early, given that the same phonomeno occurs in early Haydh`s works, being the slow movement of blazing beauty althoug surrounded by not so good fast movements.
Rather than comparing this concerto to the late concertos of Mozart or the early ones of Beethoven why not compare it to similar works written in the 1760s? Then you will find it blows away the competition. A proper attitude to Haydn is long overdue.This was a seminal work for the time. The version here is excellent, but this is a work crying out for authentic instruments. Haydn understood the instruments available and wrote for their particular sound more perhaps than any other composer.
Certes, mais Haydn ne connaissait pas les instruments à venir, en particulier le perfectionnement du piano. Et c'est bien là la limite des interprétations parfois trop psychorigides sur instruments anciens. Haydn n'est-il pas ... intemporel ? ;-)
@@fi8009 Of course it wins the comparison. That slow movement is an absolute miracle. I have just listen to it for the first time and I have had to repeat it because I am totally amazed.
This slow movement is so beautiful, and creates a unique tonal world. Very subtle and mysterious.
Joseph Joachim's opinion was that neither Beethoven nor Bach had written so deep, so moving, so religious Adagios as Haydn, when he was serious.
@@pepehaydn7039 Hob. XVIII:9 is not from Haydn, contrary to Hoboken's classification.
@@jumbobwana Perhaps it is not, but Joachim's statement remains true. Actually, the first and third movement are not very good, but the slow one is excellent. If Haydn did not compose it, who did? Something similar happens with the "second" horn concert: it may be attributed to Michael Haydn instead of Joseph. If so, Michael wrote probably the most excellent slow movement of a horn concert of the era. The problem is that something similar happens in other fields of Haydn`s output: in the early string quartets the "best" movements are, by far, some of the slow ones; in the early piano sonatas somethin similar happens: the "best" movements are the trios of the menuets. I would dismiss the authorship so early, given that the same phonomeno occurs in early Haydh`s works, being the slow movement of blazing beauty althoug surrounded by not so good fast movements.
Rather than comparing this concerto to the late concertos of Mozart or the early ones of Beethoven why not compare it to similar works written in the 1760s? Then you will find it blows away the competition. A proper attitude to Haydn is long overdue.This was a seminal work for the time. The version here is excellent, but this is a work crying out for authentic instruments. Haydn understood the instruments available and wrote for their particular sound more perhaps than any other composer.
It wins the comparison in both cases.
Certes, mais Haydn ne connaissait pas les instruments à venir, en particulier le perfectionnement du piano. Et c'est bien là la limite des interprétations parfois trop psychorigides sur instruments anciens. Haydn n'est-il pas ... intemporel ? ;-)
@@fi8009 Of course it wins the comparison. That slow movement is an absolute miracle. I have just listen to it for the first time and I have had to repeat it because I am totally amazed.
I fully stand with your statement, I may be no expert but when I hear good music I know its right.