Using pedal with Scarlatti?
Ineke Kuster
Hello,
I'm studying from the book "the Joy of Baroque" a piece of
Scarlatti (L93- K 149). Everything is going fine, rhythm, melody
and even the tempo but I have a lot of problems trying to use
the pedal.
I think in a few places use of the pedal is asked for, but when
I do so, I feel that the atmosphere of the piece is changing
(different as from changings in keys) I never had this problem
before.
Should I stop using the pedal completely in this piece?
I hope someone recognises this.
Thanks, Ineke
CBailis
sound better. Listen to Horowitz's recordings.
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
pedal or not. However, my personal feelings (albeit leaning toward the
Romantic school of piano playing) is that one deprives oneself of the
availability of color if one does not utilize all the pedals. Not that
one would wish to use it all the time, mind you. :-)
As for the completely different atmosphere due to the application of pedal,
one may wish to consider gradually changing the color through either finger
legato or increasing application of the pedal (half-pedaling/flutter
pedalling). It is not trivial to get this down, though - it will take time.
Stylistically, I would consider that usually half-pedalling is sufficient,
except in short passages, and that contrast should be more through color than
a [too] wide range of dynamics.
Please understand the everything I said above is a very personal view of
interpreting Scarlatti. It may not work for you - merely a suggestion. I
hope this helps, though. Just my own opinions,
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Chris Winkler - Test Engineering
on whether you believe preserving the composers original intent to be important.
If you don't, then use the pedal liberally. Wonderful sounds can be produced by
using pedal on Bach, Scarlatti, etc, but it is unlikely these sounds will be
representative of what these composers had in mind.
If you want to interpret the music as what is general accepted as the composer's
intent then less pedal on early music is in order. A teacher of mine expressed
it as: use as much pedal as you want to improve tone color, legato, etc., but the
listener should not perceive the playing as being pedalled at all.
Chris
Richard Carnes
: To add my $.02, stylistic considerations, with pedal being one
: example, all depend on whether you believe preserving the composers
: original intent to be important. If you don't, then use the pedal
: liberally. Wonderful sounds can be produced by using pedal on Bach,
: Scarlatti, etc, but it is unlikely these sounds will be representative
: of what these composers had in mind.
It is highly unlikely that *any* sounds you can produce on the piano
will be representative of what Bach or Scarlatti had in mind. They
did not write their music to be performed on the piano. So if you
believe that preserving the composer's "original intent" is important,
don't play Bach on the piano, even though virtually all great pianists
beginning with Mozart and Beethoven have done so. Don't play the WTC
in recital, either, since it was not intended for concert performance.
Certainly turn up your nose at all transcriptions, including those
made by J.S. Bach, Mozart, Liszt, Busoni, etc. And don't play Bach or
Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
(hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
On the other hand I see no good reason to restrict my performance to
what the composer intended, even if we make the dubious assumption
that we can know just what Bach or Scarlatti intended. My job as a
performer, as I see it, is to create a good musical experience for the
audience here and now; I will use the pedal(s) as much as necessary to
create what I consider good music, whether that means no pedal or
pedalling as with Debussy. The same considerations apply to dynamics,
tempo and articulation. A performer, as I see it, is not a sort of
musical archeologist.
Richard
Chris Winkler - Test Engineering
>It is highly unlikely that *any* sounds you can produce on the piano
>will be representative of what Bach or Scarlatti had in mind. They
>did not write their music to be performed on the piano. So if you
>believe that preserving the composer's "original intent" is important,
>don't play Bach on the piano, even though virtually all great pianists
>beginning with Mozart and Beethoven have done so. Don't play the WTC
>in recital, either, since it was not intended for concert performance.
>Certainly turn up your nose at all transcriptions, including those
>made by J.S. Bach, Mozart, Liszt, Busoni, etc. And don't play Bach or
>Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
>their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
>instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
>(hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
You are most certainly correct that the works of Bach, Scarlatti and so forth
are harpsichord transcriptions. You may even consider piano music written before
the invention of the caste iron frame to be a transcription from fortepiano to
the modern piano, as these two instruments have a vastly different sound.
Certainly if you are a purist, and I know many good musicians who are, you would
take this point of view.
However, as with anything, a good balance must be taken. In this case the balance
is between the important characteristics of the music that make it identifiable
as belonging to that period/composer versus the sounds that are available on the
modern piano. If you were to hear a Bach piece that you had never heard before
played with a lot of pedal, rubato and with no contrapuntal texture in mind you
might think it sounded good. That is, if the performer was creative
enough to reconceptualize the work into a cohesive unit. But it is doubtful that
you would recognize the piece as being Bach. In addition, it is my opinion that
if you heard the same piece played in what is generally considered a more
currently traditional manner (which covers a rather broad spectrum) you would
say that version is better. I believe that because the genius of Bach would be
preserved while the performer would only be adding his own interpretation. In the
completely modified version you have taken away the genius of Bach.
So, in short I would suggest that you may not try to recreate what the composer
had in his head when he was composing a work but every effort should be made to
preserve the composers brilliance.
Martha Beth Lewis
Treat Scarlatti like Bach. No pedal. Martha Beth
Jae Lee
> As for the completely different atmosphere due to the application of pedal,
> one may wish to consider gradually changing the color through either finger
> legato or increasing application of the pedal (half-pedaling/flutter
> pedalling). It is not trivial to get this down, though - it will take time.
>
>
i apologize if this has already been discussed... but what is
physically happening when the pedal is being applied? that is, what
mechanics are being moved around in the piano when the pedal
is depressed... and so, what is the difference between full,
half or flutter pedaling; what sounds are trying to be achieved
with each?
thanks,
jae
Stephen McElroy
and the Florentine Piano" in which David Sutherland proposes that
Scarlatti not only wrote for the piano as it existed but also may have
been the first piano virtuoso and responsible in some degree for the
dissemination of the instrument. The bibliography can refer you to sources
that answer the obvious questions: can one play his music on his
instruments, etc.
This doesn't speak to the original question of pedal use, but it should
remove "it's harpsichord music" as a contra-indication.
Alexander Hanysz
>Treat Scarlatti like Bach. No pedal. Martha Beth
Well, not _much_ pedal. (There's the occasional bit that sounds better
legato, if you're discreet about it. No need to get dogmatic about these
things.)
Alex.
Jeff Harrison
(Martha Beth Lewis) wrote:
> In <3s6qep$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> cba...@aol.com (CBailis) writes:
> >
> >You'll never go wrong playing Scarlatti minus the pedal. In fact,
> it'll
> >sound better. Listen to Horowitz's recordings.
>
>
> Treat Scarlatti like Bach. No pedal.
Ah ha! I've got a Bach piece that you MUST use the pedal...
O.K., I admit it, I'm tricking you - it's a transcription for piano of the
organ work "Wachet Auf". But it is by Bach and you do have to use the
damper pedal! :)
Jeff (who's now removing his tongue from his cheek)
Richard Farner
(Richard Carnes) wrote:
> Chris Winkler writes:
>
> : To add my $.02, stylistic considerations, with pedal being one
> : example, all depend on whether you believe preserving the composers
> : original intent to be important. If you don't, then use the pedal
> : liberally. Wonderful sounds can be produced by using pedal on Bach,
> : Scarlatti, etc, but it is unlikely these sounds will be representative
>
> : of what these composers had in mind.
>
> It is highly unlikely that *any* sounds you can produce on the piano
> will be representative of what Bach or Scarlatti had in mind. They
> did not write their music to be performed on the piano. So if you
> believe that preserving the composer's "original intent" is important,
> don't play Bach on the piano, even though virtually all great pianists
> beginning with Mozart and Beethoven have done so. Don't play the WTC
> in recital, either, since it was not intended for concert performance.
> Certainly turn up your nose at all transcriptions, including those
> made by J.S. Bach, Mozart, Liszt, Busoni, etc. And don't play Bach or
> Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
> their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
> instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
> (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
>
> On the other hand I see no good reason to restrict my performance to
> what the composer intended, even if we make the dubious assumption
> that we can know just what Bach or Scarlatti intended. My job as a
> performer, as I see it, is to create a good musical experience for the
> audience here and now; I will use the pedal(s) as much as necessary to
> create what I consider good music, whether that means no pedal or
> pedalling as with Debussy. The same considerations apply to dynamics,
> tempo and articulation. A performer, as I see it, is not a sort of
> musical archeologist.
>
> Richard
Many thanks for what I consider the best-articulated statement I've read
in a long time on the question of, or need for, performance "authenticity"
(unless, of course, one is trying to pass off a madern interpretation for
a historical re-creation).
Richard Farner
Chair, Piano Studies, Pacific Lutheran University
Phil Tompkins
On 30 Jun 1995, Toshiro K. Ohsumi wrote:
[lots of illuminating comments, omitted]
> Scarlatti. For instance, in L. 33, we see an exercise in legato playing of a
> multi-voiced piece.
This is an interesting example. A lot of Scarlatti's music contains
imitative elements (trumpets, drums, the guitar). In the case of the
L33/K87, the legato and the voices suggest to me imitation of choral
music. If so, wouldn't using the pedal to suggest the echo of voices in a
cathedral, rather than not using it so as to approximate the crispness of
the harpsichord, be a valid interpretation?
Phil
Jim Michmerhuizen
farn...@halcyon.com (Richard Farner) writes:
>In article <3smga1$i...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu
>(Richard Carnes) wrote:
>> Chris Winkler writes:
>>
>> It is highly unlikely that *any* sounds you can produce on the piano
>> will be representative of what Bach or Scarlatti had in mind. They
>> did not write their music to be performed on the piano. So if you
>> believe that preserving the composer's "original intent" is important,
>> don't play Bach on the piano, even though virtually all great pianists
>> beginning with Mozart and Beethoven have done so. Don't play the WTC
>> in recital, either, since it was not intended for concert performance.
>> Certainly turn up your nose at all transcriptions, including those
>> made by J.S. Bach, Mozart, Liszt, Busoni, etc. And don't play Bach or
>> Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
>> their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
>> instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
>> (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
>>
>Many thanks for what I consider the best-articulated statement I've read
>in a long time on the question of, or need for, performance "authenticity"
>(unless, of course, one is trying to pass off a madern interpretation for
>a historical re-creation).
I second the motion. I don't have any choice, really. I've been making
synthesized Bach, intermittently, since 1970, and aggressively for the past
five years. I don't do pyrotechnical display; I read, and dutifully ignore,
all the best scholarship; I take care about my ornaments and agogics; but
the instruments I use were quite literally inconceivable to Bach's genera-
tion. In such circumstances, I can't afford to take any strong positions
about authenticity and composer's intentions, now, can I.
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
...........................................................................
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
No pedal." I must admit that it would possibly the first time the poster and I
would be in total disagreement musically. :-)
I understand the thought of trying to reproduce the harpsicord on the piano. I
have played the harpsicord in the past to better understand the Baroque Era.
However, perhaps there is some confusion regarding _why_ one wishes to (or not)
use the pedal. I would think what is hoped to be gained in not using the pedal
is clarity. Many pianists, I notice, have great difficulty separating voices
and keeping the texture clear while using the pedal. Understandable. It's not
a trivial task.
Indeed, in one sense, playing multi-voiced music on a harpsicord is much easier
since it usually has more than one manual (keyboard), each of which has a
different sound. Thus, one may jump between the two to separate lines or
accentuate certain notes. Of course, one also accentuates notes by timing
(e.g. a pause before the note) as well.
Now, on the piano, how do we separate lines? We may use dynamics, but then are
we true to the spirit of a harpsicord? No. The different manuals have decays
of different times (in additional to toanl differences). Any dynamic changes
(except, perhaps using the una corda [something analogous also existed on
harpsicords]) would no longer be consistent with a period performance.
Now, what about pedal? It may be argued that since we're using dynamics, why
not go ahead and use pedaling as well? Such arguments invariably are where,
in the author's opinion, much unnecessary heated battles are fought.
Instead, let us attempt to reconstruct the composer's intentions. I shall not
make it easy by picking J.-P. Rameau as an example. (He envisioned the harp-
sicord as something more sustaining in tone.) Instead, let us consider D.
Scarlatti. For instance, in L. 33, we see an exercise in legato playing of a
multi-voiced piece. One may attempt to vary the amount of finger legato to
highlight the structure of the piece by careful coloring, but in doing so, one
will notice that in applying a greater than 1 key legato, one quickly runs out
of fingers or reach (this is part of the exercise. Certainly to differentiate
the voices one will need to use dynamics levels - obviously, unlike a harp-
sicord. But, to build the structure, as stated, may use finger legato.
Unfortunately, the modern piano requires a much greater reach (legato 5ths in
one hand) than a harpsicord. Thus, especially for those with smaller hands,
it seems in order to preserve the structure of the piece, one would need to
resort to pedalling for some of the reaches.
How about for those with large hands? Perhaps at this point, the question
becomes more of a stylistic convention. One may give a "proof by intimidation"
by noting that the great piano recordings of Bach and Scarlatti inevitably
use some pedalling (very discretely, of course). [e.g. Schiff, Horowitz,
and surprisingly, Gould (Sarabande of Bach's first Partita). Of course, these
are just examples - there are many great recordings.]
However, let resort to simple pianistic considerations. Returning to the above
Scarlatti piece, we consider the necessity of restricting the range of dynamic
levels (we note that pieces were played with more reticence in that era). Now,
if we wish to differentiate difference voices, we may try first attempt some
timing changes (such as pauses before or between notes). However, we must also
consider we are playing to a modern audience and such old-fashioned ideas may
be unfamiliar - especially when played on the piano. (I notice audiences tend
to allow more when on a harpsicord [e.g. such as ornamentation] - perhaps due
to novelty of a harpsicord?) We need to keep the dynamics for separating the
voices, so what is left are the pedals.
I must emphasize that the above is not an argument for using pedals everywhere
for the sake of color in of itself. Indeed one thing that is very personal is
exactly how much pedal does one use. One can very little (Gould) to quite a
bit (Schiff). Here it is a matter of taste. Also, for some, introducing the
pedal creates difficulties in voicing and thus, pedalling may be the last
device to be introduced in learning a piece. However, what the above does
argue is that in _some_ cases in Baroque music, pedalling is more a necessity,
but one that may be so discretely applied as to be unobtrusive.
A similar argument is not needed for using the pedals in Mozart. This is
simply since we have a famous quote by Mozart himself who states using the
pedals (well, the analogous of that in his day) in one of his concerts (being
pleased with the response of it).
In all composers, what must again be emphasized particularly in the Baroque
and Classical Era piano pieces is that clarity cannot be sacrificed. This was
much easier in those days since the tone of those instruments decayed much
more quickly than does the modern piano. Even in the Romantic Era, pianists
such as Liszt and Chopin were particularly noted for maintaining clarity, even
in the most densest of passages.
Just my own opinions only,
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Martha Beth Lewis
Didn't want to be dogmatic, just succinct.
I'd be cautious about pedal in Scarlatti. He wrote for harpsichord,
acquaintance (fleeting?) with the fortepiano notwithstanding. The King
of Spain had a harpsichord, and since Scarlatti was teaching the
princess there, I believe he wrote with the harpsichord in mind. Yes,
it is true that he does use devices which later are cornerstones of
piano technique and compositional language--octaves, cross-hand
playing, etc.--but I think he was expanding the range of harpsichord
music, not writing for the new fortepiano.
When I teach Mozart, I explain the knee-level mechanism to my students
and ask them to "use their knees" in any place they feel like they'd
like to pedal. Is it physically feasible? If so, pedal away. If not,
rethink. If you use this rule of thumb, you see that pedaling is only
really reasonable on long notes and functions as an enrichment of tone.
As Stephen Birkett pointed out, the piano OD's on the fundamental.
Martha Beth
Martha Beth Lewis
A student of mine has a Yamaha baby grand with 3 pedals. He says the
middle one is not a sostenuto. When the tech was there, my student
watched him attempt to "fix the sostenuto." Although the story I got
was somewhat garbled, the idea I got was that his piano did not have a
true sostenuto but a bass sustain pedal.
Could this be? I thot bass sustain pedals were only on cheaper
instruments.
thanks.
Martha Beth
Stephen Birkett
I won't give any attributions:
> To add my $.02, stylistic considerations, with pedal being one
> example, all depend on whether you believe preserving the composers
> original intent to be important. If you don't, then use the pedal
> liberally. Wonderful sounds can be produced by using pedal on Bach,
> Scarlatti, etc, but it is unlikely these sounds will be representative
> of what these composers had in mind.
>
This is rather confused. People who play Bach on the piano constantly
feel they must justify their actions, as if it's a sin that must be
confessed. This is ridiculous. If you are a pianist then play Bach,
Scarlatti, Byrd, Froberger, Chambonnieres etc. on the piano...play
Mozart, Clementi, Beethoven on the piano...play Schumann, Chopin, Brahms
on the piano. What do all these have in common? They are *all*
transcriptions...the 19thC composers even more than the 18th and 17thC
ones. Once established that you are playing a transcription the result
must be judged on its own merits as a performance on the modern piano.
Pedal is *essential* on the modern piano to compensate for inherently poor
acoustic tone quality. There is nothing worse than dry as dust pedal-free
castrated Bach on a Steinway. If you are playing a Steinway then play it
like a Steinway...use the full tonal resources it can achieve. Remember
you are playing a transciption. Why play it with one hand tied behind?
The question then becomes one of musical taste. How far do we take the
transcription? It's a question of degree. But pedal-free Bach is just as
far from the acoustic quality of the original as Bach pedalled like Chopin.
> It is highly unlikely that *any* sounds you can produce on the piano
> will be representative of what Bach or Scarlatti had in mind. They
> did not write their music to be performed on the piano. So if you
> believe that preserving the composer's "original intent" is important,
> don't play Bach on the piano, even though virtually all great pianists
> beginning with Mozart and Beethoven have done so.
This may be so but it is irrelevant. Transcribing the music of pre-20thC
composers to the modern piano is an art-form in its own right and
should be judged accordingly. There will be good and bad
transcriptions. There is no such thing as "original intent"...it makes a
lot more sense to think in terms of stylistic conventions and acoustical
quality. These are variables we can discover from original sources. We
can never know anything about "original intent". The argument of Beethoven
and Mozart playing Bach on the piano is not valid...the pianos used by
these composers were quite different from the modern piano, and
acoustically much closer to the harpsichord. Thus a straight rendition of
Bach on a fortepiano is very effective.
> [...] And don't play Bach or
> Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
> their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
> instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
> (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
>
This is the basis for the revival of historical instruments. The
harpsichord first and more recently the fortepiano. Only within the past 15
years have we gained enough knowledge to approximate the pianos of
the first half of the 19th C. The results are incredible for what they
reveal about the music. Nevertheless this does not invalidate the
continuance of the tradition of transcribing this music for the Steinway.
> My job as a
> performer, as I see it, is to create a good musical experience for the
> audience here and now; I will use the pedal(s) as much as necessary to
> create what I consider good music, whether that means no pedal or
> pedalling as with Debussy. The same considerations apply to dynamics,
> tempo and articulation. A performer, as I see it, is not a sort of
> musical archeologist.
>
Vitality is crucial, but you must be honest to yourself when you are
transcribing the music. Learning about, and adopting, stylistic
conventions of earlier periods may a sort of archeology but a
good performance must be alive, whether modern or historically informed.
It is only the 20thC that has developed the anal-retentive approach...in
earlier periods such performances would never have been accepted.
: Many thanks for what I consider the best-articulated statement I've read
: in a long time on the question of, or need for, performance "authenticity"
: (unless, of course, one is trying to pass off a madern interpretation for
: a historical re-creation).
This last comment is absolutely incorrect. The > marked comments above
are totally unenlightening about historical performance. The entire post
was a concealed attempt at self-justification for why *only* transcription
is justified for this music...from someone who appears to not have the
interest, or time, to do some homework and learn about historical style
and taste. Transcription is perfectly valid, but should be judged on its
own merits.
Stephen Birkett (Fortepianos)
Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
tel: 519-885-2228
fax: 519-763-4686
Dan Koren
>This is rather confused. People who play Bach on the piano constantly
>feel they must justify their actions, as if it's a sin that must be
>confessed. This is ridiculous.
The reason why so many people who like to play Bach on the piano are
being so defensive is the ever increasing number, and loudness of,
attacks by original instrument bigots like you who require musical
performances to be "historically informed".
>confessed. This is ridiculous. If you are a pianist then play Bach,
>Scarlatti, Byrd, Froberger, Chambonnieres etc. on the piano...play
>Mozart, Clementi, Beethoven on the piano...play Schumann, Chopin, Brahms
>on the piano. What do all these have in common? They are *all*
>transcriptions...the 19thC composers even more than the 18th and 17thC
>ones. Once established that you are playing a transcription the result
>must be judged on its own merits as a performance on the modern piano.
By these criteria, any musical performance is a transcription. The only
place where music exists "untranscribed" is on paper. And don't forget
that Bach transcribed himself many of his (and other composers' pieces)
to different instruments.
>Pedal is *essential* on the modern piano
Of course.
>to compensate for inherently poor acoustic tone quality.
This is total bullshit. The tone quality of a modern day Bechstein or
Fazioli is light years ahead of any historichord.
>There is nothing worse than dry as dust pedal-free castrated Bach on
>a Steinway.
Yes there is. Dry as dust pedal free castrated Bach on a historichord.
>If you are playing a Steinway then play it like a Steinway...use the
>full tonal resources it can achieve. Remember you are playing a
>transciption. Why play it with one hand tied behind?
>The question then becomes one of musical taste.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How condescending!
>How far do we take the transcription?
As far as it takes to make a satisfying musical experience.
>It's a question of degree. But pedal-free Bach is just as far from the
>acoustic quality of the original as Bach pedalled like Chopin.
>
>> It is highly unlikely that *any* sounds you can produce on the piano
>> will be representative of what Bach or Scarlatti had in mind. They
>> did not write their music to be performed on the piano. So if you
>> believe that preserving the composer's "original intent" is important,
>> don't play Bach on the piano, even though virtually all great pianists
>> beginning with Mozart and Beethoven have done so.
>
>This may be so but it is irrelevant. Transcribing the music of pre-20thC
>composers to the modern piano is an art-form in its own right and should
>be judged accordingly. There will be good and bad transcriptions. There
>is no such thing as "original intent"...it makes a lot more sense to
>think in terms of stylistic conventions and acoustical quality.
This argument is simply amazing in the narrowness of its bigotism. If the
composer's original intent doesn't count for much, why should stylistic
conventions of the period count at all?
>These are variables we can discover from original sources. We can never
>know anything about "original intent". The argument of Beethoven and
>Mozart playing Bach on the piano is not valid...the pianos used by
>these composers were quite different from the modern piano, and
>acoustically much closer to the harpsichord.
But they were still different enough from the harpsichord to fall under
your own designation as transcriptions.
>Thus a straight rendition of
By your own statements above, there is no such thing as a "straight"
transcription.
>Bach on a fortepiano is very effective.
Not even close to a modern concert grand.
>> [...] And don't play Bach or
>> Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
>> their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
>> instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
>> (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
>>
>This is the basis for the revival of historical instruments. The
The main basis for the revival of historical instruments is some people's
pathological obsession with historical "correctness".
>harpsichord first and more recently the fortepiano. Only within the past
>15 years have we gained enough knowledge to approximate the pianos of
>the first half of the 19th C. The results are incredible for what they
>reveal about the music.
Instruments reveal absolutely nothing about music - artists do. If
you think that original instruments could reveal the music better
than contemporary ones, how do you explain the fact that none of
the truly great pianists of this century were inclined to switch
to period instruments?!?
>Nevertheless this does not invalidate the continuance of the tradition
>of transcribing this music for the Steinway.
>> My job as a
>> performer, as I see it, is to create a good musical experience for the
>> audience here and now; I will use the pedal(s) as much as necessary to
>> create what I consider good music, whether that means no pedal or
>> pedalling as with Debussy. The same considerations apply to dynamics,
>> tempo and articulation. A performer, as I see it, is not a sort of
>> musical archeologist.
>>
>Vitality is crucial, but you must be honest to yourself when you are
>transcribing the music. Learning about, and adopting, stylistic
>conventions of earlier periods may be a sort of archeology but a
>good performance must be alive, whether modern or historically informed.
>It is only the 20thC that has developed the anal-retentive approach...in
>earlier periods such performances would never have been accepted.
How does one know? Have you been there and come back?
>: Many thanks for what I consider the best-articulated statement I've read
>: in a long time on the question of, or need for, performance "authenticity"
>: (unless, of course, one is trying to pass off a madern interpretation for
>: a historical re-creation).
>
>This last comment is absolutely incorrect. The > marked comments above
>are totally unenlightening about historical performance. The entire post
>was a concealed attempt at self-justification for why *only* transcription
>is justified for this music...from someone who appears to not have the
>interest, or time, to do some homework and learn about historical style
>and taste. Transcription is perfectly valid, but should be judged on its
>own merits.
>
>
>Stephen Birkett (Fortepianos)
^^^^^^^^^^^
No vested interests here?
>Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does this mean? How can reproductions be "authentic"?
dk
Stephen Birkett
:I understand the thought of trying to reproduce the harpsicord on the piano. I
:have played the harpsicord in the past to better understand the Baroque Era.
:However, perhaps there is some confusion regarding _why_ one wishes to (or not)
:use the pedal. I would think what is hoped to be gained in not using the pedal
:is clarity. Many pianists, I notice, have great difficulty separating voices
:and keeping the texture clear while using the pedal. Understandable. It's not
:a trivial task.
of the fine performances which are lauded as being `pedal-less' will
actually be using the pedal in a myriad of subtle ways. This is difficult
to so without affecting the musical texture, but it is crucial.
Separation of voices is extremely difficult to achieve on the modern
piano, precisely because of the equality of tone throughout all the
registers - the so dearly-loved characteristic of say a Steinway!
Earlier pianos and harpsichords have more well-defined tonal changes in the
different registers which makes it much easier to separate the voices in
a contrapuntal texture. On a Steinway we must resort to trickery to
simulate the very tonal differences that are lacking.
:Indeed, in one sense, playing multi-voiced music on a harpsicord is much easier
:since it usually has more than one manual (keyboard), each of which has a
:different sound. Thus, one may jump between the two to separate lines or
:accentuate certain notes. Of course, one also accentuates notes by timing
: (e.g. a pause before the note) as well.
Last point is right. But the *vast* majority of historical harpsichords
had only a single manual, and, the kind of manual hopping you describe
was not practised. Each piece was played in a single registration
throughout. It is the differentiated registers of the early instruments
which make contrapuntal lines stand out...like a painting with perspective
vs one without.
:Now, on the piano, how do we separate lines? We may use dynamics, but then are
:we true to the spirit of a harpsicord? No.
Yes we are. It is precisely through the use of the modern piano's ability to
control dynamics of single notes that the contrapuntal textures may best
be put into relief. Play a piano like a piano.
:The different manuals have decays
:of different times (in additional to toanl differences).
Not true...but decay time isn't relevant.
:Any dynamic changes
:(except, perhaps using the una corda [something analogous also existed on
:harpsicords]) would no longer be consistent with a period performance.
False on both counts. If you mean the buff stop on a harpsichord this was
a very late addition and is irrelevant to almost all the harpsichord
literature. In any case, as I noted above, dynamics are essential for
separating voices on a modern piano, so *not* using them is inconsistent
with historical practice. A dry-deady texture would never have been
tolerated...any more than a muddy one. Richness of tone is a fundamental
characteristic of early keyboards.
:Now, what about pedal? It may be argued that since we're using dynamics, why
:not go ahead and use pedaling as well? Such arguments invariably are where,
:in the author's opinion, much unnecessary heated battles are fought.
Pedal is crucial to performance on a modern piano...not using it gives a
second-rate performance.
[.....]
:the voices one will need to use dynamics levels - obviously, unlike a harp-
:sicord.
You should not try to play *like* a harpsichord, rather simulate the
tonal conception produced when the music is played on a harpsichord. This
requires fine control of dynamics on individual notes...the great strength
of the modern piano, but this is the nub of what makes fine playing of Bach,
Scarlatti, etc so difficult to achieve on the modern piano.
:But, to build the structure, as stated, may use finger legato.
:Unfortunately, the modern piano requires a much greater reach (legato 5ths in
:one hand) than a harpsicord. Thus, especially for those with smaller hands,
:it seems in order to preserve the structure of the piece, one would need to
:resort to pedalling for some of the reaches.
LEGATO touch on a modern piano is DEATH to contrapuntal textures! [BTW the
ocatve span on a harpsichord, though, smaller than a Steinway, was not
significantly smaller...measure it and check. Anyone interested in some
data on octave spans of different pianos??]
[.....]
:Scarlatti piece, we consider the necessity of restricting the range of dynamic
:levels (we note that pieces were played with more reticence in that era).
No!! Historical performance was a vital lively affair...it is the 20thC
reverance for this music which results in reticent performances. `Go for
it' is more suggestive.
:Now,
:if we wish to differentiate difference voices, we may try first attempt some
:timing changes (such as pauses before or between notes). However, we must also
:consider we are playing to a modern audience and such old-fashioned ideas may
:be unfamiliar - especially when played on the piano.
For the most part these sound strange on the piano and don't have the
same effect as on the harpsichord....so why use them. They are essential
on a harpsichord, which must simulate dynamics, but anachronistic on a
piano, which has a wide dynamic palette available. The reverse situation
to that with respect to tone...the hpsd has a wide tonal palette, the
modern piano a very restricted one.
[....]
:I must emphasize that the above is not an argument for using pedals everywhere
:for the sake of color in of itself.
Color is *precisely* why one uses the pedal in this music...to compensate
for the tonal inadequacies of the modern piano...the register-uniform
dryness of unpedalled tone.
:A similar argument is not needed for using the pedals in Mozart. This is
:simply since we have a famous quote by Mozart himself who states using the
:pedals (well, the analogous of that in his day) in one of his concerts (being
:pleased with the response of it).
Unfortunately the can of worms is just as big for Mozart. This quote is
not correct. Mozart was referring to the pedal piano which he had
made...this was a special 1.5 octave piano with pedals like an organ
instead of the usual keys. M used this under his regular piano in some of
his concerts...especially when he was improvising, but probably also in some
of the concertos. [The evidence on this pedal piano has recently been
misinterpreted in a well-known journal so don't believe everything that is
written on this]. The situation is actually worse, because recent
research indicates that Mozart's last piano may have had no knee levers
(the contemporary equivalent of the sustaining pedal...damper raising device)
in the period when he owned it...those knee-levers on the M piano in
Salzburg may be a later addition to the instrument after Mozart's
death. The action, too, is not original, but this is another story...too
long to go into here. This post is already too long!
:In all composers, what must again be emphasized particularly in the Baroque
:and Classical Era piano pieces is that clarity cannot be sacrificed. This was
:much easier in those days since the tone of those instruments decayed much
:more quickly than does the modern piano. Even in the Romantic Era,
:pianists
:such as Liszt and Chopin were particularly noted for maintaining
:clarity, even in the most densest of passages.
I agree...clarity is important. As I explain above decay is not an issue
is achieving this though...it is tone. The pianos of Chopin, Schumann
etc....another story, maybe another post....all for now
Stephen Birkett (Fortepianos)
Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
ences of registers on a modern grand piano. The whole point is to separate
and/or accentuate voices/lines. I agree that in part, the separation of voices
is due to differences in registers. But, what _is_ the point here is what to
do on a modern grand. Also, I'd like to point out that while it may be true
that the majority of harpsicords may of have only one manual, composers like
Scarlatti were comissioned (or retained) by those who could do a little better.
For instance, in Scalatti's case, he served in the Spanish courts tutoring
Maria Barbara (later Queen of Spain). One can see her playing a double-manual
harpsicord in the painting by Van Loo. In certain pieces, I would of expected
the performer to use the second manual to avoid "traffic jams". For instance,
in J. S. Bach's WTC Bk. 2, in the second Fugue toward the end (last 4 measures)
we see the left hand dive in to the middle of something the right hand was
playing. Also, I would of thought (perhaps I am wrong in this) that the
middle C is repeated in both staffs would of indicated something. I don't
know.
I reading the previous poster's reply, I must say either the poster didn't read
my post carefully, or I worded things badly. In his defense, I think it was
the latter. :-) To rephrase, what I mean by "We may use dynamics [to separate
lines], but then are we true to the spirit of a harpsicord? No." is that I was
noting how limiting it is to attempt to reproduce the harpsicord's effects on
a piano by trying to make the piano in to a harpsicord by playing it so. In
fact, as for my own preferences, I agree with the previous poster that one
should use dynamics, etc. for Baroque music on the piano.
Decay times is extremely relevant in playing especially Baroque pieces. We
know for a fact that the decay time is much shorter on a harpsicord than on a
modern grand. This greatly affects things such as tempo, touch, etc. that is
difference between playing on such different instruments.
I think the previous poster and I do agree one should not try to play like a
harpsicord. I must apologize if the wording was such that was not clear. My
post was, again, to show how limiting (indeed futile) it is to trying playing
thus. There are too many differences between a piano and harpsicord to ignore
them.
Legato touch on a modern piano is NOT DEATH to contrapuntal textures! What is
more correct would be over-legato touch :-) [to coin a term] is DEATH to such
textures. Legato touch, in my view can mean anything from near-staccato to
something pretty Chopineque :-). One would not wish to use the latter on such
pieces, but why not some legato touch? (Just a touch of it :-) to give some
colour here and there. Done deftly enough, it may come out sounding natural.)
Having played a harpsicord, the span is smaller. (Ugh, my fingers get stuck
between the black, er white, keys. :-) :-) ) True, it is not _that_ much
smaller, but it is, in my opinion, siginficant enough. People who can play
octaves on a Steinway can most likely play easily a 9th on a harpsicord. (Ego
booster, for sure :-).) At least that's what I've noticed. Maybe others have
had difference experiences...
There is a difference between reticence and being lively. I don't think one
precludes the other. Perhaps rather the term noble may be better than
reticence. I don't know. Language always gives me such a headache.
Lastly, we know that Mozart did use a Walter. My recollection (admittantly
fuzzy :-) ) was that it was Walter's pianos that Mozart preferred during the
greater part of his composing career. I would hope that the previous poster
would confirm or tell me otherwise on this. Again, decay is very important
since clarity and choice of tempo results from this. I cannot understand how
such a physically fundamental difference between instruments would be ignored.
Just my own opinions, as usual.
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
P.S. Oh yes, I also think that the shorter decay time is why Chopin wrote what
he did as opposed to something else if he was composing on a modern Steinway.
Martha Beth Lewis
>
>>There is nothing worse than dry as dust pedal-free castrated Bach on
>>a Steinway.
>
>Yes there is. Dry as dust pedal free castrated Bach on a historichord.
Dan, have you ever played a harpsichord? Have you ever had
instruction on how to play it correctly?
>>> [...] And don't play Bach or
>>> Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers
intended>>> their music to be performed over 200 years after their
deaths on>>> instruments and under conditions that did not exist in
their time>>> (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
>>>
>>This is the basis for the revival of historical instruments. The
>The main basis for the revival of historical instruments is some
people's>pathological obsession with historical "correctness".
Dan, in my opinion, the basis for the revival was curiosity.
How would this music sound if played on an instrument such as
the composer had? From there, the question is: how does the
tonal quality and physical characteristics of producing the
sound on this instrument influence how the music was written?
Performers, composers, and instrument makers have always been
a triumvirate--each one pushing the other two to expand the
envelope.
>>harpsichord first and more recently the fortepiano. Only within
the past 15 years have we gained enough knowledge to approximate the
pianos of the first half of the 19th C. The results are incredible for
what they reveal about the music.
>
>Instruments reveal absolutely nothing about music
I do not agree with you here. The instruments -do- reveal a lot
about the music. As I asked earlier, has anyone showed you how
to play a harpsichord? Have you tried Bach (for ex) on one?
For example, bcs there is no opportunity to increase volume except
to add another choir of strings (which not all instuments have),
the effect of volume must be fabricated. This is done with
ornaments, arpeggiating chords, doubling roots and fifths in
chords, and so on. Similarly, since phrases cannot be shaped
with dynamics, other techniques are used, such as lifts.
Polyphony on a harpsichord is nearly always (in my memory, at
any rate) more clear and crisp on a harpsichord than a piano.
I encourage you to do some more exploration. Thank you for
your post. martha Beth
Martha Beth Lewis
stick my oar in, too.
I agree that legato touch has its place in contrapuntal music. What is
usually the case is that one voice (one hand, in 2-pt music) is legato
while the other is detached (not the same as staccato, in my mind). It
is precisely this difference in articulation that enables the ear to
follow both voices.
I use these rules of thumb in my teaching: if it's stepwise motion,
play legato; if it's a leap, detach (yes, "leap" is open to
interpretation and is quite contextual).
Martha Beth
Stephen Birkett
speaking I don't feel inclined to defend myself against such
attacks...but this is an important topic.
Dan Koren (d...@netcom.com) wrote:
: The reason why so many people who like to play Bach on the piano are
: being so defensive is the ever increasing number, and loudness of,
: attacks by original instrument bigots like you who require musical
: performances to be "historically informed".
:
According to Oxford Dictionary a `bigot' is someone who holds an obstinate
and intolerant view. Now anyone who had read my posts carefully would
have noticed that I myself play all of this pre-20C music on a
Steinway, as well as on various historical instruments...I have been
very careful to make this clear in everything I've posted. One of the
main points I make is that playing such music on the modern piano should
not have to be justified...I have NEVER held, nor stated, any view which is
intolerant of this practice. The purpose for my post was to offer some
practical suggestions, based on my knowledge of historical instruments and
playing this music on both original instruments and the modern piano, for
its interpretation on the modern piano. Mr Koren's emotive and defensive
response is a perfect illustration of my point about the increasingly
insecure feeling of people who play pre-20thC music on the modern piano.
: By these criteria, any musical performance is a transcription. The only
: place where music exists "untranscribed" is on paper. And don't forget
: that Bach transcribed himself many of his (and other composers' pieces)
: to different instruments.
:
Transcription is the process of transferring a composition from its
original instrument to some other instrument(s). The essential change
involves the tonal conception. It is an Art Form in its own right (I made
that point earlier). Some transcriptions will be good, some poor...but
the success of a transcription depends on how effectively it uses the
special characteristics of the instrument to which the music is
transferred. Acoustically and tonally the keyboard instruments for which
Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms etc. conceived and
played their music are *drastically* different from the modern piano...this
is a fact which cannot be disputed (not an opinion). Therefore we are
transcribing the music when we play it on the modern piano. If we play it
on an instrument which is an accurate reproduction of an original
instrument then we are *not* transcribing. We are hearing the same tonal
concept that the original composers heard. [Music does *not* exist `on
paper'...you cannot divorce music from some tonal conception, whether
fortepiano or bassdrum and triangle.]
: >to compensate for inherently poor acoustic tone quality of the modern
: >piano.
: This is total bullshit. The tone quality of a modern day Bechstein or
: Fazioli is light years ahead of any historichord.
:
My comments are not subjective nor are they opinion.
My comments are based on the tonal spectra of the instruments. In order
of decreasing richness of upper harmonics and increasing strength of
fundamental the strung keyboards are as follows: 1) clavichord
2) harpsichord 3) fortepiano 4) modern piano. The loss of upper harmonics
on the modern piano is extreme compared to the other instruments in the
list. This is why continuous pedal is so essential to compensate and
increase the upper harmonics which are not present in the unadorned sound
of say a Steinway. There are important implications of this for playing
contrapuntal music which I attempted to explain in my post. The original
performers did not have to worry about this.
: >If you are playing a Steinway then play it like a Steinway...use the
: >full tonal resources it can achieve. Remember you are playing a
: >transciption. Why play it with one hand tied behind?
: >The question then becomes one of musical taste.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: How condescending!
:
Missed the point again. `Musical taste' is a subject about which the
historical writings are profuse. Read f.i. C.P.E. Bach's book. `Good
taste' has been noted throughout history as arguably the single most
important element of a fine performance. There is nothing `condescending'
about my reference to it. If you choose to transcribe Beethoven to a
Steinway and play it with 20thC musical taste then your efforts must be
judged by the prevailing notions of 20thC taste. There is nothing personal
about this subject...nor has there ever been.
: >This may be so but it is irrelevant. Transcribing the music of pre-20thC
: >composers to the modern piano is an art-form in its own right and should
: >be judged accordingly. There will be good and bad transcriptions. There
: >is no such thing as "original intent"...it makes a lot more sense to
: >think in terms of stylistic conventions and acoustical quality.
: This argument is simply amazing in the narrowness of its bigotism. If the
: composer's original intent doesn't count for much, why should stylistic
: conventions of the period count at all?
:
Another reference to `bigotism'?? I repeat that I am far from intolerant. My
point again was missed entirely. We can never know what a composer was
thinking (intent?)...what we *can* discover and accurately reproduce are
the many conventions and subtleties which were not notated in an original
score. Our musical conventions are quite different from Mozart's. The way
we in the 20thC interpet notation in a score is quite different from the
meaning of the notation originally. Many things that a performer was
expected to do automatically were not notated, just because this was
considered to be universally practised. Omitting them makes a big
difference. Read the historical literature about this...it is not mysterious.
: >These are variables we can discover from original sources. We can never
: >know anything about "original intent". The argument of Beethoven and
: >Mozart playing Bach on the piano is not valid...the pianos used by
: >these composers were quite different from the modern piano, and
: >acoustically much closer to the harpsichord.
: But they were still different enough from the harpsichord to fall under
: your own designation as transcriptions.
:
Yes. But how close is the instrument for the transciption? This is very
important to how one goes about constructing the transcription. That is
my main point. The modern piano is vastly different tonally to *all* the
earlier keyboard instruments. When we play Mozart, Couperin, especially
Schumann, we are doing major transcription...to get an effective result
on a Steinway needs great skill and care. Look at the transcriptions
which Beethoven did...and look at Liszt's transcriptions. Then compare
them to Bach's transcriptions. The skill of Liszt in the Art of
transcription is superb compared to that of Bach.
: >Thus a straight rendition of
: By your own statements above, there is no such thing as a "straight"
: transcription.
:
I said straight *rendition*...meaning no thoughts of transcription. Just
play the music. Still sounds ok.
: The main basis for the revival of historical instruments is some people's
: pathological obsession with historical "correctness".
:
Why is it pathological to seek to understand the conventions and ubiquitous
practices of an earlier era so that musical interpretation may take
advantage of this knowledge? Again I repeat that I don't reject your
approach to this literature. This sort of emotive defensiveness again
illustrates my point of a pereceived threat...the need to justify what
you do etc. It's quite interesting to hear musicians like Perlman and
Solti sounding so defensive and attacking `historically informed
performance' [I hate that expression but you know what is meant] in
recent interviews.
: >harpsichord first and more recently the fortepiano. Only within the past
: >15 years have we gained enough knowledge to approximate the pianos of
: >the first half of the 19th C. The results are incredible for what they
: >reveal about the music.
: Instruments reveal absolutely nothing about music - artists do. If
: you think that original instruments could reveal the music better
: than contemporary ones, how do you explain the fact that none of
: the truly great pianists of this century were inclined to switch
: to period instruments?!?
:
On the contrary instruments reveal an enormous amount! The music was
never conceived in an abstract sense...composers used instruments. Many
pianists, who choose to continue to use the modern piano, recognize this
fact and have publically discussed how much can be learned from the original
instruments. This is well-known. Read. Play a fine 1835 Graf and see for
yourself what can be learned. Experiment. Until you do this you cannot
state that nothing can be learned from the effort. Another point is a
practical one...until very recently the knowledge and experience
necessary to restore or reproduce fine historical pianos was lacking.
This is one of the problems of the revival of historical instruments.
Early efforts were very bad. The situation is much better now but there
are still a lot of very bad `early pianos' around.
: >Vitality is crucial, but you must be honest to yourself when you are
: >transcribing the music. Learning about, and adopting, stylistic
: >conventions of earlier periods may be a sort of archeology but a
: >good performance must be alive, whether modern or historically informed.
: >It is only the 20thC that has developed the anal-retentive approach...in
: >earlier periods such performances would never have been accepted.
: How does one know? Have you been there and come back?
:
If you take the trouble to read the historical writings you will see for
yourself...they are very explicit. It is not mysterious.
: >Stephen Birkett (Fortepianos)
: ^^^^^^^^^^^
: No vested interests here?
:
What's the point. This is my standard signature block so that my
interests and background are clearly evident to people who read my posts.
Actually it omits the fact that I am also a professional pianist and teacher.
:
>Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: What does this mean? How can reproductions be "authentic"?
:
I incorporate this precisely because of the points I discuss above. So
many modern `copies' of early pianos have so many compromises of design
and materials that their resemblance to the instruments of the 18th and
19th Century is minimal. Unfortunately these are the instruments which
are being judged and deemed unsatisfactory by people like Mr Koren. If you
would like to hear an `authentic' fortepiano, buy a copy of Alexei Lubimeev
playing Schubert Impromptus [before you make another remark about
`vested interests', no it is not one of my pianos.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This posted reply to my comments precicely illustrates my point about
insecurity and defensiveness from `traditional' musicians. And this is in
spite of being very careful to state my position. There is room in the
musical world for all variety. I, for one, have no wish to limit that.
Stephen Birkett (Fortepianos)
Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
Thomas Sheehan
'sbir...@uoguelph.ca (Stephen Birkett)' wrote:
>This posted reply to my comments precicely illustrates my point about
>insecurity and defensiveness from `traditional' musicians. And this is in
>spite of being very careful to state my position. There is room in the
>musical world for all variety. I, for one, have no wish to limit that.
Steve -
I really agree with this portion of your reply to what was a puzzlingly
vehement reply to your original posting. Sure, there may be items of
opinion that you've raised, but they seem to be extremely well-informed by
a sincere study and appreciation for the artisanry of the historical piano
makers.
I think that RMMP is a place where passionately held views can and should
be aired, but there is absolutely no bandwidth available for ad hominem
attacks. What's the point?
Thank you for a measured reply, and best regards to you in your research
and practice of piano crafting.
Sincerely,
Thomas
--
Thomas A. Sheehan
Concert Systems, Inc.
aqu...@nyc.pipeline.com
Stephen Birkett
: ences of registers on a modern grand piano. The whole point is to separate
: and/or accentuate voices/lines. I agree that in part, the separation of voices
: is due to differences in registers. But, what _is_ the point here is what to
: do on a modern grand.
Exactly *my* point. You have to do something...I suggest a fine
pianist uses subtle dynamics to achieve this clarity of voices.
: Also, I'd like to point out that while it may be true
: that the majority of harpsicords may of have only one manual, composers like
: Scarlatti were comissioned (or retained) by those who could do a little better.
: For instance, in Scalatti's case, he served in the Spanish courts tutoring
: Maria Barbara (later Queen of Spain). One can see her playing a double-manual
: harpsicord in the painting by Van Loo.
:
The inventory of keyboard instruments in Maria Barbara's estate (she died
13 months after Scarlatti) includes 4 single manual harpsichords, 2
double manual harpsichords and 4 (Cristofori style) pianos...also 2
pianos that had been converted to single man. harpsichords probably
because of mechanical problems. The single manual harpsichord is by
far the most common and *almost* all the harpsichord literature is
comfortable without the second manual. Notice the prominence of the *piano*
in the inventory! See a recent article on Scarlatti and the piano in
Early Music...it appears that Kirkpatrick was not altogether scholarly in
his presentation of the evidence for Scarlatti's preference for the
harpsichord. Not true.
: Also, I would of thought (perhaps I am wrong in this) that the
: middle C is repeated in both staffs would of indicated something. I don't
: know.
:
Unisons in this context imply coincident notes in two different
voices...doesn't imply two manuals.
: I was
: noting how limiting it is to attempt to reproduce the harpsicord's effects on
: a piano by trying to make the piano in to a harpsicord by playing it so. In
: fact, as for my own preferences, I agree with the previous poster that one
: should use dynamics, etc. for Baroque music on the piano.
:
Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments here. We agree on this then. A
piano should be played like a piano.
: Decay times is extremely relevant in playing especially Baroque pieces. We
: know for a fact that the decay time is much shorter on a harpsicord than on a
: modern grand. This greatly affects things such as tempo, touch, etc. that is
: difference between playing on such different instruments.
:
Of course decay is extremely significant...my point was that, with
regard to voicing contrapuntal music, tone quality is much more
relevant. As for decay...if you want to learn what Beethoven's
Pathethic (Op 13) Sonata is all about, I mean the fp on the first chord,
listen to it played (or best play it) on a fortepiano. It is impossible to
recreate this effect on a Steinway. This is also what Schubert meant
with all his sfp and szp markings. And the others....
: post was, again, to show how limiting (indeed futile) it is to trying playing
: thus. There are too many differences between a piano and harpsicord to ignore
: them.
:
Absolutely.
: Having played a harpsicord, the span is smaller. (Ugh, my fingers get stuck
: between the black, er white, keys. :-) :-) )
:
This is not necessarily because of a smaller octave span. The arrangement
of the black and white keys has varied historically...on some older
instruments the space between the balck keys is less, hence the fingers
can get stuck. Also the length of the respective keys has changed.
: True, it is not _that_ much
: smaller, but it is, in my opinion, siginficant enough. People who can play
: octaves on a Steinway can most likely play easily a 9th on a harpsicord. (Ego
: booster, for sure :-).) At least that's what I've noticed. Maybe others have
: had difference experiences...
:
The octave span is less, the question is is this difference significant.
Will check some data and post results...these things are measurable.
: Lastly, we know that Mozart did use a Walter. My recollection (admittantly
: fuzzy :-) ) was that it was Walter's pianos that Mozart preferred during the
: greater part of his composing career. I would hope that the previous poster
: would confirm or tell me otherwise on this. Again, decay is very important
: since clarity and choice of tempo results from this. I cannot understand how
: such a physically fundamental difference between instruments would be ignored.
:
Mozart bought a Walter in 1783 and used this until the end of his life.
The instrument in the birth-house in Salzburg is supposed to be the one,
but this has been altered significantly at least twice, possibly as early
as 1800. We don't know what Mozart's Walter was like when he had it. It
may not have had knee-levers, it may have had bamboo hammers, etc. It was
probably more `harpichord-like' than suggested by its current state. The
scale (string lengths) is very long (302mm at c2) and therefore the
original strings would have been very thin. Walter made instruments for
many years...most of his instruments are not indicative of the Mozart
piano sound. The piano changed a lot in just a decade at that time.
[Decay is of course an extremely important characteristic of these
instruments...sorry if my earlier post implied otherwise.]
: P.S. Oh yes, I also think that the shorter decay time is why Chopin wrote what
: he did as opposed to something else if he was composing on a modern Steinway.
:
The decay time on Chopin's Pleyel is actually quite close to that of
modern pianos. The tonal quality though is vastly different. Clearer,
brighter, thinner, softer, more harmonics, differentiation of registers etc.
I believe we can learn even more from the original instruments of composers
like Chopin and Schumann. But we are only just unravelling how to build them.
Jim Michmerhuizen
OH, um, I guess that's ok for a default. Yeah, in fact, it's my default
too when I'm beginning to work up a piece. Exceptions _do_ come up. In
BWV 651 ("Komm Heiliger Geist, Herre Gott", the first of the Great Eighteen
Chorale Preludes), the sixteenth-note theme in the manuals would seem to be
an obvious instance of connect the steps and disconnect the leaps. But
it sounds dead that way. So I reverse the rule, for this piece of music,
and it goes off like a string of firecrackers.
And, on the piano (the BWV 651 is a synthesized performance), there's some-
thing else that can work wonders. You hear Gould doing it sometimes. You
can force a "perceived" connection between two consecutive notes by playing
them _sharply_ disconnected. For example, leaving a big space between an
appoggiatura and its resolution.
Mark Charette
: In <dkDB0F...@netcom.com> d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
: >Yes there is. Dry as dust pedal free castrated Bach on a historichord.
: Dan, have you ever played a harpsichord? Have you ever had
: instruction on how to play it correctly?
...
: >people's pathological obsession with historical "correctness".
: Dan, in my opinion, the basis for the revival was curiosity.
: How would this music sound if played on an instrument such as
: the composer had? From there, the question is: how does the
: tonal quality and physical characteristics of producing the
: sound on this instrument influence how the music was written?
: Performers, composers, and instrument makers have always been
: a triumvirate--each one pushing the other two to expand the
: envelope.
...
: about the music. As I asked earlier, has anyone showed you how
: to play a harpsichord? Have you tried Bach (for ex) on one?
To second (or third or fourth) Martha Beth:
Listen to some of Christopher Hogwood directing The Acadamy of Ancient
Music. I, for one, do not find the sound a "pathological obsession" in any
sense of the term. Do I find all the compositions as "nice" as modern ones?
Nope (especially some of the Gluck he performs). Do I find them all
interesting? Yup. The reproduction or original instruments, along with
different seating position (IRT modern orchestras) bring out different lines,
some lost in modern orchestras, The overplayed Pachelbel Canon (with Gigue) is
especially enchanting when performed as the original was intended (3 solo
violins & continuo).
--
Mark Charette char...@mika.com
MIKA Systems, Inc
17197 N. Laurel Park Dr Suite 115
Livonia, MI 48152
Chris Winkler
>mar...@ix.netcom.com (Martha Beth Lewis) writes:
>
>>Toshi wrote about legato touch in contrapuntal music, and I'd like to
>>stick my oar in, too.
>
>>I agree that legato touch has its place in contrapuntal music. What is
>>usually the case is that one voice (one hand, in 2-pt music) is legato
>>while the other is detached (not the same as staccato, in my mind). It
>>is precisely this difference in articulation that enables the ear to
>>follow both voices.
>
>>I use these rules of thumb in my teaching: if it's stepwise motion,
>>play legato; if it's a leap, detach (yes, "leap" is open to
>>interpretation and is quite contextual).
>
I am afraid I don't agree with either of these rules of thumb for "legato touch"
for playing contrapuntal music.
In general when you are playing 16th notes you play them legato. When you are playing
eighth notes you might detach but there are too many exceptions to generalize.
You may find that the rule of stepwise motion for legato sort of works because
many 16th note running passages are very stepwise.
As for playing one hand legato and the other stacatto, I believe this would defeat
the goal of bringing out the most important voice. The most important voice will
follow a phrase line and along with it a corresponding articulation line. If you
generalize that one hand plays legato you will destroy this line and end up with an
endless stream of notes. Phrasing is a very important part of contrapuntal music
and articulation is one aspect of your phrasing.
Chris
Richard Carnes
:This may be so but it is irrelevant. Transcribing the music of
:pre-20thC composers to the modern piano is an art-form in its own
:right and should be judged accordingly. There will be good and bad
:transcriptions. There is no such thing as "original intent"...it makes
:a lot more sense to think in terms of stylistic conventions and
:acoustical quality. These are variables we can discover from original
:sources. We can never know anything about "original intent". The
:argument of Beethoven and Mozart playing Bach on the piano is not
:valid...
My point was that these great composers evidently were not concerned
with Bach's "original intent" when they played the WTC (Mozart also
transcribed some of it for strings), any more than Schumann was when
he added piano parts to the solo violin works, or Busoni when he
transcribed organ works.
:> [...] And don't play Bach or
:> Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
:> their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
:> instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
:> (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
:>
:This is the basis for the revival of historical instruments.
I don't understand; what is the antecedent of "this" in the sentence
above?
[cut to the chase]
:The > marked comments above
:are totally unenlightening about historical performance. The entire
:post was a concealed attempt at self-justification for why *only*
:transcription is justified for this music...from someone who appears
:to not have the interest, or time, to do some homework and learn about
:historical style and taste. Transcription is perfectly valid, but
:should be judged on its own merits.
Excuse me? How do you get from my post the implication that *only*
transcription is justified for Bach and Scarlatti? I do say, however,
that performance differs from archeology or museum curatorship in that
performance is not and cannot be the reconstruction or preservation of
some historical artifact, such as "what Bach had in mind". Even if we
were to reproduce the sounds that Bach would have regarded as an ideal
performance, we could not experience the music in the same way that he
or his first audiences did: the whole framework in which we listen to
the music has changed in many ways. Theater people seem to have a
better understanding of this point than many musicians. With all the
very valuable historical research into Shakespeare's topical
allusions, performance practice at the Globe, etc., few directors or
theater-goers suppose that we can or should recreate Shakespeare's
"original intent" in a modern performance -- let alone that of
Aeschylus or Aristophanes.
Richard
mpel...@eciad.bc.ca
: stick my oar in, too.
: I agree that legato touch has its place in contrapuntal music. What is
: usually the case is that one voice (one hand, in 2-pt music) is legato
: while the other is detached (not the same as staccato, in my mind). It
: is precisely this difference in articulation that enables the ear to
: follow both voices.
: I use these rules of thumb in my teaching: if it's stepwise motion,
: play legato; if it's a leap, detach (yes, "leap" is open to
: interpretation and is quite contextual).
: Martha Beth
I actualy use a some what complex set of phraising when playing Bach. I
found that when one plays Bach with accepted rules or 'conventions' the
whole thing becomes quite dry and I quench for a *big* glass of water. Bach
was a genious not because of mathematically briliant counterpoint, but
becuase he could burry his music in this kind of mathematical dungeon.
Think like a pirate, you got the treasure map, you have to start
digging. Once a pianist has perfected a peice, then, and only then are
they ready to play it themselves to try and figure out where the song
realy is at.
Hehehe IMHO of courese.
-marc
Chris Winkler
>Absolutely. Also consider, as another example, the effect of the shorter
>decay time on one of the fundamental piano textures in Schubert, the
>repeated-chord or repeated-arpeggiation texture. On an instrument like a
>Graf this produces an exquisite shimmer, which, in my opinion, is clearly
>what Schubert intended. On a modern piano, it produces thick, opaque MUD
>(I don't think Schubert intended this, although there are souls who will
>argue about this point). Folks like Beethoven and Schubert understood the
>instruments of their time and wrote music eminently suited to them.
>
>Don't agree with you on the first point. Just observe some of Chopin's
>pedal markings, which work quite beautifully on a Pleyel or an Erard but
>which smear the sound on a modern piano. However, maybe this is for
>reasons other than decay time, like the strength of the fundamental tone
>(my lack of technical knowledge on this subject begins to show). Agree
>with you heartily on the second point ("... we can learn even more ...").
>So far, the only maker I know of who is successfully making copies of
>later fortepianos is Rod Regier, who had a Graf copy on display at the
>BEMF. However, without in any way intending to demean Mr. Regier or the
>very high quality of his work, I must say that this Graf copy was not
>really the equal of the Graf originals I've played. I think that while a
>number of modern builders have beautifully mastered the construction of
>Walter copies, there is still some ways to go in the construction of Graf
>copies. I hope for the best.
>
I absolutely agree that Chopin and Schubert were writing for a different sounding
piano and that if that intent is not at least considered then some of the beauty
of the music will be lost. It may not be necessary to re-create their intent
especially since a different sound comes from the modern piano, but it should
be considered carefully to preserve the genius of the composer.
In the Schubert example discussed above, it is quite possible to produce the
shimmer that was intended on the modern piano. Some of the mudiness can be
taken care of by only using partial pedal, ie. not all the way down, and doing
less than full pedal changes, ie. not all the way up, in appropriate places.
The other factor here is to articulate every note even if it is accompaniment. The
melody of course is stronger and drives the phrase structure. The tendency
to have a muddy accompaniment on the modern piano should be avoided for music from
the classical period. Later music is a different question all together.
Chris
Tom
: Separation of voices is extremely difficult to achieve on the modern
: registers - the so dearly-loved characteristic of say a Steinway!
: Earlier pianos and harpsichords have more well-defined tonal changes in
: the different registers which makes it much easier to separate the
: voices in a contrapuntal texture.
Just to add further confusion, note that the late Ralph Kirkpatrick was
not convinced of this. In his late work on the 48, he quotes Nicolo
Pasquali (ca 1760) to the effect that, in fact, the harpsichord does not
separate the voices well.
Pasquali was writing at a time when the harpsichord was on its way out,
& you could easily write him off. But K., who had plenty of experience
as a performer on harpsichords both original & modern, goes on to say,
Legend has it in our own time that the harpsichord is particularly
suited for playing fugues & contrapuntal music in general. I do not
think that this is any more true than Pasquali thought. The problems
of making a fugue intelligible are not necessarily as great as they
are on other keyboard instruments, but it is really hard to choose
between one & the other.
When I play Bach--or Scarlatti--on the harpsichord, of course I hear the
various voices very clearly. But my impressions are worthless: I have
the score in front of me; I know what the voices are doing; & naturally
I think I'm bringing them out well. Subjective data of that kind are
not good for much.
After having thought about the whole harpsichord vs piano issue for half a
lifetime, I've been forced back to a very humbling conclusion. I prefer
these & similar composers on the harpsichord, not because it's "better"
than the piano, not because that reflects the composers' intentions, not
because it (maybe) separates the voices more easily, not because it's more
authentic, but simply because I **like** them that way. That, of course,
is entirely the wrong attitude. But I won't pretend any more, not to
musicological correctness any more than to the political variety (which,
IMHO, it's beginning to resemble).
--Tom, with a bad attitude, who should be barred in perpetuity from
playing the harpsichord (or from posting on this group!) :-)
--
--
Tom Parsons | If a person never contradicts himself,
DTL | it must be that he says nothing.
| --Miguel de Unamuno
Tom
(1) mpel...@eciad.bc.ca wrote:
: Bach
: was a genious not because of mathematically briliant counterpoint, but
: becuase he could burry his music in this kind of mathematical dungeon.
This, I think, is great wisdom. What I hear in Bach is a man for whom
the music came first. I think he delighted to work within, & exploit,
the contrapuntal framework, but to play him well, you have to hear the
music, not the counterpoint (to the extent that it's either-or).
(2) When I studied with Pamela Cook, she taught me the following rule
of thumb: the fastest notes de'tache', the longest notes held. Like all
rules of thumb, it's not ironclad & must be used with discretion; but
overall it imparts a solid, "masculine" sound to the music that I find
very appealing. (Sorry for that non-PC adjective :-) On this foundation
you then do the usual things--phrasing, finger-pedalling, picking out
inner voices, & so on...the music, in fact.
Jen-yen Chen
: Of course decay is extremely significant...my point was that, with
: relevant. As for decay...if you want to learn what Beethoven's
: Pathethic (Op 13) Sonata is all about, I mean the fp on the first chord,
: listen to it played (or best play it) on a fortepiano. It is impossible to
: recreate this effect on a Steinway. This is also what Schubert meant
: with all his sfp and szp markings. And the others....
Absolutely. Also consider, as another example, the effect of the shorter
decay time on one of the fundamental piano textures in Schubert, the
repeated-chord or repeated-arpeggiation texture. On an instrument like a
Graf this produces an exquisite shimmer, which, in my opinion, is clearly
what Schubert intended. On a modern piano, it produces thick, opaque MUD
(I don't think Schubert intended this, although there are souls who will
argue about this point). Folks like Beethoven and Schubert understood the
instruments of their time and wrote music eminently suited to them.
: : True, it is not _that_ much
: : smaller, but it is, in my opinion, siginficant enough. People who can play
: : octaves on a Steinway can most likely play easily a 9th on a harpsicord. (Ego
: : booster, for sure :-).) At least that's what I've noticed. Maybe others have
: : had difference experiences...
: :
: The octave span is less, the question is is this difference significant.
: Will check some data and post results...these things are measurable.
It certainly takes getting used to, if one has always played one
particular span. From my own experience, once one gets used to the
different span, it is not difficult to go back and forth between the two.
I find that I can immediately adjust between modern piano span and
harpsichord/fortepiano span. As a generalization, the former is 165mm to
the octave, the latter 160mm to the octave. However, this measurement can
vary even for instruments of the same historical period. I've encountered
some instruments of the 17th and 18th centuries which had octave spans of
162mm or 165mm.
: The decay time on Chopin's Pleyel is actually quite close to that of
: modern pianos. The tonal quality though is vastly different. Clearer,
: brighter, thinner, softer, more harmonics, differentiation of registers etc.
: I believe we can learn even more from the original instruments of composers
: like Chopin and Schumann. But we are only just unravelling how to build them.
Don't agree with you on the first point. Just observe some of Chopin's
pedal markings, which work quite beautifully on a Pleyel or an Erard but
which smear the sound on a modern piano. However, maybe this is for
reasons other than decay time, like the strength of the fundamental tone
(my lack of technical knowledge on this subject begins to show). Agree
with you heartily on the second point ("... we can learn even more ...").
So far, the only maker I know of who is successfully making copies of
later fortepianos is Rod Regier, who had a Graf copy on display at the
BEMF. However, without in any way intending to demean Mr. Regier or the
very high quality of his work, I must say that this Graf copy was not
really the equal of the Graf originals I've played. I think that while a
number of modern builders have beautifully mastered the construction of
Walter copies, there is still some ways to go in the construction of Graf
copies. I hope for the best.
Jen-yen Chen
Stephen Birkett
: My point was that these great composers evidently were not concerned
: with Bach's "original intent" when they played the WTC (Mozart also
: transcribed some of it for strings), any more than Schumann was when
: he added piano parts to the solo violin works, or Busoni when he
: transcribed organ works.
transcribed the music of their contemporaries and earlier....but such
activity was never intended to be anything else...these are
transcriptions. When Mendelssohn performed the Matthew Passion he had no
choice but to make alterations anyway...this was a practical matter since
the correct period instruments didn't exist. To reproduce music of an
earlier era as it would have sounded requires 1) historical knowledge...so
non-notated conventions are understood, to avoid anachronistic reading
of the score etc and 2) a accurate copies, or restorations, of original
instruments. This is as far as we are able to go...answers to
these questions are not mysterious. Research and common sense are required.
: [...] And don't play Bach or
: Scarlatti at all until you've figured out how the composers intended
: their music to be performed over 200 years after their deaths on
: instruments and under conditions that did not exist in their time
: (hint: they almost certainly never gave it a thought).
:
This is the basis for the revival of historical instruments....determine
HOW the music was performed and use instruments which are the same as
would have been used originally. Such practice doen't
negate conventional 20thC performance...variety is the spice of life.
: Excuse me? How do you get from my post the implication that *only*
: transcription is justified for Bach and Scarlatti?
:
You seemed to be denigrating historical performance on original
instruments on the grounds that we cannot know the composers'
`intentions'. I hope I haven't misinterpreted your posting. My answer to
this is that we should concentrate on what *is* recoverable, rather than
on intangibles like `intent'. We can observe, study historical writings
etc. but we cannot know what was in the mind of a dead composer.
: I do say, however,
: that performance differs from archeology or museum curatorship in that
: performance is not and cannot be the reconstruction or preservation of
: some historical artifact, such as "what Bach had in mind". Even if we
: were to reproduce the sounds that Bach would have regarded as an ideal
: performance, we could not experience the music in the same way that he
: or his first audiences did: the whole framework in which we listen to
: the music has changed in many ways.
:
Reproducing historical performance practice on original instruments is as
far as we can go. That's all. The way in which this is received by modern
audiences is not relevant to understanding the music.
Stephen Birkett
[...on the subject of octave span in early instruments]
: It certainly takes getting used to, if one has always played one
: particular span. From my own experience, once one gets used to the
: different span, it is not difficult to go back and forth between the two.
: I find that I can immediately adjust between modern piano span and
: harpsichord/fortepiano span. As a generalization, the former is 165mm to
: the octave, the latter 160mm to the octave. However, this measurement can
: vary even for instruments of the same historical period. I've encountered
: some instruments of the 17th and 18th centuries which had octave spans of
: 162mm or 165mm.
:
pianos. Will post it shortly.
: : The decay time on Chopin's Pleyel is actually quite close to that of
: : modern pianos. The tonal quality though is vastly different. Clearer,
: : brighter, thinner, softer, more harmonics, differentiation of registers etc.
: : I believe we can learn even more from the original instruments of composers
: : like Chopin and Schumann. But we are only just unravelling how to build them.
: Don't agree with you on the first point. Just observe some of Chopin's
: pedal markings, which work quite beautifully on a Pleyel or an Erard but
: which smear the sound on a modern piano. However, maybe this is for
: reasons other than decay time, like the strength of the fundamental tone
: (my lack of technical knowledge on this subject begins to show).
:
It's a combination of many factors...but tone quality is a major
component. Esp. with regard to strength of the fundamental.
Jim Michmerhuizen
>A harpsichordist's view:
>(2) When I studied with Pamela Cook, she taught me the following rule
>of thumb: the fastest notes de'tache', the longest notes held. Like all
>rules of thumb, it's not ironclad & must be used with discretion; but
>overall it imparts a solid, "masculine" sound to the music that I find
>very appealing. (Sorry for that non-PC adjective :-) On this foundation
>you then do the usual things--phrasing, finger-pedalling, picking out
>inner voices, & so on...the music, in fact.
>--
>--
>Tom Parsons | If a person never contradicts himself,
>DTL | it must be that he says nothing.
> | --Miguel de Unamuno
Bravo Tom Parsons! For two things: having your sensibilities in order, and
quoting de Unamuno in your sig. Nobody does that.
On the harpsichord issue: I sometimes agree, and then not, depending on who
I've most recently listened to. I've got a CD of John Gibbons that's enough
to convince me -- he's _very_ good. Then I hear somebody like Keith Jarrett.
I couldn't make head or tail of the "mathematical dungeon" expression from
the fellow you were responding to, but we agree about what sort of person
Bach was. Some of the numerological "scholarship" that gets published is
beyond belief. One author tried to argue some numerical relationship between
the NUMBER OF NOTES in the entire WTC and the structure of the Art of Fugue!
Stephen Birkett
usual organological method for presenting this information is the 3-octave span
(Stichmass) which is in the vicinity of 500mm. I've translated all the
data into octave spans.
It should be clear from this data that there is no historical pattern to
octave span, whether by date, location or otherwise. Generalizations about
octave spans and their significance to interpretation are clearly spurious.
Also it is a fallacy to suppose that early harpsichords and pianos had smaller
octave spans than the modern piano.
Modern piano range is now more or less standardized close to 165mm.
Piano techs. may be able to supply some data on any modern variation
(e.g. Asian vs American etc.)
HARPSICHORDS
Pisaurensis (1533) = 169mm
Ruckers = 167mm
Pratensis (1612) = 166mm
J. Mayer (1619) = 168mm
Giusti (1676) = 174mm
Italian (1695)= 163mm
Kirkman (1767) = 162mm
Graebner (1774) = 156mm
Clavichord, Schmahl (1794) = 158mm
PIANOS (All grands unless otherwise noted)
Cristofori (1726) = 164mm
Pohlman (square, 1770) = 178mm
Stein (1780s) = 156, 158, 160mm
Schiedmeyer (1780) = 156mm
Schiedmeyer (1785) = 180mm
Longman & Broderip (square, 1790) = 169mm
Schantz (1790, 1805) = 160mm
Schmid (1794) = 158mm
Clementi (1805) = 163mm
Erard (Beethoven's piano, 1803) = 162mm
Walter (1795) =159mm
Walter (1803) =153mm
Walter (1815) =160mm
Streicher (1816) = 158mm
Kirckman (1820) = 162mm
Broadwood (Beethoven's piano, 1817) = 166mm
Broadwood (1819) = 164mm
Boehm (6 oct) = 158mm
Fritz (in workshop of Paul Poletti, c1825) = 167mm
Graf (1826, similar to Beethoven's Graf) = 161mm
J.B. Streicher (1841) = 158mm
Pleyel (1852, cf Chopin's Pleyel of 1839) = 164mm
Steinway (Hamburg, 1937, modern range) = 165mm
Bluethner (modern range) = 165mm
Data is from various sources, including some kindly supplied by
Paul Poletti, Utrecht.
Stephen Birkett
the orignal so I can't quote:
[On knee levers...]
Some extant Steins have 2 knee levers (1775, 1783) to control split dampers,
treble and bass. Some extant Walters have only a single knee-lever or none at
all...a c1790 Walter even has hand stops to control the dampers.
[On triple stringing...]
Some extant Steins (e.g. 1775) have triple stringing in the treble. One Stein,
dated 1783, known as the `Saitenharmonika' is triple strung throughout its
compass (apparently original)!
[On extended keyboard compass and Beethoven...]
There is no evidence to indicate that Beethoven felt limited by the
keyboard compass. The fact that he `constantly bangs against the upper
edge of the piano' shows that he utilized the compass fully. The two
early sonatas with the `missing' F#3's (Op10/1 and Op 14/1) only have a
single passing use of that note (mvt iii bar 128 and mvt i bar 89
respectively). These sonatas are contemporary with the most likely
period when builders like Walter began to offer the extended compass
by 2 notes (to g3), so a mere passing use of these indicates that
Beethoven was conservative in this respect, recognizing that many players
would not own up-to-date pianos (just as software that only
runs on a Pentium 100 MHz with 16Mb Ram would not sell very well today,
although in 2005 it may be the norm that people have such computers).
Beethoven, as Mozart, made virtue out of necessity in the respect of
keyboard compass. A good example is Op 31/2 mvt i bar 89 where he
introduces a beautiful pedal note in the treble because of the missing
notes.
Stephen Birkett
Jen-yen Chen (che...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: I guess what I object to, when you say "nothing of the kind," is the
: possible implication that copies of Walters c.1800 are the wrong
: instruments for Mozart's keyboard music, since they are not exactly like
: the Mozart piano (and what exactly is THE Mozart piano, anyway?).
:
There is certainly historical justification for playing a lot of earlier
Mozart on the harpsichord even...the distinction between
piano/harpsichord was quite blurred in Mozart's period. I believe even
the first performance of the Coronation Concerto was with harpsichord.
: Yes,
: from a strictly technical point of view, they are somewhat different, but,
: speaking as a performer, I think they still communicate what I feel to be
: the essence of Mozart's music in a vivid, forceful way. It is not the
: difference between playing Mozart on "the" Mozart piano and playing it on
: a Steinway, or even on a Graf, for that matter (which is not to say that
: Mozart can't sometimes be made to sound beautiful on these instruments).
: In the final analysis, isn't it musical issues, not technical ones, which
: count? It is from this point of view that I feel justified in calling
: modern Walter copies (good ones, anyway) "Mozart" pianos.
:
I agree it is performance that counts. I also agree that for Mozart any
of the (early) pianos you mention above are infinitely more appropriate
than a Steinway. The practical issue of what piano to use is of course
important. However it is not just a matter of minor technical differences
between these pianos...they are fundamentally different from each other.
A 1780s Walter is not the same as a 1795 Walter. There is no more
justification to calling the latter the `Mozart piano' than say an 1805
Streicher, or an 1815 Brodman, ...etc. There is no logical line to be
drawn here. The only instruments that we can logically call Mozart pianos
are those which are contemporary with his life and that he may have known
and/or played. We have to use the plural too here...it is a 20th C ethic
that variety is extinguished. In earlier periods there was an enormous
variety within the available fortepianos and we should acknowledge that
in the 20th C revival. Hence all we can say is a particular instrument is
*a* Mozart piano (if we want to draw any connection at all).
Martha Beth Lewis
Winkler) writes:
>>>I agree that legato touch has its place in contrapuntal music. What
is>>>usually the case is that one voice (one hand, in 2-pt music) is
legato>>>while the other is detached (not the same as staccato, in my
mind). It>>>is precisely this difference in articulation that enables
the ear to>>>follow both voice.
>>
>>>I use these rules of thumb in my teaching: if it's stepwise motion,
>>>play legato; if it's a leap, detach (yes, "leap" is open to
>>>interpretation and is quite contextual). Martha Beth
>>
>
>I am afraid I don't agree with either of these rules of thumb for
"legato touch" for playing contrapuntal music.
I have no problem with this at all!
>
>In general when you are playing 16th notes you play them legato. When
you are playing
>eighth notes you might detach but there are too many exceptions to
generalize.
Hmmm. The exceptions I see here are the sizes of the intervals
to be detached.
>You may find that the rule of stepwise motion for legato sort of works
because many 16th note running passages are very stepwise.
Yes, I agree.
>
>As for playing one hand legato and the other stacatto, I believe this
would defeat
>the goal of bringing out the most important voice.
Please note that I did not say staccato. I said detached, which
is less "abrupt" (shall we say) than staccato. Another way to
say detached is to put a little lift after the note to be
detached.
The most important voice will
>follow a phrase line and along with it a corresponding articulation
line. If you >generalize that one hand plays legato you will destroy
this line and end up with an>endless stream of notes. Phrasing is a
very important part of contrapuntal music>and articulation is one
aspect of your phrasing.
Well, Chris, I don't think of Bach as phrasing (in the normal
sense as for Chopin, Brahms) as articulating the motifs (and
their fragmentations). Practically never does Bach have "endless
streams of notes". His keyboard music is more motivic. I still
hold to my teaching rule of thumb, tho. When one hand is playing
connected (which I really prefer to "legato" when playing Bach),
the other hand is generally playing detached.
As I said, if this doesn't work for you, that's okey dokey with
me! MB
Jen-yen Chen
: Some extant Steins have 2 knee levers (1775, 1783) to control split dampers,
: treble and bass. Some extant Walters have only a single knee-lever or none at
: all...a c1790 Walter even has hand stops to control the dampers.
I've played a "Stein" copy by Philip Belt which has the 2 levers for the
split dampers (Belt actually copied a Dulcken fortepiano in the
Smithsonian Institution which is incorrectly labeled a Stein). I found
this kind of mechanism difficult to use, since there was no easy way to
lift the dampers off both the bass and treble registers at once. One
could position one's knee in such a way as to catch both levers (very
uncomfortable), or one could assign one knee per lever (very
impractical). Any ideas about how to use this device?
: There is no evidence to indicate that Beethoven felt limited by the
: keyboard compass. The fact that he `constantly bangs against the upper
: edge of the piano' shows that he utilized the compass fully.
Well, there is no documentary evidence, if that is what you are looking
for, but there are plenty of indications in the music itself that
Beethoven was not terribly happy with the limited range. These
indications come in the form of awkward solutions to the absence of the
additional notes. The most obvious example of such awkwardness is the
omission of the upper note of an octave, when a series of octaves ascends
beyond the range of the piano. A famous example of this is the opening of
op.10/3, which omits a high f# at the climactic moment. Do you find this
musically convincing? I sure don't, and I think that that f# should be
played when the sonata is performed on later pianos. Other examples of
this include the second theme of the "Spring" Sonata, and the works I
mentioned earlier, op.10/1 and op.14, where Beethoven actually writes out
the notes that can't be played on a five-octave instrument. Do you know
of any examples where Mozart "solves" the problem in this fashion? As far
as I know, he always provides fresh material when faced with this
situation, and this material always seems eminently appropriate in
retrospect, i.e. he would written the passage that way to begin with, even
without the range limitation. I don't think Beethoven would have omitted
the high f# of op.10/3 if he had that note available.
The two
: early sonatas with the `missing' F#3's (Op10/1 and Op 14/1) only have a
: single passing use of that note (mvt iii bar 128 and mvt i bar 89
: respectively). These sonatas are contemporary with the most likely
: period when builders like Walter began to offer the extended compass
: by 2 notes (to g3), so a mere passing use of these indicates that
: Beethoven was conservative in this respect, recognizing that many players
: would not own up-to-date pianos.
If this were true, then why doesn't Beethoven also occasionally the high
g? I wouldn't dismiss those 2 high f#'s so easily as mere passing uses.
They are important to the texture and sound of the passages in question,
and I always play them when I have an instrument with those notes. In
these examples Beethoven just couldn't find any way to omit them, so,
impractically, he writes them and leaves it to the performer to deal with
the problem. Something I don't think Mozart would ever have done.
: Beethoven, as Mozart, made virtue out of necessity in the respect of
: keyboard compass. A good example is Op 31/2 mvt i bar 89 where he
: introduces a beautiful pedal note in the treble because of the missing
: notes.
Of course Beethoven too could be inspired to fresh invention by the
problem. It's just that this inspiration is not so consistent as it is
with Mozart.
Jen-yen
Stephen Birkett
: I've played a "Stein" copy by Philip Belt which has the 2 levers for the
: Smithsonian Institution which is incorrectly labeled a Stein). I found
: this kind of mechanism difficult to use, since there was no easy way to
: lift the dampers off both the bass and treble registers at once. One
: could position one's knee in such a way as to catch both levers (very
: uncomfortable), or one could assign one knee per lever (very
: impractical). Any ideas about how to use this device?
:
the dampers, the other only the bass dampers...such arrangement obviously
more practical.
: Well, there is no documentary evidence, if that is what you are looking
: for, but there are plenty of indications in the music itself that
: Beethoven was not terribly happy with the limited range. These
: indications come in the form of awkward solutions to the absence of the
: additional notes. The most obvious example of such awkwardness is the
: omission of the upper note of an octave, when a series of octaves ascends
: beyond the range of the piano. A famous example of this is the opening of
: op.10/3, which omits a high f# at the climactic moment. Do you find this
: musically convincing? I sure don't, and I think that that f# should be
: played when the sonata is performed on later pianos.
:
Of course the F# should be played in this context...but omitting it in
the score recognized the fact that many players would not yet have an
instrument with that note. Cf `sonata for pianoforte or harpsichord' which
was appended at the front of much published piano music...presumably to
pander to those who didn't yet own pianos. I'm sure it was never intended
as a genuine intention.
: Other examples of
: this include the second theme of the "Spring" Sonata, and the works I
: mentioned earlier, op.10/1 and op.14, where Beethoven actually writes out
: the notes that can't be played on a five-octave instrument. Do you know
: of any examples where Mozart "solves" the problem in this fashion?
:
All this music you mention by Beethoven was being composed at a time when
the keyboard compass was beginning to be extended...which resulted in an
ambiguous situation. How long should B. wait before using the extra notes?
I believe Beethoven used the extra F# where he really
needed it, when the extra two top notes (some Viennese pianos even went
to a3 at this time) were commonly available. How to handle this with
respect to commercial sales was a problem, since only the newest pianos
would have had these notes. To me, the fact that these notes
occur *so* infrequently indicates that Beethoven didn't feel limited
by the compass.
When Mozart was composing his piano music there was absolutely no
question of this extended compass. The pianistic style was different
also. Where Beethoven wrote octave passages in the treble (hence
occasionally needing notes higher than f3) Mozart generally would not use
octaves. It's a chicken-and-egg question whether the octave passge style
developed as a consequence of the growing compass, or vice versa.
: [....] I don't think Beethoven would have omitted
: the high f# of op.10/3 if he had that note available.
:
Is this omission in the first edition? If the autograph for this sonata is
extant it would be interesting to check and see what B. actually wrote. The
commercial decision to omit the F#3 may not even have originated with
B...could be a publisher. Nevertheless I'm sure the omission is
commercially motivated.
: If this were true, then why doesn't Beethoven also occasionally the high
: g? I wouldn't dismiss those 2 high f#'s so easily as mere passing uses.
: They are important to the texture and sound of the passages in question,
: and I always play them when I have an instrument with those notes. In
: these examples Beethoven just couldn't find any way to omit them, so,
: impractically, he writes them and leaves it to the performer to deal with
: the problem. Something I don't think Mozart would ever have done.
:
Again the situations are different. Pianos with these notes existed and
were obviously becoming more common contemporary with Beethoven's music.
Extended compass was not even conceived when Mozart wrote his music. The
solutions to this must clearly be different. Actually Beetheven's use of
the `extra' notes is conservative compared with his contemporaries...he
waited longer than most to take advantage of them. Same comments apply to
his use of the extended compass to F4, and then to CC...his usage is
comparatively conservative.
Martha Beth Lewis
ability not to rise to the bait. Martha Beth
MSmith6033
trouble. I note that, if anything, the distance is very slightly greater
on the earlier instruments. If one applies the average size of the
musicians, and presumably their hands, one would have to think that the
adjusted numbers would be a little amazing. It does occur to me that as a
scale was played 'over the top, without using the thumb, and much playing
was done on more that one manual, it it might almost in some ways have
been easier with the longer octave. It is really halfway through the last
century that one had to have hands for playing Brahms. Was Hoffman perhaps
the first to use a compressed keyboard, as he is reported to have done.
Wanda Landowska, a small women (only in physical stature), seemed to have
little trouble with all the warhorses (Goldberg etc.). In your thorough
survey, I'm curious that you do not mention organs. Where the keyboards
similar?
Malcolm Smith.
msmit...@aol.com
Bernard T. Donovan
: survey, I'm curious that you do not mention organs. Where the keyboards
: similar?
: Malcolm Smith.
: msmit...@aol.com
Greetings-
I have apparently missed this discussion. I tend to think that keys on organs
are generally smaller. However organs tend to be a bit more quirky from
instrument to instrument and builder to builder when it comes to their
sound and construction. (Of course, it could be that I don't have an
appreciation for the differences between individual pianos and piano companies.
)
If someone could forward me the article I missed, I'd be interested in learning
more about the evolution of key size in various keyboard instruments.
btd
--
"God is Dead" --Nietzsche | Bernard T. (Tom) Donovan
"Nietzsche is Dead" --God | Graduate Student, Dep't of Biological Sci.
----------------------------------- Illinois State University -- Normal, IL
Suffering is inevitable. Misery is a choice. btd...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu