In one respect Brautigam continues to cut an impressive figure. His technique is faultless; but his approach to content is not above reproach. With the exception of the first movement of No 44, which contains a few dynamic markings, Haydn left the text bare. Presumably, performers were expected to use their discretion in matters of expression, but Brautigam imposes limits that are often restrictive. The fortepiano is a modern copy of an Anton Walter of c 1795. It sounds very appropriate, which means that BIS has successfully captured its qualities, though output levels vary slightly. A specification for this Viennese instrument is not given, but it may be reasonable to assume that it has two knee levers for different effects, as do others of the period. If so, Brautigam only puts the sustaining mechanism to good use, but ignores the moderator that imparts a mellow timbre – which may be an indication of his objective attitude, where attention is concentrated on the structures of the music. This is particularly true of No 34. Brautigam understands its architecture but underplays the contrasts, taking a dispassionate view of the sense of fantasy that runs throughout. He is much more comfortable with No 32, where his good judgement about nuance and inflection reflects a positive response to the pathos of the sonata. This is a fine interpretation – as is that of No 44, where in the Adagio Brautigam shows that he is able to probe beneath the surface. Why not always?'