My copy of the Haydn sonatas is Henle Urtext and has no dynamics or pedaling marked (at least the sonata I'm working on doesn't). The one I'm learning is the Bb, Hob XVI:2. It's relatively easy which is why I've only been given until my next lesson, in three weeks, to finish it. This is why I cannot talk to my teacher about it.

I am sure that there will be specific requirements for each piece but I wondered if anyone had any general advice on pedaling and/or dynamics for Haydn sonatas?

TYAVM

I am sure that the later sonatas have plenty of Haydn's own dynamic markings and slurs. At least my Peters edition - which claims to be an Urtext - is full of them. He still rarely indicated pedal - except for special effects.

I read somewhere that Haydn's early keyboard sonatas (and this is one of the earliest - 1760) were composed for the Harpsichord, even though the piano had been around in some form or other since the turn of the century. On the harpsichord you have no sustaining pedal and little control of the dynamics - hence no indications for them

You still have to decide on the phrasing but, like Bach before him, Haydn assumed that any musician could do that for themelves.

On the piano you have the benefit of being able to use dynamics, as well as timing, to shape phrases, and to differentiate separate melodic lines. (This is why Bach's Preludes and Fugues, when well played, sound so much clearer on a piano than on a Harpsichord or Organ)

As for general advice? Pedal - sparing, Dynamics - restrained.

I have a book on interpretation in the classic era - in an unpacked box somewhere!! I'll root it out and see what it has to say.

Tom beat me to most of that, and I generally agree with him. Certainly no pedal should be used in the earlier sonatas as indeed they were written for harpsichord. Of the 52, with a couple of notable exceptions, up to about no 30 are relatively trivial works, but there are some gems in the later ones, and I think a certain amount of restrained pedalling can enhance the performance. I tend to treat those later ones like Mozart Sonatas from a pedalling point of view.
My own Haydn edition is Dover - it also has no pedalling marked, but does have dynamics, though quite a lot (but not all) of the markings are put in brackets.

I'm not familiar with the earliy Haydn sonatas, and I don't know the one the OP mentioned, but I do disagree in principle to this assertion above - just because it was written for harpsichord, does not mean that a pianist should be prohibited from creating a different sound by using the assets of a modern piano!

I believe that a large part of being a pianist today is being able to make full use of his/her instrument to make the piece sound a beautiful as possible, whilst trying to balance this with a respect for the form and for an historical interpretation. I didn't phrase that very well - I mean to say that a pianist should understand and be aware of the origins of the piece and how it may have been played originally and contrast/balance/integrate that with their own interpretation, using their instrument as best they can to make the piece sound as good as they can.

If adding pedal to a piece that was originally written for harpsichord allows it to sound better or richer for example, I don't see why it shouldn't be done.

I actually think you phrased that very well indeed! It's what I'd been going to say, anyway! I don't think the pedal should be used to prolong notes that would not otherwise be prolonged, if that makes sense, but adding resonance in important places - yes, sparingly and tastefully. (In my humble opinion.... )

Well yes to a degree. Scarlatti sounds great on a modern piano, but you wouldn't use the pedal !

True! But the later Haydn sonatas are different.

.. er. I do ... sparingly and tastefully . (I am in good company. So did Horowitz)

Actually, I would! Sparingly, I admit, but in places that demand it, I do use the pedal.

For example, I remember a few years ago having a conversation with my tutor when I played Scarlatti's Sonata in D major - we decided to use the pedal lightly and sparsely, because without it the piece just sounded far too dry. I did want to keep the sound crisp, as that is the character of the piece, but without some light pedal use, there was no warmth to it, I seem to recall especially around the part with the minims in the bass (but I can't find my score!)

Yes I use pedal in the later ones, I say that in my first post.

You will not find a lot of opportunity for using the sustaining pedal in Haydn's music. His own instrument lacked one, so he composed his keyboard music without this facility in mind.

As to dynamics, much of his early output was written for harpsichord, with its limited dynamic potential. His later works were composed for an early piano - the fortepiano - whose dynamic range was also quite limited. In addition, was the playing style of the period - improvisitory and free. All of this mitigated against detailed dynamic markings.

So, play the music how you feel it. Treat it fairly delicately, avoid Romantic style rubato and you cannot go too far wrong.

I'm glad you said about playing the music how you feel it! Even where there aren't dynamic marks, you can still play with dynamics, after all that is how we give a piece dynamism!

I think nowadays (?) there is a lot of over-dependance on the score, especially since romantic composers wrote very prescriptively in order to show exactly how they wanted the piece to sound. But even with the great Romantics, I find myself sometimes going against what is written when I really feel the need.

Personally, I feel that too much onus is put on what the composer would have wanted and not enough is placed on the performer. Without putting our own into what we are playing, we simply become vessels for the score, rather than performers of the music.

I agree. A great piece of music offers countless different interpretations.

A lovely story illustrates the freedom we have. Clara Schumann wrote to Brahms to ask about the speed at which she should play his Op 79 G minor Rhaposdy. Paraphrased, his reply was, "No idea. I play it differently every time."

Surely a good player is both a "vessel for the score" (as you put it) and a performer of the music? I can fully agree that any good player puts his or her own interpretation on the score by adding their own ideas where appropriate (touting for advice on which I started this thread) but that is not going against what is written. If you sometimes feel the need to go against what is written then you are no longer playing your interpretation of the piece the composer wrote; you are playing your variation on what the composer wrote. This may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is certainly a different thing to do.