> which are all competent, but not especially memorable IMHO. Which is very close to how I feel about Haydn.
Interesting, I was just reading Sviatoslav Richter's "notebooks and conversations" in which he says of the classical composers, he liked Haydn the best.
As to memorability, clearly the great string quartets are memorable as well as some of the London symphonies. His sonatas for solo piano (see Richter comment) and his luminous trios for cello, piano, and flute are all greatly memorable pieces too in my opinion. That's a fairly large body of works to have labled as "competent but not especially memorable" IMHO.
p.s. Richter's book is an easy and worthy read--mostly biographical with lots of opinions on many topics, especially modern composers and musicians he played with.
I second the recommendation for Richter's book, which is a fascinating look into the mind of a pianist who musicians pretty much unanimously consider to be the greatest of the 20th century:
Haydn's output is huge and varied. It can take time to find the right recordings and pieces to convince you, as sometimes interpretations can be a bit pedestrian. French pianist Jean-Efflam Bavouzet is in the process of recording all of Haydn's Piano Sonatas for British label Chandos Records, and the latest Volume (no. 7) is superb.
Interesting, I was just reading Sviatoslav Richter's "notebooks and conversations" in which he says of the classical composers, he liked Haydn the best.
As to memorability, clearly the great string quartets are memorable as well as some of the London symphonies. His sonatas for solo piano (see Richter comment) and his luminous trios for cello, piano, and flute are all greatly memorable pieces too in my opinion. That's a fairly large body of works to have labled as "competent but not especially memorable" IMHO.
p.s. Richter's book is an easy and worthy read--mostly biographical with lots of opinions on many topics, especially modern composers and musicians he played with.