Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Joseph Haydn

Suggestions for expansion

• Make sonata section into sortable table so that both Landon and Hoboken schemes can be clearly shown
• Composition dates
• Movement listing?

DavidRF (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please clarify what the meaning of "doubtful" is on the table - I want to assume that it means "doubtful that Haydn is the composer," but I don't like making assumptions since they can be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OstinatoFreak (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Warning!!!

Dates listed for sonatas here are suspect. For example, Sonata 33 in C minor, the first sonata Haydn supposedly termed a sonata, was written in 1771 (Many references on the net to support this including allmusic (http://www.allmusicguide.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=41:7439~1~T2HB), Classical Cat (http://www.classiccat.net/haydn_fj/16-20.htm) and this Haydn Catalog (http://home.kpn.nl/stam0033/haydn/catalog/piano.htm) Garycd (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)garycd

Well, allmusic is just a blog, its not really a source. Same with classical.net. I believe at issue is that the dates are often not known and musicologists often disagree (or update their estimates as more is learned). I agree we need more sources though.DavidRF (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

numbering schemes

My entirely naive impression is that the non-Hoboken numbering system that's widely used for Haydn's piano sonatas antedates H. C. Robbins Landon, but I might well be mistaken in this, and would appreciate any information.

I'm also confused because the text now reads

• "the pieces are sorted using the numbering method proposed by Christina Landon".

However, Landon in the table column header points to HCRL, not to Christina, and the footnote for Christina also gives "Landon, H C Robbins. In: Haydn (Oxford Composer Companions), Ed Wyn Jones D. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p203 & 468."

Further, at H. C. Robbins Landon, it says

• "He was married twice: his first wife Christa died in a plane crash in 1977."

So who is this Christina, and did she devise the sonata numbering herself, de novo? This seems extremely unlikely. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the article H. C. Robbins Landon seems to consistently use "Robbins Landon" rather than "Landon" in reference to him. I have no idea which may be correct, or preferred. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:-) For that matter, I'm not sure how to interpret the name "Ed Wyn Jones D." Milkunderwood (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Its Christina Landon's numbering. Everyone credits her and not her husband for this particular numbering. She doesn't have her own article, so I linked to her husband. (I admit that's a bit confusing). I'm away from my things at the moment. Later in the week, I'll see if I can find a better reference. Also, perhaps there should be a short section for Christina on the HCRL page which mentions her contributions (which could fork off into a separate article later if there is demand).DavidRF (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason I suspected the numbering probably antedated Landon (or Robbins Landon?), or Christina (or Christa?) is that nearly all recordings of these sonatas that I have available tend to use sonata numbers, either alone or in addition to Hoboken numbers. I wonder if the date of Christina's catalog might be added somewhere, and perhaps a brief mention of this situation. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is Christa. I'm seeing more of that name in my latest searches. I can't remember which site I found which uses Christina. I'll change that. Christa Landed editted the Wiener Urtext editions of the scores. I'm not sure if that's the origin of her numbering, but that should give a head-start. (I'm away from my stuff so can't do a thorough search). You really need both the Landon & Hoboken numberings because many recordings will only have one listed. I know that Naxos highlights the Landon numbers but a number of other recordings (Gould, Hamelin) only use the Hoboken numbers. That's why I chose to list both side by side in the table. DavidRF (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a google books link to a score book which mentions Christa Landon's edition (1963). [1].DavidRF (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this information - that helps me. And now I think I see what the problem is. You are a musician and a scholar, and you are accustomed to seeing how Haydn's works are organized. Now take me, a non-musician, looking at these same works, and let me walk you through the source of my puzzlement:

First, I'm accustomed to seeing Mozart listed by K. numbers, so I know that someone else - Köchel - cataloged them. On the other hand, I see Beethoven's sonatas and symphonies, simply numbered, with no cataloger's initial, so here I assume Beethoven either numbered them himself, or they were at least contemporaneously numbered. Now I turn to Haydn, and find two different numbering systems. One system is like Beethoven, with for instance a Sonata No. 1, a Trio No. 1, a Symphony No. 1, etc - so I assume that as with Beethoven, Haydn numbered them himself, or they were at least contemporaneous. But then here is Hoboken with different numbering. So probably the "traditional" numbering got mixed up, and Hoboken is straightening it out? The first thing I see in looking at Hoboken is all those Roman numerals, which fairly shout to the unwary that they must be Victorian if not earlier. This numbering scheme also bears either H. or Hob. Therefore I take for granted that Haydn's non-Hoboken numbering is at least traditional, if perhaps not authorial. And thus I have the situation exactly backwards.

But then here at this Wikipedia list I find two columns of numbers, labeled Landon and Hob. XVI, and I wonder, well, where is Haydn's numbering, and how does it differ from either of these? I've heard of Hoboken (even though I've placed him in the wrong century), but I've never heard of Landon. Further, the text says that Landon's is a proposed numbering method, while what I am looking for is in wide use, and has been since at least the 1970s. So this in itself is also misleading.

Presumably, before these two modern catalogs, everything was identified by opus numbers, which have now largely disappeared from use, and by key? I don't have any early recordings of piano sonatas to lay hands on, but I do have here Emanuel Feuermann playing the D Major concerto, Op. 101, and two copies of Cortot-Thibaud-Casals playing the trio in G Major, which EMI labels only as Op. 73, No. 2, but Biddulph only as Trio No. 25. So this would be Hob. XV/25, or [Landon] Trio No. 39. Biddulph is unlikely to use an anachronistic number that didn't appear on their original 78, so presumably then Trio No. 25 is a pre-Hoboken traditional number. Perhaps in many cases Hoboken relied on and incorporated traditional numbers such as this?

Now the question remains of how or why, if Hoboken and the Landons published at roughly the same time, one or the other system seems to be more widely accepted and used? As you say, some recordings use one system to the exclusion of the other, and many give both. They both look "official", but for completely different reasons, and one would never suspect that they are actually contemporaneous with each other. All this is stuff that someone in your position would know and take for granted; but it can be thoroughly confusing to anyone who just listens to music and is curious about it. To some extent Wikipedia's articles and lists of Haydn's music help, but mostly only to the extent that one actually goes to the trouble of also looking up these various catalogers. And as it is now, much of the confusion remains.

Possibly I'm the only person so misled, but I tend to doubt it. It seems to me that since none of the Landons' numbering indicates a re-cataloging, it would be useful for someone to add a brief explanation on the various Haydn pages pointing out where these numbers came from, and when - including Hoboken's. Some mention should probably also be made of the reason why the quartets, but not the other works, retain their opus numbers today. If it were me, and if I both knew what I was talking about and had the verifying information, I would say something like

• "(Haydn / Haydn's publishers) (did / did not) assign opus numbers to all of his works, but these (frequently?) did not follow their dates of composition. The (piano sonatas / piano trios / string quartets / symphonies / etc) (were / were not) commonly known by their opus numbers and key, (and / or) by numbers assigned (when?) by (whom?). In the mid-20th century two different catalogs were independently devised, by (name) Hoboken and by (name and name) Landon (or Robbins Landon?), based on their historical research of the composition dates. Hoboken's catalog identifies works by genre, as (etc); these numbers are presented as (example / list), preceded by either H. or Hob. The Landon catalogs number the works chronologically by genre, without assigning a (? Werke-Verzeichnis - sorry, my mind has gone blank here) number. The piano sonatas are frequently shown on recordings or program notes as (example), following Hoboken, or as (example), following Landon, or both numbers may be provided. The (piano trios / symphonies / etc) (etc.) The string quartets are usually found listed by their original opus numbers because (reason)."

And hopefully the wording would be better than mine. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty common for a list of works like this to have multiple sets of catalogue numbers. This happens a lot with baroque & classical era composers because much of work is unpublished and has to be recatalogued later. I don't think it needs extra explanation but I'll revisit this again next week.DavidRF (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your help. I would just suggest that when something is confusing, more explanation is better than less. I can't be the only user wanting to look up a piece of music here at Wikipedia that I find on a CD, and try to understand why it may have different numbers on different recordings. In my own case, I had thought it was Hoboken that was way out of date, but still widely used. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No. 19 (in E minor) is a different version of No. 57 (in F major).

Is this right? I find it hard to believe. I'll try to check up on this. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. The first two movements of No. 19 are the same as the last two movements of No. 57, except that they appear a semitone higher in No. 57. I don't think it is known yet which version came first, and what the original key was. Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

KEYBOARD compositions a more appropriate heading

About three-fourths of all of Haydn's so-called piano sonatas he himself called divertimenti per cembalo solo. He envisioned them being played on any keyboard instrument, including spinet, clavichord and chamber organ, but most particularly on the harpsichord. It is only the very late sonatas he wrote for London that were properly conceived for the newer, heavier English pianos—not that he would have refused to have them played on a harpsichord. In most of Beethoven's sonatas the harpsichord was optional, as well.

208.87.248.162 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Johann Nepomuk Hummel

That article currently says: "In 1791 Joseph Haydn, who was in London at the same time as young Hummel, composed a sonata in A flat for Hummel, who gave its first performance in the Hanover Square Rooms in Haydn's presence." But this work does not appear to be listed? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe they are talking about the A flat Piano Trio, Hob. XV/14. See [2] where they mention that Hummel premiered a "Haydn Piano Trio". I'm guessing its XV/14 since one article says its a trio and the other article says A-flat and the composition date listed here for XV/14 is close.DavidRF (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. So that was in A-flat minor? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Major. Its this one: [3].DavidRF (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. That's quite beautiful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)