# The louder a modern piano is played, the less musical it becomes



## Forsooth

I'm enjoying the sound of modern pianos less and less. Why? Because modern pianos have been weaponized! 

They can be played so loudly that it is very easy for a grand piano to take over and ruin violin and cello sonatas, vocal recitals, and other recordings of chamber works in which a modern piano is included.

And the solo piano? OMG! It seems some pianists can't wait to POUND those keys, boy! They have Piano Rage Syndrome. Subtlety is out, BANG BANG BANG is in!

For piano performances, I have been looking for works played on fortepiano. For me, fortepiano is the new counterculture.

That's my opinion.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

You still have to amplify it :devil:


----------



## Mandryka

My feeling with modern piano is that not only do you have to have an excellent piano, and someone who knows how to drive it, but you have to sit the right distance. Over the past six months I remember hearing a Fazioli and a Steinway, both played by international musicians - Janina Fialkowska and Piotr Anderszewski. The Steinway sounded absolutely wonderful, it was the Diabelli Variations. The Fazioli was horrible, it was some Schumann. And I think a big reason was me, I was too close to the Fazioli.


----------



## Mandryka

Oh another thing, a great pianist can play loud and it sounds beautiful. I think it’s one of the signs of someone who really knows what to do with a concert grand. Richter could do it; Pletnev could do it; Andersewski can do it, as can Demidenko. With a really good modern piano player, the loud bits are the best bits.


----------



## Larkenfield

For me, fortepianos routinely lack beauty of sound. It's up to the player to control the volume of sound on the pianoforte and some listen better than others. But it's not the instrument itself because there's the una corda pedal, the soft pedal, that's always available to any pianist. One out of 20 or 30 fortepianos sound good to me and I cannot believe that most of them sounded that bad in their day.






No thanks. Unbearable. It's already out of tune and he seems oblivious but he's going to plow forward apparently numb to the infernal racket the instrument is making. It's awful! Yes, there's a certain lightness of sound, but the tinkling notes have a fast fade and in the modern world fortepianos can often sound more like toys than real instruments. Nevertheless, some sound better than others, though it's rare that I would ever describe them as being beautiful, and can capture something of the 18th and early 19th century era that the music was written in and is like going back in time. But I believe that Mozart and Beethoven would have been thrilled to play on the modern grand piano because of its beautiful sonority.


----------



## Forsooth

Maybe I'm going through an ornery *"You kids get quiet in there!!"* stage in my sunset years. For example, I have a Uchida disc of Schubert piano sonatas no. 15 and 18. I used to like it, but now I find there are too many loud and strident passages to enjoy it.


----------



## Forsooth

Larkenfield said:


> For me, fortepianos routinely lack beauty of sound. It's up to the player to control the volume of sound on the pianoforte and some listen better than others. But it's not the instrument itself because there's the una corda pedal, the soft pedal, that's always available to any pianist. One out of 20 or 30 fortepianos sound good to me, and I cannot believe that most of them sounded that bad in their day.
> 
> No thanks. Yes, there's a certain lightness of sound, but the notes have a fast fade and in the modern world fortepianos can often sound more like toys than real instruments. Nevertheless, some sound better than others, though it's rare that I would ever describe them as being beautiful, and can capture something of the 18th and early 19th century era that the music was written in and is like going back in time.


The sound is somewhere between a harpsichord and a Steinway, which is where they fit in on the timeline. Yes, I agree that fortepianos sound more, well, "tinny" than the moderns. But I kinda like that. I'm losing my taste for the sonorous expanse of modern pianos. Too much overkill. Fortepianos, IMO, sound more articulate and, at the same time, less percussive -- which I enjoy.

But this is a minority opinion, I realize that.


----------



## Blancrocher

Forsooth said:


> Maybe I'm going through an ornery *"You kids get quiet in there!!"* stage in my sunset years. For example, I have a Uchida disc of Schubert piano sonatas no. 15 and 18. I used to like it, but now I find there are too many loud and strident passages to enjoy it.


Interesting--two favorite sonatas of mine. Did you find a new performer, or have the works themselves lost their appeal for you?


----------



## Guest

A Piano and a Fortepiano are two different beasts, as I hear it. I can say I like the sound of the oboe better than the sound of the clarinet, but that doesn't mean I want oboes to play the clarinet parts in my favorite Brahms symphonies.

Music from the prime days of the fortepiano doesn't quite work on the modern piano, to my ears. Mozart kept the hands moving precisely because the sustain was so short and all that figuration sounds muddy on a piano, unless the pianist is very skillful and can nurse a fortepiano sound from a modern piano. Playing music for a modern piano on a fortepiano has the opposite problem.

I can say that some of the earlier pianos, the 19th century Erards, etc, have a very pleasant, less heavy sound. But that's a far cry from claiming that a fortepiano is interchangeable with a modern piano.

And, regarding too aggressive playing on a modern piano, well you're just listening to the wrong pianists.


----------



## Swosh

It's a percussion instrument! Know what rhymes with percussion? Concussion haha!! It has a very wide range of tones, dynamics and colors, that's what makes it such a great instrument. There are many pieces where playing loudly or "banging" can sound great! One example that comes to mind is Liszt or rachmaninoff and Scriabin. Don't tell me that Scriabin sounds bad when you play Scriabin loudly with those triple fortes haha. I think that some performers play loudly when it's unnecessary.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

Mandryka said:


> Over the past six months I remember hearing a Fazioli and a Steinway, both played by international musicians - Janina Fialkowska and Piotr Anderszewski. The Steinway sounded absolutely wonderful, it was the Diabelli Variations.


Where did you catch Anderszewski? I was so bummed out when he cancelled his NYC recital due to illness.


----------



## Mandryka

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Where did you catch Anderszewski? I was so bummed out when he cancelled his NYC recital due to illness.


Wigmore Hall London.

Anderszewski really can thump a piano very hard in the bass notes and make it sound beautiful! He's perfect for Beethoven.


----------



## Larkenfield

Bautigam on a better fortepiano:


----------



## millionrainbows

Richard Brautigan...bah! Anthony Newman!


----------



## howlingfantods

Larkenfield said:


> For me, fortepianos routinely lack beauty of sound.


Fortepianos remind me of the crappy upright Baldwins I was forced to practice on while my much more talented sister practiced on the Steinway baby grand.

Although honestly, those Baldwins were probably much better than these fortepianos, and my resentful memory is exaggerating their crappiness.


----------



## millionrainbows

howlingfantods said:


> Fortepianos remind me of the crappy upright Baldwins I was forced to practice on while my much more talented sister practiced on the Steinway baby grand.
> 
> Although honestly, those Baldwins were probably much better than these fortepianos, and my resentful memory is exaggerating their crappiness.


That's funny, thnx for sharing that.


----------



## Botschaft

Fortepianos lack beauty of sound? That should be easy to disprove. Just give me a minute:


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> Fortepianos remind me of the crappy upright Baldwins I was forced to practice on while my much more talented sister practiced on the Steinway baby grand.
> 
> Although honestly, those Baldwins were probably much better than these fortepianos, and my resentful memory is exaggerating their crappiness.


I don't think it's really fair to describe a fortepiano simply as a weak piano. They had a different action than a modern piano and although less powerful, are described as more sensitive. It is a different instrument with its own strengths and weaknesses. The composers of the time knew how to take advantage of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses.


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't think it's really fair to describe a fortepiano simply as a weak piano. They had a different action than a modern piano and although less powerful, are described as more sensitive. It is a different instrument with its own strengths and weaknesses. The composers of the time knew how to take advantage of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses.


Beethoven loved fortepianos so much, he never sought out instruments with bigger sound, more power and dynamic range, with more robust action and larger tonal ranges.

Oh wait, he did????


----------



## KenOC

After some research on this, I concluded that "fortepiano" is merely a term of convenience for an early piano. There are no specific technical developments that separate them from "pianos", nor is there a clear dividing line when one became the other.



> The use of "fortepiano" to refer specifically to early pianos appears to be recent. Even the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary does not record this usage, noting only that "fortepiano" is "an early name of the pianoforte". During the age of the fortepiano, "fortepiano" and "pianoforte" were used interchangeably, as the OED's attestations show.


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> Beethoven loved fortepianos so much, he never sought out instruments with bigger sound, more power and dynamic range, with more robust action and larger tonal ranges.
> 
> Oh wait, he did????


Beethoven was stone deaf before anything resembling a modern piano was built.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> After some research on this, I concluded that "fortepiano" is merely a term of convenience for an early piano. There are no specific technical developments that separate them from "pianos", nor is there a clear dividing line when one became the other.


Usage of the term notwithstanding, the features that distinguish the modern piano are the modern action (in contrast to non-standard actions used by the various makers of "fortepianos") and the presence of a metal frame, facilitating much higher string tension. Those two figures distinguish a "piano."


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> Beethoven was stone deaf before anything resembling a modern piano was built.


Ektually, Beethoven was never "stone deaf," although his hearing was pretty darned bad sometimes. Smetana did indeed become "stone deaf" and wrote most of his masterpieces in that condition.


----------



## premont

KenOC said:


> Ektually, Beethoven was never "stone deaf," although his hearing was pretty darned bad sometimes. Smetana did indeed become "stone deaf" and wrote most of his masterpieces in that condition.


But he was probably sufficiently deaf to be unable to distinguish among the subtle differences of different pianos - except of course the degree of noise they produced.


----------



## isorhythm

Waldesnacht said:


> Fortepianos lack beauty of sound? That should be easy to disprove. Just give me a minute:


This is the nicest I've ever heard a fortepiano sound, I'll give you that.


----------



## howlingfantods

Beethoven may have been mostly deaf, but he had a desire that he expressed throughout his life for bigger sounds and more resonant instruments with more dynamic range and wider tonal ranges; enough so that I think it's ludicrous to paint a picture of Beethoven as perfectly happy and content with the tinkly little instruments of his day. And he may have been deaf, but he knew what he wanted his music to sound like even while deaf.


----------



## howlingfantods

isorhythm said:


> This is the nicest I've ever heard a fortepiano sound, I'll give you that.


Probably a *lot* of studio magic to get it to sound like that. But even then, I wouldn't want to listen to Appassionata or Hammerklavier on this toy-sounding instrument.


----------



## Larkenfield

Excellent article on the development of the fortepiano: https://www.squarepianos.com/fortepiano.html.

In their day, many of the fortepianos were known for their "sweet and expressive" sound. Unfortunately, in today's world, I've yet to hear one with a sweet and expressive sound-until today. What I usually hear instead is the backbreaking heavy labor required to play one and the public is supposed to swallow what is sold a bill of goods- that this is the authentic sound and the person playing it puts up with the gawdawful racket because he's convinced it's the authentic sound too :






So something's rotten in Denmark and I do not trust the sound of most contemporary or rebuilt fortepianos, some of which sound like irritating jalopies or rattletraps that are unable to hold their tuning for more than five minutes, though every once in a blue moon there's one with an actual decent sound. But even then, I would never describe it under most circumstances as being sweet and expressive.

Here's the best fortepiano I've heard with a sweet and expressive sound-the inspired sound of the better ones that I believe they were intended to have-an instrument worthy of its name that I believe Haydn, Mozart, Schubert or perhaps even Beethoven, would've been delighted to play on. Unfortunately, 90% of the clunky instruments do not sound as wonderful as this:






It sounds like a piano but it has a much lighter texture and perhaps more of a harp-like flavor that allows the music to float in the air. It's a sound that could inspire composers rather than deaden or oppress them with a crude and unrefined sonority. It's also capable of expressive dynamic changes without being jarring and supposedly why the fortepiano was developed in the first place.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> In their day, many of the fortepianos were known for their "sweet and expressive" sound. Unfortunately in today's world I've yet to hear one with a sweet and expressive sound-until today. _What I hear instead, is the heavy labor required to play one_:


Perhaps they were "sweet and expressive" compared to harpsichord.

My perusal of various sources on the web seem to indicate they early fortepiano actions were simpler and had a lighter touch than a modern piano, less rather than more literal work.


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> Beethoven may have been mostly deaf, but he had a desire that he expressed throughout his life for bigger sounds and more resonant instruments with more dynamic range and wider tonal ranges; enough so that I think it's ludicrous to paint a picture of Beethoven as perfectly happy and content with the tinkly little instruments of his day. And he may have been deaf, but he knew what he wanted his music to sound like even while deaf.


I don't see anyone here (or anywhere else for that matter) suggesting that Beethoven was satisfied with the fortepianos he heard and didn't desire a more powerful instrument. But I find those instruments have a beauty all their own and it is interesting to hear music as it would have sounded when it was first composed. I enjoy Beethoven on a modern piano, and I also enjoy recordings I've heard on a fortepiano. I may like Renoir, that doesn't mean I'm going to rip up all of the works of Raphael.


----------



## isorhythm

It's worth nothing that the instrument went from Mozart's fortepiano to something very close to a modern piano in the span of one lifetime. No one complained. No one claimed the instrument was becoming unsuitable for playing older music. This is a modern neurosis.


----------



## Botschaft

Late 19th century pianos actually sounded quite different from those of today. Here's Brahms' piano:








howlingfantods said:


> Probably a *lot* of studio magic to get it to sound like that. But even then, I wouldn't want to listen to Appassionata or Hammerklavier on this toy-sounding instrument.


Studio magic? Like what?


----------



## isorhythm

^That could definitely be a modern piano, just not one of the big name brands.

Edit: it actually reminds me a little of a piano my grandparents used to have, which I'm sure wasn't a 19th century antique. I didn't like that piano but mostly due to the action, not the sound.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> It's worth nothing that the instrument went from Mozart's fortepiano to something very close to a modern piano in the span of one lifetime. *No one complained. No one claimed the instrument was becoming unsuitable for playing older music.* This is a modern neurosis.


If I've learned anything about human nature, I'd say it is certain that people complained. Every time a new version of iOS comes out I hear my wife complain, bitterly.


----------



## Botschaft

isorhythm said:


> ^That could definitely be a modern piano, just not one of the big name brands.
> 
> Edit: it actually reminds me a little of a piano my grandparents used to have, which I'm sure wasn't a 19th century antique. I didn't like that piano but mostly due to the action, not the sound.


I think the sound largely agrees with Wikipedia's description of the fortepiano sound, albeit to a lesser degree than that of earlier pianos.



> Like the modern piano, the fortepiano can vary the sound volume of each note, depending on the player's touch. The tone of the fortepiano is quite different from that of the modern piano, however, being softer with less sustain. Sforzando accents tend to stand out more than on the modern piano, as they differ from softer notes in timbre as well as volume, and decay rapidly.
> 
> Fortepianos also tend to have quite different tone quality in their different registers - slightly buzzing in the bass, "tinkling" in the high treble, and more rounded (closest to the modern piano) in the mid range.[1] In comparison, modern pianos are rather more uniform in sound through their range.


----------



## Mandryka

Waldesnacht said:


> I think the sound largely agrees with Wikipedia's description of the fortepiano sound, albeit to a lesser degree than that of earlier pianos.


It's the uniformity of modern piano timbre which is maybe their most important weaknesses in c18 and c19 music; I'm listening right now to k310 not on a piano but on a clavichord, which in some ways is a similar instrument. And the contrasting midrange, bass and treble timbres really does help the interpretation greatly.

Maybe there are modern pianos which are less uniform than a Steinway D, I don't know.


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> It's the uniformity of modern piano timbre which is maybe their most important weaknesses in c18 and c19 music; I'm listening right now to k310 not on a piano but on a clavichord, which in some ways is a similar instrument. And the contrasting midrange, bass and treble timbres really does help the interpretation greatly.
> 
> Maybe there are modern pianos which are less uniform than a Steinway D, I don't know.


At the time, the lack of uniformity was an engineering problem that the instrument makers were intent on solving, i.e. it was a limitation in instruments that was perceived as a problem for the aesthetic qualities of the results.

I dunno, maybe it's just me but I always find these encomiums to crappy stuff of the past that have been replaced by much better things to be basically like cosplaying. It's like those people who like to dress in Jane Austen clothes and churn their own butter. Whatever floats your boat, but I will be listening to music performed and recorded on a Steinway or Bos, and buying butter at the supermarket, thank you very much.


----------



## Guest

^^^I don't understand the impulse to denigrate the preferences of others.


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> ^^^I don't understand the impulse to denigrate the preferences of others.


… Wasn't this thread started to argue for fortepianos by denigrating modern pianos? How am I doing anything other than expressing my own preference for modern pianos?


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> … Wasn't this thread started to argue for fortepianos by denigrating modern pianos? How am I doing anything other than expressing my own preference for modern pianos?


I wouldn't deny that the OP is guilty of the same thing.

Lumping fortepiano with "crappy stuff of the past" goes beyond expressing preference. Personally, I cannot force myself to listen to harpsichord for more than a few minutes. I cannot take pleasure in the sound. I subject myself to it ocasionally because of curiosity of what Bach or other composers of the period were imagining when they wrote their music. The fact that I don't enjoy it doesn't imply that it is inferior or "crappy," just not my preference.


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> I wouldn't deny that the OP is guilty of the same thing.


But you didn't respond to the OP the same way because you agree with the OP. You're not mad that I'm violating some internet forum protocol, you're mad that I'm doing so with an opinion that contradicts your particular taste.

But ok, I'll qualify my statement--fortepianos sound crappy *to me*. Like I said in my first post here, they remind me of crappy uprights, but again as I said in that original post, honestly, most crappy uprights sound better to me than fortepianos I've heard.

Is it possible for good music to come out of them? Of course. Richter played on some pretty poor instruments when he was doing his thing of touring small towns and playing in random venues on whims, and I treasure some of those performances greatly. But I sure would have preferred it if those same performances had been played on a better piano.


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> Usage of the term notwithstanding, the features that distinguish the modern piano are the modern action (in contrast to non-standard actions used by the various makers of "fortepianos") and the presence of a metal frame, facilitating much higher string tension. Those two figures distinguish a "piano."


Believe the term "piano" applies to all such hammer-struck instruments since Cristofori's invention around 1700. See *Wiki's article* on same.


----------



## Mandryka

howlingfantods said:


> At the time, the lack of uniformity was an engineering problem that the instrument makers were intent on solving, i.e. it was a limitation in instruments that was perceived as a problem for the aesthetic qualities of the results.


That's interesting. Why were the different colours in each register perceived to be a problem? I think each violin string has a different timbre character.

Sometimes I think that early modern pianos had more distinct registers, for example the piano Edwin Fischer used for op 109. See what you think, you may not agree. Harder to access maybe is a piano made by a German company called JL Duyson, there's a recording of Art of Fugue using one by Ron Lepinat, it was made in 1926. I can upload it for you if you want.

But both Fischer's piano and Lepinat's are blander than a real fortepiano.

I do think that timbre differences in the registers helps to clarify the interplay of the music in the left and right hands. Even in c19 and c18 music, that helps create more interest in some compositions.


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> But you didn't respond to the OP the same way because you agree with the OP. You're not mad that I'm violating some internet forum protocol, you're mad that I'm doing so with an opinion that contradicts your particular taste.


I didn't really agree with the OP either, somehow the language didn't strike me as being so pejorative. He was mainly complaining of modern pianists who play to loudly with too aggressive a touch, rather than of the instrument itself.



> At the time, the lack of uniformity was an engineering problem that the instrument makers were intent on solving, i.e. it was a limitation in instruments that was perceived as a problem for the aesthetic qualities of the results.


Yes, I agree it was probably considered an engineering problem that they sought to resolve. It doesn't mean that composers, presented with a quirky instrument, didn't find ways to turn the limitation into an advantage.

A thin, buzzy bass might be best employed for contrapuntal interplay, a rich resonant base might better be used for sonorous harmonic underpinning. The main reason I find fortepiano interesting is that Mozart's seemed to keep his hands constantly moving on the keyboard. Presumably this is related to the short sustain of the instrument he was playing. On a modern piano the incessant figuration can become muddy; fortepiano can make it sparkle. (I think I am repeating myself.)


----------



## Mandryka

Baron Scarpia said:


> Yes, I agree it was probably considered an engineering problem that they sought to resolve.


Why do you think that was?


----------



## premont

Thinking it over I find that a keyboard instrument with equal sound color throughout (harpsichord, organ) is best suited for strictly contrapuntal music (fugues e.g.), while an instrument with different color in different registers (clavichord, fortepiano) is better suited for compositions consisting of melody with accompaniment i.e. more homophonic music. The advantage of the modern piano - as opposed to the fortepiano - is, that it (as to sound color) can be used in both ways, because the pianist can change the color deliberately in all registers with his touch. BTW this doesn't prevent me from finding its sound too dull and percussive for Baroque music. And then there is the problem with the tuning.


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> That's interesting. Why were the different colours in each register perceived to be a problem? I think each violin string has a different timbre character.
> 
> Sometimes I think that early modern pianos had more distinct registers, for example the piano Edwin Fischer used for op 109. See what you think, you may not agree. Harder to access maybe is a piano made by a German company called JL Duyson, there's a recording of Art of Fugue using one by Ron Lepinat, it was made in 1926. I can upload it for you if you want.
> 
> But both Fischer's piano and Lepinat's are blander than a real fortepiano.
> 
> I do think that timbre differences in the registers helps to clarify the interplay of the music in the left and right hands. Even in c19 and c18 music, that helps create more interest in some compositions.


I can't speak to strings so much since I'm not a string instrumentalist and I don't really listen to the repertoire that much. But for keyboards and also for singing, composers and performers want a even uniform sound throughout the tonal range so that there are no distracting register breaks in the middle of a melodic line, or a fundamentally different sound if a melodic line is in one register and repeats in another register--so for instance if you transpose a repetition of a theme in a lower register in a different key, say, you want the altered character of the repetition to be due to the key change and not due to inherent tonal qualities of the instrument shifting from register to register.


----------



## Mandryka

howlingfantods said:


> But for keyboards and also for singing, composers and performers want a even uniform sound throughout the tonal range so that there are no distracting register breaks in the middle of a melodic line


Is the range of a melody likely to span registers?

It's interesting. There's a style of early music lute playing called _style brisé_ which deliberately took advantage of the timbre characteristics of the different lute strings to create the impression of counterpoint.


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> Is the range of a melody likely to span registers?
> 
> It's interesting. There's a style of early music lute playing called _style brisé_ which deliberately took advantage of the timbre characteristics of the different lute strings to create the impression of counterpoint.


A melody doesn't need to span a particularly wide tonal range to potentially span registers, if the register break just happens to be near where a composer wanted to play that melodic line.

It's certainly possible to use the limitations of an instrument for expressive purpose of course. But I think composers prefer not to have those limitations.


----------



## Mandryka

Very interesting discussion -- thanks howlingfantods, premont, Scarpia etc.



premont said:


> Thinking it over I find that a keyboard instrument with equal sound color throughout (harpsichord, organ) is best suited for strictly contrapuntal music (fugues e.g.), while an instrument with different color in different registers (clavichord, fortepiano) is better suited for compositions consisting of melody with accompaniment i.e. more homophonic music. The advantage of the modern piano - as opposed to the fortepiano - is, that it (as to sound color) can be used in both ways, because the pianist can change the color deliberately in all registers with his touch. BTW this doesn't prevent me from finding its sound too dull and percussive for Baroque music. And then there is the problem with the tuning.


Here's an interesting comment on ravalement in the c18, which is presented as a way harpsichord factors attempted to compete with the piano by introducing more timbres.



> In the second half of the eighteenth century, the harpsichord found itself already in
> competition with the fortepiano or hammerklavier, precursor to the modern piano,
> whose prevalence steadily gained ground. Pascal Taskin, who built some fortepianos late
> in his career, contributed two innovations to the dynamic capabilities of the harpsichord.
> In 1768 he introduced the peau de buffle register, with plectra of soft buffalo leather. In his
> Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne, Marquis Jean-Benjamin de Laborde (1734-1794)
> described this invention, finding the sound of the register to be satiny (velouté) and
> pleasant (délicieux). He also noted that in this register, the player had the ability to
> modulate the sound at will through stronger or weaker touch. A further invention of
> Taskin's is the knee-pedal mechanism (genouillères), which eased a changing of registers
> while playing, and even made crescendo and decrescendo effects possible.


Of course by this time there was less contrapuntal music around. The comment is from a strange recording by Anne Marie Dragosits called _Le Clavecin Mythologique_. This sort of thing






(I wonder what a fugue would sound like on one of those things, a big thing by Bux!)


----------



## premont

Generally I am not keen on late Baroque French harpsichords. They are too resonant for my favored music. And ravalement just make them worse.


----------



## isorhythm

The supposed homogeneity of the modern piano is being overstated. It has distinct registers that can be used to great effect - listen to anything by Debussy or Ravel. Difference is the transitions between registers are smooth so you can have a melody over any part of the range.


----------



## Guest

I don't know what it would mean for the highest note on the piano to be tonally homogeneous with the lowest note. They sound different. The point is that in the modern pianothe there are no abrupt changes in tone as you move across registers and the high end and low end are balanced with respect to loudness.

To my ear, the reason to prefer fortepiano in some music from around 1800 is that it has a shorter sustain (which is more suitable for some of the figuration used in those days) and a thinner low end with more overtones, which can make counterpoint in the lower registers more clear. That said, there is no music that I think should _only _be played on fortepiano, just music which is interesting to hear on fortepiano, as well as modern piano.


----------



## Mandryka

Well, I just listened to Paul Badura Skoda playing k 533/494 on a fortepiano, and Roberto Prosseda playing it on a modern one, and I think that there the former has more pronounced timbre differences in the different registers.

Prosseda is doing interesting things with his piano, he’s adopted a slightly non equal tuning, for example, and it’s a nice sounding Fazioli. But I must say I think the sound of it is totally bland compared with Badura Skoda’s old instrument. I really don’t see any benefits of the modern piano.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> I really don't see any benefits of the modern piano.


Beauty of sound?


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> Beauty of sound?


No, beauty isn't bland.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> No, beauty isn't bland.


It comes down to individual preference - I'm saying some people might prefer the modern piano because they find its sound more beautiful.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> It comes down to individual preference - I'm saying some people might prefer the modern piano because they find its sound more beautiful.


That's clearly right.


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> I really don't see any benefits of the modern piano.


I'm not sure if you're being serious, but in case you are, I'll list a few:

1) Greater volume. A lot of these early pianos simply don't have the volume for a concert hall, and were intended for large private rooms. Of course, if your only concern is recordings, where the recording engineer can use different mics and can adjust the volume, that is of lesser concern.

2) Greater dynamic range. Early pianos basically go from mezzo piano to mezzo forte. It sounds like the OP prefers that limited dynamic range for all performances, but I prefer that the artist has the tools to play extremely loudly and extremely softly--much of the most electrifying and stupefyingly beautiful music I've ever heard is at the hands of pianists playing the outer limits of a modern piano's dynamic range.

3) Greater tonal range. Early pianos were around 5 octaves, modern ones over 7.

4) Longer sustain. One of the reasons that the modern piano is such a phenomenally popular instrument amongst players, listeners and composers is the unique character of being both a percussive tonal instrument, with the clarity of the tonal values on the initial attack, combined with the singing qualities of the longer sustain. It's an instrument where you can play extraordinarily complex clusters of notes that can still be clearly heard and distinguished, while still being able to sing out longer phrases using the longer sustain. Early pianos with the shorter sustain can still accomplish the former, but sound short-breathed in longer singing passages unless the melody is constantly moving. It's like a singer with poor lung capacity.


----------



## Mandryka

howlingfantods said:


> I'm not sure if you're being serious, but in case you are, I'll list a few:
> 
> 1) Greater volume. A lot of these early pianos simply don't have the volume for a concert hall, and were intended for large private rooms. Of course, if your only concern is recordings, where the recording engineer can use different mics and can adjust the volume, that is of lesser concern.
> 
> 2) Greater dynamic range. Early pianos basically go from mezzo piano to mezzo forte. It sounds like the OP prefers that limited dynamic range for all performances, but I prefer that the artist has the tools to play extremely loudly and extremely softly--much of the most electrifying and stupefyingly beautiful music I've ever heard is at the hands of pianists playing the outer limits of a modern piano's dynamic range.
> 
> 3) Greater tonal range. Early pianos were around 5 octaves, modern ones over 7.
> 
> 4) Longer sustain. One of the reasons that the modern piano is such a phenomenally popular instrument amongst players, listeners and composers is the unique character of being both a percussive tonal instrument, with the clarity of the tonal values on the initial attack, combined with the singing qualities of the longer sustain. It's an instrument where you can play extraordinarily complex clusters of notes that can still be clearly heard and distinguished, while still being able to sing out longer phrases using the longer sustain. Early pianos with the shorter sustain can still accomplish the former, but sound short-breathed in longer singing passages unless the melody is constantly moving. It's like a singer with poor lung capacity.


Of course I was being serious, but bear in mind that I was discussing k 533/494, and not in a big concert hall,

I was VERY impressed by Badura Skoda's Astrée performance last night!

I'll also mention that I listened to Richter playing some Debussy and Cassard. Cassard uses Debussy's Playel I think, and Richter, it was live in Salzburg on Orfeo, was, I suppose, playing a Yamaha. I mention this because the way the bass timbres distinguish themselves from the higher notes is quite different in the two pianos. I don't want to make a big deal of it right now, but there's something to explore there next time I'm in the mood for such things.


----------



## KenOC

howlingfantods said:


> … 4) Longer sustain. One of the reasons that the modern piano is such a phenomenally popular instrument amongst players, listeners and composers is the unique character of being both a percussive tonal instrument, with the clarity of the tonal values on the initial attack, combined with the singing qualities of the longer sustain.


The longer sustain was highly valued, and evidently difficult to achieve, in early pianos. Here is a snippet from the publication review of Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_: "B. understands the piano like hardly any other composer for the instrument, and understands how to handle the actual piano as well as Ph. Em. Bach did. However, one has to own a really excellent instrument to be at all satisfied with one's own performance of some of his movements -- for example, of the entire first movement of Op. 27 No. 2."


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> I'm not sure if you're being serious, but in case you are, I'll list a few:
> 
> 1) Greater volume. A lot of these early pianos simply don't have the volume for a concert hall, and were intended for large private rooms. Of course, if your only concern is recordings, where the recording engineer can use different mics and can adjust the volume, that is of lesser concern.
> 
> 2) Greater dynamic range. *Early pianos basically go from mezzo piano to mezzo forte.* It sounds like the OP prefers that limited dynamic range for all performances, but I prefer that the artist has the tools to play extremely loudly and extremely softly--much of the most electrifying and stupefyingly beautiful music I've ever heard is at the hands of pianists playing the outer limits of a modern piano's dynamic range.
> 
> 3) Greater tonal range. Early pianos were around 5 octaves, modern ones over 7.
> 
> 4) Longer sustain. One of the reasons that the modern piano is such a phenomenally popular instrument amongst players, listeners and composers is the unique character of being both a percussive tonal instrument, with the clarity of the tonal values on the initial attack, combined with the singing qualities of the longer sustain. It's an instrument where you can play extraordinarily complex clusters of notes that can still be clearly heard and distinguished, while still being able to sing out longer phrases using the longer sustain. Early pianos with the shorter sustain can still accomplish the former, but sound short-breathed in longer singing passages unless the melody is constantly moving. It's like a singer with poor lung capacity.


I don't see why you think there is a limit to how softly a fortepiano can play.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> The longer sustain was highly valued, and evidently difficult to achieve, in early pianos. Here is a snippet from the publication review of Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_: "B. understands the piano like hardly any other composer for the instrument, and understands how to handle the actual piano as well as Ph. Em. Bach did. However, one has to own a really excellent instrument to be at all satisfied with one's own performance of some of his movements -- for example, of the entire first movement of Op. 27 No. 2."


What do you think that review is saying about the piano? I don't see any mention of long sustain.


----------



## Guest

It seems like a large part of this thread is a search for arguments for declaring something which is not liked to be inferior.


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't see why you think there is a limit to how softly a fortepiano can play.


It's a lighter action. To get any piano hammer action to activate at all, you have to press with a certain firmness, and fortepianos have less range between the lightness to get the action to activate and making a sound then a modern piano does.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> What do you think that review is saying about the piano? I don't see any mention of long sustain.


The point of the review must be, that this movement requires long sustain. Already Beethoven thought so, since he prescribed that the sustain pedal should be pressed down throughout the piece without a single break (semper pianissimo e senza sordino).


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> It seems like a large part of this thread is a search for arguments for declaring something which is not liked to be inferior.


I'm making arguments for why composers at the time these instruments were available were declaring them to be inferior and opting for something newer. Piano manufacturing and design proceeded extremely rapidly in the 19th century because these features of the early pianos we're talking about were perceived as major flaws, and composers and instrumentalists eagerly abandoned each generation of instruments as new designs permitted.

I just find it extremely odd when people think they're honoring the intentions of composers who complained bitterly about the limitations imposed upon them, and try to enshrine those limitations as the "right" or "correct" way to perform them. This is like when HIPsters use Bach's letter about well-appointed church music to gauge the "right" forces, when Bach was listing those forces as the most meagerly minimally acceptable ones that he begrudgingly accepted with maximum resentment and malice.


----------



## premont

Baron Scarpia said:


> It seems like a large part of this thread is a search for arguments for declaring something which is not liked to be inferior.


Hmm, I think the problem is that the pianophiles are obsessed by the theory of evolution and think the modern piano is a perfect and peerless instrument and without comparison the best instrument for playing all the keyboard music ever written.


----------



## howlingfantods

premont said:


> Hmm, I think the problem is that the pianophiles are obsessed by the theory of evolution and think the modern piano is a perfect and peerless instrument and without comparison the best instrument for playing all the keyboard music ever written.


Yes, pianophiles like Beethoven and Chopin and Schumann and Brahms and Liszt and Rachmaninov all agreed that the more modern pianos were better than older instruments and the best instruments for playing all the keyboard music ever written.

And then sometime around the middle of the 20th century, people couldn't come up with any further improvements, so jaded sophisticates looking for a new experience went, "Hey, how about those old instruments? You know, the ones the composers we love hated when they were alive?"


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> Yes, pianophiles like Beethoven and Chopin and Schumann and Brahms and Liszt and Rachmaninov all agreed that the more modern pianos were better than older instruments and the best instruments for playing all the keyboard music ever written.
> 
> And then sometime around the middle of the 20th century, people couldn't come up with any further improvements, so jaded sophisticates looking for a new experience went, "Hey, how about those old instruments? You know, the ones the composers we love hated when they were alive?"


I really don't understand the hostility you have for people listen to performances they enjoy. Why ridicule people for enjoying something you don't enjoy?

Mozart may have wished for a piano the transcended the instruments of his time, but he wrote for the instruments that were available to him. I happen to think that a lot of his works just come off very well on a period piano. It is nice to have the option.


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> I really don't understand the hostility you have for people listen to performances they enjoy. Why ridicule people for enjoying something you don't enjoy?


Again, note that you're scolding me for replying to a barbed post with a barbed post, but you're not scolding the guy ridiculing "pianophiles" as obsessed and deluded, just me. So again, I have to conclude that you're not mad about internet manners, but about your side in the argument.


----------



## Guest

howlingfantods said:


> Again, note that you're scolding me for replying to a barbed post with a barbed post, but you're not scolding the guy ridiculing "pianophiles" as obsessed and deluded, just me. So again, I have to conclude that you're not mad about internet manners, but about your side in the argument.


The "barbed post" you are referring to does not make any claim that the modern piano is not a legitimate instrument for music that was composed for it, only that the instruments that were developed along the way also have their virtues and their place in performance. I find you are making a false equivalence between your response (and your strident claims that the modern piano supersedes all previous precursor instruments) and the supposedly "barbed post."

This is really getting unpleasant, and I don't plan to post further in this thread.


----------



## howlingfantods

Baron Scarpia said:


> The "barbed post" you are referring to does not make any claim that the modern piano is not a legitimate instrument for music that was composed for it, only that the instruments that were developed along the way also have their virtues and their place in performance. I find you are making a false equivalence between your response (and your strident claims that the modern piano supersedes all previous precursor instruments) and the supposedly "barbed post."
> 
> This is really getting unpleasant, and I don't plan to post further in this thread.


I never claimed that other people couldn't enjoy listening to whatever they wanted to listen to. Mandryka said he didn't think there were no advantages to the modern piano, I replied with basically undisputed facts about the history of the development of the piano (but note, I never said that Mandryka was wrong for liking the Badura Skoda recording he likes--I have no problems letting people like what they like). But then you and Premont responded with your pissy "I think this thread is just pianophiles acting like their preferences are fact" posts. And then you had a tantrum about me responding in kind.

Sorry you feel like me responding to yours and Premonts posts in kind are some sort of unforgiveable sin. I think it's pretty rich considering how HIPsters conduct themselves on questions of correctness versus aesthetic judgment.


----------



## isorhythm

This is a sincere question: are there any known examples of any composer or performer complaining about changes in piano design at the time they occurred?


----------



## KenOC

Arguments like these run on and on, never with resolution. They always revolve around matters of taste. An example from nature: While most of us avoid excrement, dung beetles love it. In fact, I am sure they have highly developed tastes for dung, and some of them discriminate in quite sophisticated ways between this pile of dung and that one. Perhaps they have the olfactory equivalents of little dung forums where they argue endlessly about such matters, but I don’t know that.

In any event, it strikes me as an appropriate analogy for those who prefer the fortepiano. This remark is put forward purely in a spirit of reason, without pejorative intent.


----------



## howlingfantods

KenOC said:


> Arguments like these run on and on, never with resolution. They always revolve around matters of taste. An example from nature: While most of us avoid excrement, dung beetles love it. In fact, I am sure they have highly developed tastes for dung, and some of them discriminate in quite sophisticated ways between this pile of dung and that one. Perhaps they have the olfactory equivalents of little dung forums where they argue endlessly about such matters, but I don't know that.
> 
> In any event, it strikes me as an appropriate analogy for those who prefer the fortepiano. This remark is put forward purely in a spirit of reason, without pejorative intent.


This thread struck me as a perfectly civil and interesting thread except in those couple of instances when someone decided to get their panties in a twist because I repeated criticisms about an instrument that composers at the time also complained about.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> This is a sincere question: are there any known examples of any composer or performer complaining about changes in piano design at the time they occurred?


You might want to think about Scarlatti, who for most of his life had pianos at his disposal and, though some of his music seems to fit well on it, very little of it does, most of it seems to demand harpsichord colours and textures. CPE Bach and Mozart may also be worth thinking about, some of the music sounds so right on clavichord and harpsichord.

And then there's JS Bach, who never wrote anything for piano despite selling them on, apart from, arguably, one ricercar a3.

There are clearly many contemporary keyboard performers who have rejected modern piano, and indeed any type of piano at all.


----------



## premont

howlingfantods said:


> Yes, pianophiles like Beethoven and Chopin and Schumann and Brahms and Liszt and Rachmaninov all agreed that the more modern pianos were better than older instruments and the best instruments for playing all the keyboard music ever written.
> 
> And then sometime around the middle of the 20th century, people couldn't come up with any further improvements, so jaded sophisticates looking for a new experience went, "Hey, how about those old instruments? You know, the ones the composers we love hated when they were alive?"


If I hadn't read your earlier posts, I would think that this post I quote was ironically intended.

The modern piano represents one specific aesthetic ideal, but it is far from a perfect instrument. Electronic keyboard instruments can be made with sampled sound (e.g. piano sound), ultrafast action, touch sensitivity and with endless compass and sustain et.c. et.c.. Only your fantasy sets the limits. Such an instrument might have made old LvB euphoric, and he would have preferred it to all other keyboard instruments,- or would he??.

Whatever you say, I am convinced, that all music is best served by being played on the instruments it was written for, which means harpsichord or clavichord for Bach, fortepiano for Mozart and Beethoven and modern piano for Rachmaninov.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> There are clearly many contemporary keyboard performers who have rejected modern piano, and indeed any type of piano at all.


Some of your post is debatable, but I was asking specifically about reactions to the evolution of the piano itself, not piano vs harpsichord.

What demand was driving the evolution of the piano?


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Arguments like these run on and on, never with resolution. They always revolve around matters of taste.


"Arguments like these?" You're a blatant "threadist!"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> For me, fortepianos routinely lack beauty of sound. It's up to the player to control the volume of sound on the pianoforte and some listen better than others. But it's not the instrument itself because there's the una corda pedal, the soft pedal, that's always available to any pianist. One out of 20 or 30 fortepianos sound good to me and I cannot believe that most of them sounded that bad in their day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks. Unbearable. It's already out of tune and he seems oblivious but he's going to plow forward apparently numb to the infernal racket the instrument is making. It's awful! Yes, there's a certain lightness of sound, but the tinkling notes have a fast fade and in the modern world fortepianos can often sound more like toys than real instruments. Nevertheless, some sound better than others, though it's rare that I would ever describe them as being beautiful, and can capture something of the 18th and early 19th century era that the music was written in and is like going back in time. But I believe that Mozart and Beethoven would have been thrilled to play on the modern grand piano because of its beautiful sonority.


I find the modern piano ugly in sound quality and its mechanical, homogeneous dullness of tone over its ranges just unbearable. (whereas the fortepiano has actually variety in tone over ranges) Also I can't stand its tendency (with its cross-strung strings) to render the 'accompaniment to melody' fuzzy and muddy as a way to create an "atmosphere of harmony", adhering to the late Romantic, modern, impressionist ideals. Overall it is a brute instrument prioritizing power and range over intricacies and subtleties.






Good thing that you mention the pedal. The pedal is actually one of the things that puts the modern piano at a *disadvantage* in classical music performance. Even with early Romantics like Chopin, you can't follow their pedal markings as written on the modern grand because the modern piano pedals are way too powerful and they will blur everything if played as Chopin had written, on the modern piano. So again, you have to make 'alterations' (I call them 'distortions') to the original scores and disregard the composers' original intentions. And today, many people conveniently call them "interpretation" or "rendention", wishfully convincing themselves the past masters would have approved of what is actually "new, distorted ways".
Read this - The message of a Pianist: Chopin's Pedal Markings in Barcarolle F# Major Op.60 Alisha Walker: https://uottawa.scholarsportal.info/ottawa/index.php/intermezzo/article/view/1400/1346
_"Due to structural differences, the pianos of 1846 were less resonant and the player could hold down the pedal for an entire phrase to give a "floating feeling" to the music. *Today, if a performer holds down the pedal for an entire phrase the music would sound like a blur and the harmonic progression could be lost."* _

And the fortepiano also has its pedal (beneath the keyboard, controlled by knees).










Bach, Mozart, Haydn (and arguably Beethoven) would have disliked the modern grand for all the negative attributes described in these videos. Even Mozart was more an organist who thought the "organ was the king of all instruments", (although he didn't get many commissions for organ compositions and most organ performances at the time were improvised) and there had to be a clear distinction of role between the organ and the piano.

Watch from 16:00


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> Some of your post is debatable,


Which parts?

wsvfp;vfgjSEDOLVGJEDSOLBVNJ


----------



## hammeredklavier

isorhythm said:


> This is a sincere question: are there any known examples of any composer or performer complaining about changes in piano design at the time they occurred?


Well, cultural aesthetics in music also gradually changed simultaneously with the changes to the piano, and later composers simply demanded different instruments. Just because 19th century in music is a later period of music, it's NOT an advancement from 18th century music. 
The same way, the modern piano is NOT an advancement from the fortepiano.
Music did not "evolve". It just changed.


----------



## howlingfantods

premont said:


> If I hadn't read your earlier posts, I would think that this post I quote was ironically intended.
> 
> The modern piano represents one specific aesthetic ideal, but it is far from a perfect instrument.


Correct. It is a specific aesthetic ideal, designed by generations of the finest composers and pianists around, specifically for the purpose of most effectively performing and listening to Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, etc.

Talking about how historically contingent the piano is isn't really that effective in this context, since the historical contingency is that this was developed specifically for performing the music we're talking about.



premont said:


> Electronic keyboard instruments can be made with sampled sound (e.g. piano sound), ultrafast action, touch sensitivity and with endless compass and sustain et.c. et.c.. Only your fantasy sets the limits. Such an instrument might have made old LvB euphoric, and he would have preferred it to all other keyboard instruments,- or would he??.


Possibly. I actually do unironically think that Bach and Beethoven would have loved the freedom and flexibility of an electronic keyboard. Guns are also better killing weapons than the best swords. I'm not sure what relevance this observation has to the question of what sword would be best in a swordfight, or of what instrument Hammerklavier or Appassionata sounds best on. It isn't an electronic keyboard, which takes away most of the tricks of the trade of a high end pianist in creating different sounds and touches.

I argue that it isn't early pianos with their limited volume, limited dynamic range, limited tonal range, lighter actions, uneven registers. Of course, you're free to disagree, but I'm just expressing my opinion, which I believe is the point of threads like this?



premont said:


> Whatever you say, I am convinced, that all music is best served by being played on the instruments it was written for, which means harpsichord or clavichord for Bach, fortepiano for Mozart and Beethoven and modern piano for Rachmaninov.


And to me, Beethoven on the fortepianos that I've heard sounds toylike and dainty, the opposite of how I want Beethoven to sound.

I don't much like Beecham, but I agree with him thoroughly that harpsichords sound like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof, so I am extremely grateful that the piano exists so I can listen to Bach on something other than harpsichords. I also think Bach is a funny person to be stringent about HIP instruments considering his own fondness for transcribing his own and others' music.

I have no opinion on appropriate instrument for Mozart, since I don't care for his music other than his operas.


----------



## classical yorkist

I've been reading this thread with not a little interest. I have to say I really enjoy the sound of vintage keyboard instruments be they the earliest harpsichord to pianos of the late nineteenth century. I am intrigued by the references to composers complaining about their instruments. Can I have some references/examples of this as it's not something I've investigated and it does have me intrigued.


----------



## Guest

I find Beethoven a red herring in this issue. He was almost entirely deaf when he wrote his most significant piano music, he had no idea what the new instruments he was playing sounded like, I can only assume he was mostly responding to what they felt like. I don't see a strong argument for what Beethoven piano music "should" be played on. I enjoy it on modern piano and on period pianos. Different aspects of the music are laid bare when played on different instruments.

But Mozart was not writing for posterity. He was trying to write something that would come off on the instrument he had at his disposal at the time, and would increase his fame and encourage rich aristocrats to give him more gold. He was trying to take maximum advantage of the instrument available to him. He may very well have loved the modern piano, but he would have written different music for it. I find listening to Mozart on a period "fortepiano" can be revelatory.

I don't think that it is appropriate to say music "should" be performed a certain way. It should be performed in any way that moves people. But I think it is of great value that a historically appropriate performance is one of the options. An aspect of the music that is masked on a modern instrument can be revealed on a historically appropriate instrument.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Baron Scarpia said:


> But Mozart was not writing for posterity. He was trying to write something that would come off on the instrument he had at his disposal at the time, and would increase his fame and encourage rich aristocrats to give him more gold.


But then other composers in history also had to write music for their own respective time and society to make a living (except maybe Mendelssohn). The term "wealthy aristocrats" (as you used) can be misleading because many of them in reality were actually music connoisseurs who had wide variety of taste in music. Fantasies K594, K608 were actually commissioned by Count Deym who had a taste for that sort of music. The modern-sounding Adagio and Fugue K546 was written to be performed at gatherings with Baron Gottfried van Swieten. (The Requiem was commissioned by Count Franz von Walsegg). Fantasie K475 (and Sonata K457) were dedicated to one of his piano students Therese von Trattner, a daughter of a wealthy music publisher. All of these had influence on future generations of composers and musicians. ( As I explained in https://www.talkclassical.com/62943-my-definitive-ranking-major-8.html#post1702254 ) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "writing for posterity" - by your logic, who actually did "write for posterity"?






http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf
_"Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist."Extremely controversial, generating doubts and questions from the very first measure, musical ideas far ahead of their time make the adventure of exploring this piece with performance purposes one of the most exciting."_

http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf#page=9
_"Mozart's Phantasie transcended the historical and stylistic moment in which it was created, thus what Mozart began was finished by Liszt in his piano composition Sonata in B-minor (1852-1853). It is perfectly reasonable that Mozart's Phantasie served as a model to Franz Liszt for a typological definition of his one-movement sonata cycle."_


----------



## Larkenfield

Another example of a gentleman who apparently feels that the clanging effects of the instrument are a normal part of the forte piano sound because he seems oblivious to them. It's hard to imagine any composer at that time being inspired by its sometimes metalic sonority. But one can still sense the potential of the instrument with its lighter sound beneath its crudities demonstrated here... His use of the pedal is excessive and the player does not seem to know how to properly dampen the sound. This could not possibly be how out of control the instrument sounded in its day. And I believe it can be easily heard how the instrument's lighter sound would eventually not have been satisfactory to Beethoven, who demanded more volume and power from his keyboard instruments. Hard to imagine Mozart playing on such an instrument if it sounded this poor. Nevertheless, there are historical accounts of how expressive and pleasing the sound of the forte piano could be. But in modern times, it sounds like it has defects that would affect the volume, quality and sonority, which are ignored, or, even worse, not recognized to begin with and then the public is supposed to accept these shortcomings as authentic. I don't think so. If the sound of the instrument is not pleasing, then don't play on it. The leather hammers should never sound like metal on strings, such as the Bassoon effect demonstrated here.


----------



## isorhythm

It really does sound like a dusty, scratched-up console piano shoved in the corner of a high school band band room somewhere in Iowa, doesn't it? (Sorry for the extremely United States-centric imagery, but I can't express it any other way.)


----------



## Mandryka

It think it sounds very good fun in that Turkish march!


----------



## hammeredklavier

isorhythm said:


> It really does sound like a dusty, scratched-up console piano shoved in the corner of a high school band band room somewhere in Iowa, doesn't it? (Sorry for the extremely United States-centric imagery, but I can't express it any other way.)





Larkenfield said:


> Another example of a gentleman who apparently feels that the clanging effects of the instrument are a normal part of the forte piano sound because he seems oblivious to them.


Have you watched the video "Video Kristian Bezuidenhout - Mozart : Sonatas vol 4" I posted above? 



I'm curious what you think of the harpsichord. Do you listen to any music played on the harpsichord?






I can't stand listening to stuff like this. It just sounds like a "Baroque angel", as Malcolm Bilson described in the video "A Piano is not a Piano is not a Piano".


----------



## hammeredklavier

The 1805 Walter & Sohn fortepiano is different from the 1785 version, the one shown in the video you posted. The fortepiano expanded in size and sound power in those 20 years. If you don't like the "primitiveness" of the 1785 fortepiano, there are always later versions of the fortepiano you can listen to instead.






Playing 18th century music on the modern Steinway is a downright WRONG way to interpret the music. Because the modern Steinway is essentially a "different" instrument. 
If you're a piano-player you'll know what I'm saying. Play Mozart on the modern piano as written, it'll always sound AWKWARD, because of the cross-stringing mechanism of the modern piano. Proper articulation, phrasing can't be done as written because sound doesn't increase and decrease quickly enough on the modern piano. Not only that, the bass will sound AWKWARDLY too loud. 
All modern interpretations on the modern piano by famous pianists are done with "horrible ways" in attempt to get around them. 
If you properly understood the purposes and aesthetics of 18th century practices, (which some people here never seem to) you'll realize how ridiculous they sound. The bass is played in constant mezzo-piano, the phrasing slurs often go on and on nonstop. W. T. F.

If you don't like the "primitiveness" of the 1785 version fortepiano, listen to performances on the 1805 version.
Really there can be no excuse. The modern piano is simply not the same thing as the fortepiano. 
If you want your music played loudly, why not listen to it played on the organ?
You're telling me you're ignoring all the disadvantages of the modern piano in 18th century music performance, just because you want louder sound?


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> I find Beethoven a red herring in this issue. He was almost entirely deaf when he wrote his most significant piano music, he had no idea what the new instruments he was playing sounded like, I can only assume he was mostly responding to what they felt like. I don't see a strong argument for what Beethoven piano music "should" be played on.


Beethoven was not only not deaf but was still performing when he wrote his middle-period sonatas and all his piano concertos. I doubt he would have turned down a Steinway for his Appassionata!

He did get quite deaf around 1814-1815 but still played for friends. He could hear a bit more on some days and very little on others. He had special sounding boards made for his pianos to increase the volume and of course had a whole collection of ear trumpets. And on his worst days he would listen by bone conduction, using a pencil held between his teeth and touching the piano case.

Little wonder that a nearly deaf musician might want a piano with enhanced volume. And of course he was very interested in increased keyboard span as well.


----------



## BobBrines

The thing that annoys me most about threads like this is arrogant know-it-alls telling me what my music choices are wrong.


----------



## howlingfantods

hammeredklavier said:


> The 1805 Walter & Sohn fortepiano is different from the 1785 version, the one shown in the video you posted. The fortepiano expanded in size and sound power in those 20 years. If you don't like the "primitiveness" of the 1785 fortepiano, there are always later versions of the fortepiano you can listen to instead.


Literally LOLed at 1:56.

Feel free to listen to this if you want, of course. I'm not persuaded though.

(continuing to listen) Boy is this not good. This is the best example you could find? Doesn't it bother any of you that this is performed with a dynamic range of mezzo to a mezzoforte, and sounds like a farting duck when it does play mezzoforte?

Just clicked through to see who the pianist was, saw the name, and it made me sad. Here's what her father sounded like on a proper instrument.






Note how contrary to the comments from the pro-fortepiano crowd, it's the fortepiano performance that is loud, noisy and unmusical. The piano performance is quieter and more lyrical, much of it played at piano and pianissimo. This is because early pianos have overly light actions to permit you to play true pianos or pianissimos. And note how mechanical the playing is, she seems compelled to play quickly with the quick decay, so the music can't properly breathe or sing.

Obviously the elder Sofronitsky is the more talented, yet much of the poverty of the younger's performance is an accommodation of a much inferior instrument.


----------



## hammeredklavier

howlingfantods said:


> Doesn't it bother any of you that this is performed with a dynamic range of mezzo to a mezzoforte, and sounds like a farting duck when it does play mezzoforte?


It doesn't sound at all like a farting duck to me. It's just hammers striking steel strings. Maybe you're so used to the sound of the modern piano, you find the sound of the fortepiano alien.
And yes, the modern piano has more dynamic range by condition, more registers of high/low notes, more pedal power. Yet you can't make use of any them in 18th century music. Rather, they hinder performance when it comes to performing 18th century music. The awkwardness in tone of the modern piano in 18th century music performance limits its dynamic range. The fortepiano is even capable of more dynamic range in 18th century music performance as confirmed by Kristian Bezuidenhout









What do you think of each of the points raised in the videos I posted? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Have you watched them at all?
Robert Levin




Malcolm Bilson







howlingfantods said:


> Obviously the elder Sofronitsky is the more talented, yet much of the poverty of the younger's performance is an accommodation of a much inferior instrument.


It has nothing to do with talent, it's about being aware of the composers' original intentions. The elder Sofronitsky lived during a time period HIP performance practice was not widespread yet. Today, Andras Schiff, for example, has recorded a lot of HIP recordings too, would you say he's talentless as well?


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you watched the video "Video Kristian Bezuidenhout - Mozart : Sonatas vol 4" I posted above?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what you think of the harpsichord. Do you listen to any music played on the harpsichord?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stand listening to stuff like this. It just sounds like a "Baroque angel", as Malcolm Bilson described in the video "A Piano is not a Piano is not a Piano".


The problem with this performance is that too much sustained pedal is being used, not the instrument itself with its pleasing sonority and quality of sound that Bach himself might have preferred. Experienced musicians are supposed to be able to tell the difference, and yet how many of them are playing on a horribly unacceptable-sounding forte piano, many of which have a metallic clanging or crude sound that couldn't possibly be authentic because it's so unmusical and unappealing? The HIP pianists must be as tone deaf as Beethoven and that makes it possible. The sonority and tone quality of most forte pianos is unappealing and unacceptable even before even the first note is played and the public is supposed to accept this as the authentic sound of the instrument-which it isn't. It couldn't possibly be as horrible sounding in its day. In other words, the makers of the forte piano replicas couldn't possibly have any idea what the original instrument sounded like and yet they push unacceptable instruments on the public, though every once in a blue moon there's an actual forte piano that sounds decent. Repost:






I'm reminded of a jalopy that appears in an old silent film soundtrack. And look at the effort, the excruciating effort, that Brautigam is expending to play this wretched instrument. The forte piano's potential virtues are worth nothing unless there's a fundamental quality of sound, period, and yet instruments are used that sound completely unacceptable. One would have to wear ears plugs to get through a performance like the above.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> how many of them are playing on a horrible sounding forte piano instrument?


The sole reason why the modern piano is more popular today in concert halls, conservatories, etc is because there is far more demand for the modern piano due to its compatibility with contemporary genres and versatility (whereas the fortepiano is only really for period performances) .
Many performers don't care about the composers' original intentions - they're just professionals persuing money and fame. They just play the way their fandom wants to hear. And the general fandom decides for themselves what constitutes "authentic performance", they themselves also disregarding the composers' original intentions.

Mozart criticized Clementi's legato playing for being too dry and mechanical, which he found alien to his taste. Beethoven had seen Mozart play and later told Czerny that "Mozart had a fine, but choppy way of playing."
What do these tell us? Mozart adhered strictly to the tradition of fortepiano/harpsichord practices. 
And today, proponents of the modern piano think they can do whatever **** they want with Mozart works without caring for what he actually intended for proper dynamics, articulation, phrasing.

What a joke.

You're no different from the 'troll keyboardist' Wim Winters and his fans. The only difference is that you're more massive in number than them.






highest-upvoted comments of this video:
_"It becomes quite a frightening march at this tempo, very interesting. Modern audiences will never accept this at this point in time, but I don't think you're wrong! It works."_ -Joseph Fleetwood
_"Played at this speed, you can really hear the left hand and understands it's contribution to the piece, played in today's faster tempi the left hand becomes mere accompaniment and almost a vain show off material. But here you feel the sudden shifts of harmony the left hand creates much more clearly and ironically I felt the movement of the piece even strongly than the modern tempo version. Thanks for opening my mind to this new way of thinking about Chopin and tempo."_ -Burak Ünsal


----------



## hammeredklavier

Scriabin himself wished his Prelude in A minor Op.11 No.2 be played at _allegretto_, in his own recording he actually played it at that tempo. 



 But many performers today do whatever **** they want with tempo and play it at moderato or andante. What do you think about this in relation to our discussion? What's the true meaning of classical music culture if we can do whatever twist and distortion we see fit to do with the past masters' works?


----------



## howlingfantods

hammeredklavier said:


> It doesn't sound at all like a farting duck to me. It's just hammers striking steel strings. Maybe you're so used to the sound of the modern piano, you find the sound of the fortepiano alien.


No. What I'm hearing from the elder Sofronitsky's piano is just the sound of hammers striking steel strings. What I'm hearing from the younger Sofronitsky's fortepiano is the hammers striking steel strings, plus a lot of other extra noise. My guess is that the sounding board is insufficiently damped from the piano frame, so the entire piano is vibrating, and it's creating lots of non-musical audible vibrations--aka "noise"--between mechanical components of the piano, parts of the piano frame, and probably the entire piano vibrating against the stage. The effect is similar to a cellist putting the peg on a loose floorboard, and being able to hear parts of the stage vibrating as they play.



hammeredklavier said:


> And yes, the modern piano has more dynamic range by condition, more registers of high/low notes, more pedal power. Yet you can't make use of any them in 18th century music. Rather, they hinder performance when it comes to performing 18th century music. The awkwardness in tone of the modern piano in 18th century music performance limits its dynamic range.


You seem to be conflating several completely different things when talking about "dynamic range". "Dynamic range" is specifically about volume--softness and loudness. Having lower low notes and higher high notes is "tonal range". I don't know what you mean by "pedal power" in this context--maybe you're referring to the fact that modern pianos have longer sustains than early pianos?

Modern instruments have greater dynamic range than early ones. This is just an indisputable fact that anyone can easily measure--and by "greater dynamic range", I mean the entire range, both softness and loudness. The louder part is obvious--the bigger steel sounding board versus the smaller wooden one, anyone listening to either in a concert hall will be able to hear one easily and the other one not so well.

On the softness end, any pianist--even a beginner--who's played on a variety of instruments can tell you that pianos with lighter action are harder to play softly on than one with a heavier action, and fortepianos have lighter action than pianos with light action.

I'll expand on this point since Scarpia seemed so dubious of this earlier in this thread. Imagine driving a car with a very light brake pedal--you barely brush it and it jerks to a stop. Compare that to a car with a heavy brake pedal--you floor it and it slows down. You can modulate your braking much more sensitively with the heavier brake than the lighter brake.

That car with the very light brake pedal is the fortepiano key--you brush it and it plays mezzo, so you basically just can't really play softly... or slow down gradually. The car with the heavy brake pedal is the modern piano key--you brush it and it plays pianissimo... you brush the pedal and you slow down just a little. You press with just a light touch and it plays piano.

You have a wealth of range with one (listen to the difference between loud and soft and everything in between in the elder Sofronitsky's performance) and an impoverished range with the other (listen to the too-loud soft passages and the noisy and feeble loud passages in the younger Sofronitsky's performance).



hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think of each of the points raised in the videos I posted? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Have you watched them at all?


You strike me as maybe a younger person who hasn't learned some essential things about the world. One is, if a person's livelihood depends on believing something, they will absolutely believe it 100%, and if it depends on making you believe something, they can be very persuasive in making you believe that thing.

I'm sure Bezuidenhout is a fine musician, but he's in the business of persuading you to buy his recordings instead of the recordings made by even finer pianists on better instruments. Just the fact that he has a major Harmonia Mundi recording contract is based on the novelty of his playing these instruments.



hammeredklavier said:


> It has nothing to do with talent, it's about being aware of the composers' original intentions. The elder Sofronitsky lived during a time period HIP performance practice was not widespread yet. Today, Andras Schiff, for example, has recorded a lot of HIP recordings too, would you say he's talentless as well?


The elder Sofronitsky's performance is more lyrical, beautiful, witty, lively, exciting, pleasant, clever, and dramatic than the younger's. While he's playing, he's making a very good case for the piece--even though I don't much like Mozart's keyboard music, Sofronitsky makes me think that it's an excellent bit of composition, even though it's not to my tastes.

The younger Sofronitsky's performance made me think that fictitious Emperor Joseph from Amadeus had a pretty good point about this music having too many notes. It sounds noisy, busy and overall rather unpleasant. I was quite relieved when it was over, never an emotion you want to create in your audiences in a musical performance.

So if your argument is that HIP involves playing music in a way that makes it sound worse, less pleasant, exciting, lyrical, beautiful, and clever, and more like an unpleasant noisy racket... I think I'll give HIP a pass, thank you very much.

I don't have much of an opinion on Schiff. I bought a number of his Decca Bach recordings when they came out, thought they were impressively dull and uninteresting and never bought anything from him again. I hear that his more recent work is more interesting but I've not felt inclined to investigate.


----------



## Botschaft

howlingfantods said:


> And to me, Beethoven on the fortepianos that I've heard sounds toylike and dainty, the opposite of how I want Beethoven to sound.
> 
> I don't much like Beecham, but I agree with him thoroughly that harpsichords sound like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof, so I am extremely grateful that the piano exists so I can listen to Bach on something other than harpsichords. I also think Bach is a funny person to be stringent about HIP instruments considering his own fondness for transcribing his own and others' music.
> 
> I have no opinion on appropriate instrument for Mozart, since I don't care for his music other than his operas.


Instead of wasting your time on superfluous rationalizations you could have been content with just stating the above, as it's all that your comments in this thread boil down to. You don't have to defend your not liking Beethoven's piano music played on the kind of instrument on which it was intended to be played and for which it was carefully adapted, however paradoxical that opinion might seem. You don't even have to like it at all.

This, however, sounds good _to me_, whatever you may think of it:


----------



## Larkenfield

Schubert on one of the better sounding fortepianos:





y


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> The sole reason why the modern piano is more popular today in concert halls, conservatories, etc is that there is far more demand for the modern piano due to its compatibility with contemporary genres and versatility (whereas the fortepiano is only really for period performances).
> Many performers don't care about the composers' original intentions - they're just professionals persuing money and fame. They just play the way their fandom wants to hear. And the general fandom decides for themselves what constitutes "authentic performance", they themselves also disregarding the composers' original intentions.


Intentions are one thing but the instrument must be capable of carrying them out with decent sound and sonority. Such a rationalization on why the modern piano is popular is inaccurate. It's popular because it's what the fortepiano evolved into. If the fortepiano is superior for the music it was written for then post examples of decent sounding fortepianos. It has to have a good quality of sound, a pleasing sonority, regardless of its other virtues, and those qualities are rare and hard to find where the instrument is not constantly attracting attention to itself because of its defects of mechanism and brittle toy sounding upper register with little sustain. There must be a basic pleasant quality of sound for anyone to be able to appreciate its other virtues, and too many of these vintage instruments do not have it and are a torture to bear. I posted a number of examples of what I consider the better sounding fortepianos worth hearing, so they do exist but some of you can't find them. Brautigam on a better sounding instrument is wonderful to hear, but sometimes he plays on a rattle trap and sweats bullets to play it. The instrument must be worth hearing even before anything is played on it. The problem is they're hard to find, and because of their obvious limitations in most of them, they get in the way of the music rather than enhancing it and expressing the composer's intentions. The instruments had to have sounded better in their day because the listeners weren't fools and would not have put up with inferior sound and instruments that were irritating and agitating. All it takes is listening by ear to tell the difference between a good and a bad instrument. But some of you will sacrifice that because you think the composer's intentions override having a superior instrument with a sweet and expressive sound quality.


----------



## hammeredklavier

howlingfantods said:


> You seem to be conflating several completely different things when talking about "dynamic range". "Dynamic range" is specifically about volume--*softness and loudness.* Having lower low notes and higher high notes is "tonal range". I don't know what you mean by "pedal power" in this context--maybe you're referring to the fact that modern pianos have longer sustains than early pianos?


That's exactly what I meant by "dynamic range". Dynamics - piano - forte. The modern piano indeed has a lot more dynamic range. But you can't make use of it in 18th century music. Instead its features become hindrance.








 <-- if you don't get these parts, I see no point to continue this discussion any further.

Overall, the modern piano is too much of a different monster (with featured like crossed-strung bass & increase/decrease rate of sound volume & sustaining length of the pedal, that are only appropriate for music of late 19th century and onward) to be considered appropriate for period music performance.


----------



## howlingfantods

Waldesnacht said:


> Instead of wasting your time on superfluous rationalizations you could have been content with just stating the above, as it's all that your comments in this thread boil down to. You don't have to defend your not liking Beethoven's piano music played on the kind of instrument on which it was intended to be played and for which it was carefully adapted, however paradoxical that opinion might seem. You don't even have to like it at all.
> 
> This, however, sounds good _to me_, whatever you may think of it:


Yes, threads like these exist for the purpose of people with differing opinions being able to state their opinions, and, if challenged, state the reasons for their opinions. You can choose to find those opinions and rationales interesting or infuriating. You seem to have opted for the latter--that is your choice.

You choose to simply state your opinion that you like this Brautigam recording. I think it would be more interesting if you actually provided reasoning instead of baldly stating your preference, but I suppose you were modeling behavior you wish me to follow?

I actually agree it sounds pretty good. It is suspicious how studio recordings I hear from Brautigam on fortepianos tend to sound so much better than live recordings... hmmmm… how does studio recording engineering fit into the HIPster paradigm I wonder...


----------



## Botschaft

howlingfantods said:


> Yes, threads like these exist for the purpose of people with differing opinions being able to state their opinions, and, if challenged, state the reasons for their opinions. You can choose to find those opinions and rationales interesting or infuriating. You seem to have opted for the latter--that is your choice.
> 
> You choose to simply state your opinion that you like this Brautigam recording. I think it would be more interesting if you actually provided reasoning instead of baldly stating your preference, but I suppose you were modeling behavior you wish me to follow?
> 
> I actually agree it sounds pretty good. It is suspicious how studio recordings I hear from Brautigam on fortepianos tend to sound so much better than live recordings... hmmmm… how does studio recording engineering fit into the HIPster paradigm I wonder...


You think a live recording would have sounded much different? I have never heard a live recording of music played on this Graf opus 318 fortepiano model, nor have ever noticed such a great difference between live and studio recordings. The fortepiano in question has a particularly clean sound, less wooden and less metallic than some others.


----------



## classical yorkist

If all these fortepianos sound as bad as you say then it does beg the question; why do these world class performers and musicians constantly perform on them? Why are they happy with the sound? I cannot think of a professional in any field of work who would accept substandard equipment.


----------



## Mandryka

There are many other recordings using a Graf -- Georg Demus recorded Beethoven using Beethoven's Graf, and he used one on hios recording of The Trout with Colegium Aureum; Paul Badura Skoda recorded some Schubert with one.

The piano I'm keen to hear in op 111/ii is a Cristofori. I have a friend who had a go playing it on one of them, and he said that the way it handled the trills was special. Unfortunately I've never found a recording or heard a concert with it.


----------



## classical yorkist

Mandryka said:


> The piano I'm keen to hear in op 111/ii is a Cristofori. I have a friend who had a go playing it on one of them, and he said that the way it handled the trills was special. Unfortunately I've never found a recording or heard a concert with it.


I recently bought a cd that uses a replica Christoforo to perform Giustini's Piano Sonatas from the 1730's. It's a peculiar sounding instrument somewhere between the harpsichord and the Fortepiano.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> The piano I'm keen to hear in op 111/ii is a Cristofori.


Would seem anachronistic the other way round, like playing Brahms on the harpsichord.


----------



## classical yorkist

Larkenfield said:


> Schubert on one of the better sounding fortepianos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> y


I was reading about Schubert last night and how he favoured lighter Viennese instruments; eschewing what he called 'the accursed banging of even the most distinguished pianists, which can please neither the ear nor the senses'. And you can quote him on that!


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> Would seem anachronistic the other way round, like playing Brahms on the harpsichord.


My mistake. It was something the pianist Ian Pace said which I was thinking of, but I was confused, he was talking about Streicher pianos, not Cristofori pianos! The discussion was specifically about op 111/ii



> What is difficult is not so much the physical side of things as the
> simple fact of maintaining clarity and shape without sounding
> extremely rushed and hectic (try playing the 12/32 section at quaver =
> 60-63 if you don't believe me). But this is manageable, what is less
> so is maintaining a sense of poise, simplicity, cantabile and depth
> for the theme at the quicker tempos. The sustaining power of the
> notes on the modern piano implies longer durations for their decay, so
> the tempos are usually slowed down.
> 
> Every single note on a modern instrument has a much greater sustaining
> power and the sound takes longer to reach its peak, totally altering
> the texture of the 12/32 section (let alone the first movement of the
> Hammerklavier at Beethoven's metronome mark, or indeed a great many of
> his works if we are to extrapolate tempos from the various evidence
> that exists). I have played this movement on a Streicher piano and
> the differences are huge. No-one will ever produce the scintillating
> sound of the triple trills on a modern piano, and the active bass
> tremolos and arpeggios at bars 65-71, 81-88, 100-105, 130-160 so
> easily turn muddy at the faster tempos. On the Streicher, one can
> observe Beethoven's pedal markings, and build up the sound in the bass
> without this being a problem.
> 
> The sforzandi on sustained notes in bars 16, 32, 48, 60, 62, 63, 136,
> 142, 146, 148, 151, 152, 153, 160, 175, 176 (which feature in near
> every Beethoven work, also in Schubert and Schumann) are predicated
> upon an instrument with a quicker delay, else they just turn into
> fortissimo interruptions. This sort of punctuation, which Beethoven
> used to a greater degree than Haydn or Mozart, is one of the most
> serious losses on the modern piano; most of the time in music of any
> of these composers, pianists playing them nowadays just leave such
> things out because they become impossible (listen to Pollini or
> Richter playing the Wanderer Fantasy bars 112-131, Sofronitsky or
> Pollini playing the last movement of the Schumann F# Minor Sonata,
> many many other examples).
> 
> It's been pointed out many times by many people: the depth of sound of
> the modern instrument and to some extent the Anglo-French instruments
> of the past implies the long legato cantabile line, whereas the
> lighter sound of the older Viennese instruments implies shorter
> speech-like units. Just a cursory glance at the scores of composers
> with preferences for either type of instrument shows how fundamentally
> this affects their notation of phrasing and slurs. Pianists on modern
> instruments most frequently smooth such things out nowadays, and I
> personally feel an awful lot is lost in the process. It's not
> impossible to try and compensate for the inadequacies (yes!) of the
> modern instrument when playing this music on it, but it takes a lot of
> thought and effort, and the results are always some sort of
> compromise. You would agree with me, surely, that to play the
> harpsichord works of Xenakis on a piano would change the music most
> substantially? And those arguing for continued performances on the
> harpsichord would surely have a stronger case than merely the fact
> that they 'prefer the sound'?
> 
> Pianos have altered in many ways, certainly in terms of power, but
> also in terms of fundamental design. There is ample evidence that
> Beethoven throughout his life preferred the lighter Viennese
> instruments (Walter, Stein, Streicher, Graf) to the heavier
> Anglo-French ones (Broadwood, Erard) - see William S. Newman
> 'Beethoven on Beethoven: Playing his Piano Music his Way' (despite the
> awful title) for this. Beethoven understood the instrument and its
> possibilities to an unprecedented degree. All of his phrasing,
> articulation, accentuation, pedalling was written with the most
> intimate knowledge of the instruments he wrote for, and how to push
> them to their limits. Indeed he may have found much to praise in
> modern instruments, but then he would have composed a different type
> of music.
> 
> A lot of the complexities and subtleties of this music are lost
> nowadays, in my opinion, precisely because so many compromises have to
> be made in order to accomodate both the nature of today's instruments
> and the accepted norms of musical/pianistic style. Neither I nor
> anyone else sympathetic to the HIP cause are trying to abolish this,
> just exploring alternatives, believing that these factors diminish
> rather than augment the music's modernity.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> something the pianist Ian Pace said which I was thinking of.. talking about Streicher pianos.! The discussion was specifically about op 111/ii


Thanks for this informative quote. It is interesting to see a period specialist putting into words the things we actually hear.


----------



## isorhythm

I've enjoyed some of the fortepiano recordings posted in this thread, though it will never be my first choice. The lighter, clearer bass is to me the main point in their favor. The other supposed advantages still seem to me mostly imagined. Here is Charles Rosen, memorably, on the subject: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/11/08/early-music-an-exchange/

Like Larkenfield, I have trouble believing that 18th century fortepianos sounded quite as unpleasant as the ones being played today.

The English Concert recordings from the 70s sound awful because they hadn't figured out the instruments yet. I wonder if we're at a similar stage in rediscovering the fortepiano.

Edit: English Concert, not Consort!


----------



## Larkenfield

isorhythm said:


> I've enjoyed some of the fortepiano recordings posted in this thread, though it will never be my first choice. The lighter, clearer bass is to me the main point in their favor. The other supposed advantages still seem to me mostly imagined. Here is Charles Rosen, memorably, on the subject: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/11/08/early-music-an-exchange/
> 
> Like Larkenfield, I have trouble believing that 18th century fortepianos sounded quite as unpleasant as the ones being played today.
> 
> The English Consort recordings from the 70s sound awful because they hadn't figured out the instruments yet. I wonder if we're at a similar stage in rediscovering the fortepiano.


Yes, I also find it difficult to believe that authentic 18th-century fortepianos sounded as poor in their day as most of them do today. As Shakespeare used to say, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Even some of the replicas sound terrible, and vintage instruments are more than 200 years old. I can't imagine that the audiences then had tin ears and were expected to put up with the sound of such rattle traps. Brautigam must have cotton stuck in his ears to be able to stand some of the wretched instruments he plays on and then he beats the hell out of some of them and bangs on them unconsciously like it's a modern grand piano. I would expect a more subtle approach even playing Beethoven with an instrument that has a lighter and reputedly more refine sound overall. It doesn't add up and take a genius to point out the inconsistencies. Some of the HIP performers must think that today's audiences are fools to accept such painful sounding instruments, some with a highly metallic clanging sound, as authentic. I can't imagine Joseph Haydn or Mozart playing on such instruments. Their sound does not inspire; in fact, it makes one want to reach for the battle-axe because their defects call too much attention to themselves rather than to the pleasure of hearing the music.


----------



## howlingfantods

I've been thinking about why this entire argument with respect to Beethoven bothers me so much, and I think it's because it seems both ahistorical and kind of insulting to Beethoven, since it requires minimizing his world-historical importance. 

For this narrative about modern pianos being unsuited to Beethoven to work, you have to accept that Beethoven fell into some kind of decline, that instruments were being developed for the purpose of playing others' works and that therefore people were moving away from instruments that were better suited for Beethoven. It's basically regrafting the Bach story to Beethoven.

But of course, Beethoven never went into a decline. From the 1820s to today, there has been no repertoire more important to pianists or critics or audiences than Beethoven's sonatas. Every time that Pleyel or Broadwood or Bluthner or Steinway innovates with a new design, one of the first things they do is play Appassionata and Moonlight and Pathetique on it, since they know that's the first things that their buyers and performers do. When Barenboim demonstrated his new piano design, he demonstrated it by playing Appassionata on his piano and a Steinway side by side. 

This was even more true in the early/mid 19th century during the time of the major changes to piano design and construction, when musicians and composers worshipped Beethoven even more than they do now. There is probably no one person who's more responsible for the design of the modern piano than Beethoven. To a great extent, the rapid pace of development of the piano in those middle decades of the 19th century was driven by a desire to create instruments that could do justice to Beethoven's works, more so than any other composer's works.


----------



## isorhythm

I, too, have been thinking about why this bothers me. In the course of my thinking I came across this essay by Malcolm Bilson: (link)

I was struck by this part in particular, starting on page two:



> In the 1990s I and six young colleagues played the 32
> Beethoven Piano Sonatas in New York and a few other venues. We
> used three pianos: a five-octave 1795 Walter type for the sonatas up to
> and including Opus 31, a six-octave 1815 Nannette Streicher type for
> Opus 53-90, and a 6 1/2 octave 1825 Graf type for Opus 101-111. It
> proved a revelation to see how Beethoven changed his style of piano
> writing, often drastically, as the instrument changed and became
> larger.
> 
> (musical example from Opus 10/2)
> 
> The crispness of the fugato beginning of Opus 10/2
> loses much of its incisiveness if played on the Graf Beethoven had in
> his last years.
> 
> (musical example from Opus 109/iii)
> 
> Yet playing this passage from Beethoven's last period on an early
> Walter would rob it of its 'romantic haze', so essential to its meaning.
> Indeed, it is hard to imagine Beethoven writing something of this type
> had he still had only a Walter.


There are two claims being made here:

1) Beethoven would have considered the pianos being made when he was 50 - including one he owned - unsuitable for playing his own earlier music.

2) The musical language of Beethoven's late piano sonatas was largely inspired by changes in piano design.

I don't find either of these claims even slightly plausible, and given that Bilson is a leading exponent of the pianoforte, the fact that he's making them leads me to question the whole thing.


----------



## howlingfantods

isorhythm said:


> I, too, have been thinking about why this bothers me. In the course of my thinking I came across this essay by Malcolm Bilson: (link)
> 
> I was struck by this part in particular, starting on page two:
> 
> There are two claims being made here:
> 
> 1) Beethoven would have considered the pianos being made when he was 50 - including one he owned - unsuitable for playing his own earlier music.
> 
> 2) The musical language of Beethoven's late piano sonatas was largely inspired by changes in piano design.
> 
> I don't find either of these claims even slightly plausible, and given that Bilson is a leading exponent of the pianoforte, the fact that he's making them leads me to question the whole thing.


Yes, these are absurdities. One implication in the second of these points is something that bothers me in a way I can't fully articulate -- the idea that Beethoven was like a Rimsky Korsakov-like sound colorist who wrote his music to highlight an instrument's abilities. No offense to RK fans but I consider that pretty insulting to Beethoven.

Beethoven wrote Pure Music, cosmic and universal, and begrudgingly made that music playable by mere mortals on actual instruments. But as anyone who has played or sung his music knows, he didn't care about niceties like physical limitations on the ability to comfortably reproduce what he wrote.


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> I, too, have been thinking about why this bothers me. In the course of my thinking I came across this essay by Malcolm Bilson: (link)
> 
> I was struck by this part in particular, starting on page two:
> 
> There are two claims being made here:
> 
> 1) Beethoven would have considered the pianos being made when he was 50 - including one he owned - unsuitable for playing his own earlier music.
> 
> 2) The musical language of Beethoven's late piano sonatas was largely inspired by changes in piano design.
> 
> I don't find either of these claims even slightly plausible, and given that *Bilson is a leading exponent of the pianoforte,* the fact that he's making them leads me to question the whole thing.


People like Bilson have to make such claims to justify their own position - and income!


----------



## classical yorkist

howlingfantods said:


> I've been thinking about why this entire argument with respect to Beethoven bothers me so much, and I think it's because it seems both ahistorical and kind of insulting to Beethoven, since it requires minimizing his world-historical importance.
> 
> For this narrative about modern pianos being unsuited to Beethoven to work, you have to accept that Beethoven fell into some kind of decline, that instruments were being developed for the purpose of playing others' works and that therefore people were moving away from instruments that were better suited for Beethoven. It's basically regrafting the Bach story to Beethoven.
> 
> But of course, Beethoven never went into a decline. From the 1820s to today, there has been no repertoire more important to pianists or critics or audiences than Beethoven's sonatas. Every time that Pleyel or Broadwood or Bluthner or Steinway innovates with a new design, one of the first things they do is play Appassionata and Moonlight and Pathetique on it, since they know that's the first things that their buyers and performers do. When Barenboim demonstrated his new piano design, he demonstrated it by playing Appassionata on his piano and a Steinway side by side.
> 
> This was even more true in the early/mid 19th century during the time of the major changes to piano design and construction, when musicians and composers worshipped Beethoven even more than they do now. There is probably no one person who's more responsible for the design of the modern piano than Beethoven. To a great extent, the rapid pace of development of the piano in those middle decades of the 19th century was driven by a desire to create instruments that could do justice to Beethoven's works, more so than any other composer's works.


One of the questions I've been pondering re. Beethoven and pianos is did he have a favourite? Do we know he had one particular piano he favoured above all others and was it the latest model or an earlier one?


----------



## howlingfantods

classical yorkist said:


> One of the questions I've been pondering re. Beethoven and pianos is did he have a favourite? Do we know he had one particular piano he favoured above all others and was it the latest model or an earlier one?


Here's what Swafford says in his biography:

_What Beethoven wanted from pianos, as he wanted from everything, was more: more robust build, more fullness of sound, a bigger range of volume, a wider range of notes. As soon as new notes were added to either end of the keyboard, he used them, making them necessary to anyone wanting to play his work. From early on, piano makers asked for Beethoven's opinion, and they listened to what he said_


----------



## KenOC

classical yorkist said:


> One of the questions I've been pondering re. Beethoven and pianos is did he have a favourite? Do we know he had one particular piano he favoured above all others and was it the latest model or an earlier one?


Although not his last piano, Beethoven was said to be very fond of an English Broadwood model, given to him by Thomas Broadwood of London in 1817. It was considered totally modern and up-to-date.

Not that he treated it well: 'At Beethoven's death the Broadwood was sold-by then ''there was no sound left in the treble and broken strings were mixed up like a thorn bush in a gale''-and in 1845 it was presented to Liszt, who left it in his will to the Hungarian National Museum.'


----------



## classical yorkist

howlingfantods said:


> Here's what Swafford says in his biography:
> 
> _What Beethoven wanted from pianos, as he wanted from everything, was more: more robust build, more fullness of sound, a bigger range of volume, a wider range of notes. As soon as new notes were added to either end of the keyboard, he used them, making them necessary to anyone wanting to play his work. From early on, piano makers asked for Beethoven's opinion, and they listened to what he said_


Thanks for that quote, it is interesting, if a little predictable. It appears as though the 1817 Broadwood was the piano he was happiest with during his lifetime Are there any recordings of Beethoven's Sonatas on this exact, or a contemporary Broadwood, piano?

http://www.sjsu.edu/beethoven/research/beethoven_the_broadwood_fortepiano/


----------



## isorhythm

I'm sampling some of Bilson's Beethoven on Spotify.

Immediately reminded of how Beethoven was OBVIOUSLY striving for "modern piano" effects from the middle sonatas on.

The claim that the tenor/bass range is less muddy is not even true. It's actually more problematic than a modern piano in many passages because the treble can't get loud enough or sustain long enough to be heard properly over the lower registers.


----------



## KenOC

classical yorkist said:


> ... Are there any recordings of Beethoven's Sonatas on this exact, or a contemporary Broadwood, piano?


If you search Amazon CDs for "Beethoven's Broadwood" you'll see the answer is "yes."


----------



## Larkenfield

Bilson's Beethoven. I find his approach well suited for the period-instrument he's playing on... by not banging the bejesus out of it, brutalizing it, and yet still playing with energy and force. I've enjoyed what I've heard. This is a fine instrument compared to so many of the wretched ones, especially in the treble range that actually has a pleasant sound rather than reminding one of a metallic toy piano. A good fortepiano does have its virtues compared to the heaviness of the modern grand for this period in music, if one can find one!


----------



## Mandryka

This is an attractive new release of WF Bach's Polonaises. I still haven't heard Rousset's recording, can someone let me have an upload of it?


----------



## Mandryka

classical yorkist said:


> Thanks for that quote, it is interesting, if a little predictable. It appears as though the 1817 Broadwood was the piano he was happiest with during his lifetime Are there any recordings of Beethoven's Sonatas on this exact, or a contemporary Broadwood, piano?
> 
> http://www.sjsu.edu/beethoven/research/beethoven_the_broadwood_fortepiano/


Yes, a series of sonatas made by Jorg Demus at Beethoven's house, some on his Broadwood and some on his graf. I don't know if they have ever been transferred from LP but I can let you have the music files, let me know if you want the upload.


----------



## millionrainbows

I like hearing things played on fortepianos, but only as an interest for comparison. 

I don't think it makes period recordings "better," but just more authentic, because a modern Steinway can do anything they can do. I don't think there's a "reverse" comparison that makes pianofotes better; I think it moves forward into "betterness," towards the modern piano, and not the reverse. Any qualities of a fortepiano are idiosyncratic first, not "better" than a piano.

I believe the modern piano is the same "genetic" instrument as a fortepiano; it simply evolved and got better. I can see the differences as "more accurate" or "more authentic" in some way; but I see the piano as ONLY an improvement on the lesser fortepiano, since they are essentially the same instrument.

Harpsichord, no; it is an essentially different instrument than a piano.


----------



## classical yorkist

Another question I have is; what tuning would Beethoven have used? I'm presuming it wasn't modern tuning but I don't know for certain. Are any of these modern pianos tuned the same way as Beethoven's would have been?


----------



## millionrainbows

> Another question I have is; what tuning would Beethoven have used? I'm presuming it wasn't modern tuning but I don't know for certain. Are any of these modern pianos tuned the same way as Beethoven's would have been?




Probably this one. All tunings were trying to achieve "equal" by this time.


----------



## millionrainbows

[


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I like hearing things played on fortepianos, but only as an interest for comparison.
> 
> I don't think it makes period recordings "better," but just more authentic,* because a modern Steinway can do anything they can do*. I don't think there's a "reverse" comparison that makes pianofotes better; I think it moves forward into "betterness," towards the modern piano, and not the reverse. Any qualities of a fortepiano are idiosyncratic first, not "better" than a piano.
> 
> I believe the modern piano is the same "genetic" instrument as a fortepiano; it simply evolved and got better. I can see the differences as "more accurate" or "more authentic" in some way; but I see the piano as ONLY an improvement on the lesser fortepiano, since they are essentially the same instrument.
> 
> Harpsichord, no; it is an essentially different instrument than a piano.


Clearly you like to assert that things are as you think they should be. There have been numerous examples on this thread in which actual performers describe effects that could be created naturally on an early fortepiano which are hard to duplicate on a modern piano due to difference in action, difference pedal mechanisms, and the greater sustain of the modern piano.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> [/COLOR]
> Probably this one. All tunings were trying to achieve "equal" by this time.
> 
> View attachment 124411


Most sources indicate that equal temperament became the standard by the end of the 18th century. There is even a story that when Beethoven gave the first performance of his Piano Concerto No 1 in C major, he found that piano was tuned semitone too low and he had to transcribe to C# major on the fly. That wouldn't have worked on a piano that wasn't tuned to even temperament, since C# is one of the remotest keys and would be way off in any system of nonuniform temperament.


----------



## Mandryka

I've just listened to the first movement of the Hammerklavier on Paul Badura Skoda's Astree recording, a fortepiano, and I was really impressed by the contrasting timbres of bass and treble, at about 6 minutes in, half way through for example, I thought it brought a lot of value to this music in fact. Here it is


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I've just listened to the first movement of the Hammerklavier on Paul Badura Skoda's Astree recording, a fortepiano, and I was really impressed by the contrasting timbres of bass and treble, at about 6 minutes in, half way through for example, I thought it brought a lot of value to this music in fact. Here it is


Hmm, that CD seems to be out of print and unavailable! How about that! That's _not at all_ like Mandryka!

But thanks for tossing us a crumb. On the period instrument, it does have a certain charm.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, that CD seems to be out of print and unavailable! .


Just buy the downloads.


----------



## lextune

classical yorkist said:


> Another question I have is; what tuning would Beethoven have used? I'm presuming it wasn't modern tuning but I don't know for certain. Are any of these modern pianos tuned the same way as Beethoven's would have been?


By Beethoven's day equal temperament was the norm. So, basically the same tuning we know. Interestingly though, while the tuning was the same, a truly international pitch standard had not been reached yet, and Beethoven had a tuning fork that was pitched to A=455! While only 50 years or so earlier Handel was using a fork that was pitched to A=409.


----------



## Mandryka

lextune said:


> By Beethoven's day equal temperament was the norm. So, basically the same tuning we know.


There's someone playing the tempest sonata on a meantone tuned piano on YouTube! The associated discussion is very good.


----------



## millionrainbows

lextune said:


> By Beethoven's day equal temperament was the norm. So, basically the same tuning we know. Interestingly though, while the tuning was the same, a truly international pitch standard had not been reached yet, and Beethoven had a tuning fork that was pitched to A=455! While only 50 years or so earlier Handel was using a fork that was pitched to A=409.


That's misleading. Since Bach's "Well-tempered tuning" (see larips.com), true equal temperament was _desired, but not achieved _until 1919, with the advent of electric frequency counters. Before this, it was "close but no cigar" using stopwatches.


----------



## Larkenfield

How could Bach write the Well Tempered Clavier without using the equal tempered scale? Each prelude and fugue goes up by a half-step each time and without using it there would be unacceptable and unpleasant “wolf-tone” intervals and most scales would have to be tuned separately each time. I believe that some compromise with the pure intervals of each key had to be used and the equal tempered scale offered the best solution and what Bach meant. The tuning is mostly used today to play it and such a scale was used way earlier than some would imagine. Such a work was perfect for it and facilitated the greatest freedom from one key to another without the inconvenience of having to constantly retune. The tuning was known in his time. I question the authority of those who say otherwise because their answer does not satisfy Bach’s need to go from one key to another easily without having to inconveniently retune. It defeats the entire purpose behind this exceptional work in all keys. Organizing the preludes and fugues according to the cycle of fifths would have been much more suggestive of using some type of mean-temperament scale, but the work was not organized that way.


----------



## lextune

millionrainbows said:


> That's misleading. Since Bach's "Well-tempered tuning" (see larips.com), true equal temperament was _desired, but not achieved _until 1919, with the advent of electric frequency counters. Before this, it was "close but no cigar" using stopwatches.


Beethoven's temperament was virtually the same as ours, other than the pitch, (as I said).

Being able to measure frequencies is irrelevant, since pianos then, and now, are not tuned to a simple harmonic series; due to inharmonicity. Then, just as now, equal temperament is approximated by the ear of the tuner, who is matching beat rates of certain intervals. Modern tuning devices used by piano technicians today, are not designed to tune according to a harmonic series. Rather, the devices use various means to duplicate the stretched octaves and other adjustment that Beethoven's tuners would have made by ear.

I know all this because I have been tuning pianos for decades.

Here are a few links if you really. want to begin to understand the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_acoustics

Interestingly, Dr. Albert Sanderson, the inventor of the first electronic tuning device that was widely accepted by piano tuners, (and who was the head of the physics dept at Harvard from 1965 to 1976), is said to have been inspired to build his electronic tuner upon realizing the phenomenon of inharmonicity when he attempted to tune his piano "perfectly" with a frequency counter and he couldn't understand why it sounded so awful.


----------



## millionrainbows

To say that pianos do not use "equal temperament" is misleading to anyone but a piano tuner. This will obscure the issue.



lextune said:


> Being able to measure frequencies is irrelevant, since pianos then, and now, are not tuned to a simple harmonic series; due to inharmonicity. Then, just as now, equal temperament is approximated by the ear of the tuner, who is matching beat rates of certain intervals. Modern tuning devices used by piano technicians today, are not designed to tune according to a harmonic series. Rather, the devices use various means to duplicate the stretched octaves and other adjustment that Beethoven's tuners would have made by ear.
> I know all this because I have been tuning pianos for decades.


When you say "being able to measure frequencies is irrelevant," that is misleading, since you then say "modern tuning devices used by piano technicians today...use various means to duplicate the stretched octaves and other adjustment."


----------



## millionrainbows

I have a friend who has "been tuning pianos for decades," and he uses a Yamaha digital tuner with a memory to store various "stretch" tunings for different makes & models of pianos.

The best piano tuner I ever heard did it by ear; he tuned all the pianos at my junior college. His name was Dean Baker. I remember him tuning a piano, and then suddenly breaking into a beautiful version of The Beatles' "Something." I'll never forget that.


----------



## Guest

To elaborate on lextune's remarks, even "equal temperament" is not well defined.

In an ideal world everything is based on the fact that when a note is sounded, say A=110Hz, harmonics are produced, which ideally fall at multiples, 220Hz, 330Hz, 440Hz, etc. An octave sounds good because a note at A=220Hz lines up with the first harmonic of A=110Hz.

But the world is not ideal. The harmonics occur exactly at multiples if we can assume that the string holds tension, has mass, but is perfectly flexible. But a string has stiffness, resistance to bending. A string seems stiffer to the high frequency, short wavelength harmonic vibration than to the fundamental vibration. So the first harmonic of A=110Hz will not fall at A=220Hz, it might fall at 221Hz, or 222Hz, or 223Hz, depending on the length and composition of the string. If the second harmonic of A=110Hz is actually 223Hz, a "correct" octave at 220Hz will sound out of tune. You will need to tune the "octave" to 223Hz to make it sound right. So more compromises are needed to tune the piano so it sounds in tune over all of it's octaves.

Now, think about this. In ideal world the next octave would be A=440Hz, which would be the second harmonic of A=220Hz and the forth harmonic of A=110Hz. But all of these harmonics will be stretched by different amounts. Maybe the forth harmonic of A=110Hz is stretched to 452Hz but the second harmonic of A=223Hz is stretched to 449Hz. Where do you tune the next octave of A? More compromises. You can't tune to frequencies you have calculated _a priori_. You have to adapt the tuning the the physical characteristics of the actual instrument.

This is described in more detail in the links that lextune provides.


----------



## lextune

This is inharmonicity.


----------



## lextune

millionrainbows said:


> To say that pianos do not use "equal temperament" is misleading to anyone but a piano tuner.


I didn't say that at all. Pianos DO use equal temperament. 
I said, equal temperament does not use a simple harmonic series.

You also talk about equal temperament being "achieved" in 1919, which is nonsense. It has been achieved at every piano tuning from before Beethoven's time, to today. No frequencies counter needed. Just an external pitch source. This is why I'm telling you; Beethoven's temperament was the same as the one we use today, just at a slightly different pitch. There is no mystery.

Equal temperament was first "achieved" though; just a lot longer ago than you realize. The Chinese mathematician Zhu Zaiyu first described equal temperament in 1584.


----------



## Guest

lextune said:


> I didn't say that at all. Pianos DO use equal temperament.
> I said, equal temperament does not use a simple harmonic series.
> 
> You also talk about equal temperament being "achieved" in 1919, which is nonsense. It has been achieved at every piano tuning from before Beethoven's time, to today. No frequencies counter needed. Just an external pitch source. This is why I'm telling you; Beethoven's temperament was the same as the one we use today, just at a slightly different pitch. There is no mystery.
> 
> Equal temperament was first "achieved" though; just a lot longer ago than you realize. The Chinese mathematician Zhu Zaiyu first described equal temperament in 1584.


I can totally relate to that physics professor from Harvard you mention. I can just imagine him calculating his 12th root of 2 to 11 decimal places and calculating the exact frequency of every pitch on the piano, using his fancy frequency counter, only to have it sound horrible. Then the Eureka moment, "hold on."

I was aware of inharmonicity, but didn't realize it would be significant enough to impact tuning of a string instrument. And come to think of it, I finally understand why trying to use harmonics to tune my guitar never quite worked, making it necessary for me to tweak the tuning until it sounded acceptable.

It also makes me more impressed by the people who managed to work out tuning of string instruments before there were frequency measurement tools, and everything had to be done using very indirect signals (beat frequencies, etc).


----------



## hammeredklavier

howlingfantods said:


> To a great extent, the rapid pace of development of the piano in those middle decades of the 19th century was driven by a desire to create instruments that could do justice to Beethoven's works, more so than any other composer's works.


You sound as if the sole reason why the piano kept undergoing changes even after 1827 is all because of Beethoven. Is it really true? Well I think the more plausible reason why the piano kept undergoing changes even after 1827 was because of the Romantic virtuouso showpieces of Liszt, Alkan, who snapped piano strings with their "smashing style" in public performances. It had nothing to do with Beethoven. Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata is perfectly playable with the last piano Beethoven had.

_Clara Schumann once described Liszt as "a smasher of pianos." It is a false image. Even Clara snapped a string or two in public. Most pianists in the first half of the nineteenth century regarded it as a normal hazard of their profession. Liszt's practical solution was occasionally to have two pianos standing on the platform simultaneously, and he would make a point of moving from one keyboard to the other several times in the course of a recital. *Not until the great firms of Steinway and Bechstein produced their powerfully reinforced instruments in the 1860s did Liszt's repertoire of the 1840s come into its own. Necessity was the mother of invention.*_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=lCw4cxHmpgYC&pg=PA287


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Yes, I also find it difficult to believe that authentic 18th-century fortepianos sounded as poor in their day as most of them do today. As Shakespeare used to say, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Even some of the replicas sound terrible, and vintage instruments are more than 200 years old. I can't imagine that the audiences then had tin ears and were expected to put up with the sound of such rattle traps. Brautigam must have cotton stuck in his ears to be able to stand some of the wretched instruments he plays on and then he beats the hell out of some of them and bangs on them unconsciously like it's a modern grand piano. I would expect a more subtle approach even playing Beethoven with an instrument that has a lighter and reputedly more refine sound overall. It doesn't add up and take a genius to point out the inconsistencies. Some of the HIP performers must think that today's audiences are fools to accept such painful sounding instruments, some with a highly metallic clanging sound, as authentic. I can't imagine Joseph Haydn or Mozart playing on such instruments. Their sound does not inspire; in fact, it makes one want to reach for the battle-axe because their defects call too much attention to themselves rather than to the pleasure of hearing the music.


All this sounds like Wim Winters fans complaining "Chopin would never have wanted his pieces played in the tempo they're played today. Too much obsession on speed. Needlessly showy, emotionless, boring. By comparison, Wim Winters truly knows how to interpret Chopin. Even Chopin himself would have loved Wim Winter's interpretation of his music."














Some people want to hear NOT Ashkenazy's Beethoven, NOT Argerich's Beethoven, NOT LangLang's Beethoven on the brand new grandiose Steinway,
BUT Beethoven's own Beethoven.
You must understand that.

If you think the fortepiano is not the right instrument for Haydn, Mozart, Clementi just because you don't like the sound of it, what's the difference between you and Wim Winter's fans who think classical music should be played twice as slow as they're played today just because it sounds better that way for them?

I'd say the only difference is you're more massive in number.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> All this sounds like Wim Winters fans complaining "Chopin would never have wanted his pieces played in the tempo they're played today. Too much obsession on speed. Needlessly showy, emotionless, boring. By comparison, Wim Winters truly knows how to interpret Chopin. Even Chopin himself would have loved Wim Winter's interpretation of his music."
> 
> Some people want to hear NOT Ashkenazy's Beethoven, NOT Argerich's Beethoven, NOT LangLang's Beethoven on the brand new grandiose Steinway,
> BUT Beethoven's own Beethoven.
> You must understand that.
> 
> If you think the fortepiano is not the right instrument for Haydn, Mozart, Clementi just because you don't like the sound of it, what's the difference between you and Wim Winter's fans who think classical music should be played twice as slow as they're played today just because it sounds better that way for them?
> 
> I'd say the only difference is you're more massive in number.


Beethoven wrote for the grandiose Steinway, not the fortepiano. He just happened to do so before the Steinway existed.


----------



## Larkenfield

Wim Winters' performance sounds labored and non-flowing, non-virtuosic, and played on an instrument that Chopin probably would have found entirely unappealing. It has an unpleasant sonority. Even when Winters plays the etude more slowly, he could have played it more flowingly, more legato and sweepingly, but evidently it never occurred to him. Regardless of any metronome markings, I believe some make up their own way of playing Chopin without actually hearing how poor it sounds. I find his example unlistenable on an unappealing out of tube instrument. Can't he hear it's out of tune? Do listeners genuinely believe that authentic Chopin sounds like a stiff labored beginner? Winters takes the verve and vitality out of the performance. This is an _etude_ where all the meaning and challenge has been lost.






Today's pianists are doing just fine interpreting Chopin-there is no crisis of tempo or interpretations-whether it's his etudes or anything else, on modern rather than antiquated instruments:


----------



## tdc

Modern pianos were built for the demands of the music being composed - the instruments themselves had to catch up to composers like Haydn and Mozart etc. 

There is a reason Mozart's most imaginative and brilliant piano works are his concertos and Haydn his piano trios - they could use other instruments to mask problems such as a weak bass and lack of sustain found on the fortepianos of their time.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Modern pianos were built for the demands of the music being composed - the instruments themselves had to catch up to composers like Haydn and Mozart etc.
> 
> There is a reason Mozart's most imaginative and brilliant piano works are his concertos and Haydn his piano trios - they could use other instruments to mask problems such as a weak bass and lack of sustain found on the fortepianos of their time.


Can you give me an example of a Mozart sonata which you think works better on a modern piano than it does on an authentic Mozart piano? Or indeed a Haydn one (though I know that music less well!)


----------



## isorhythm

hammeredklavier said:


> Some people want to hear NOT Ashkenazy's Beethoven, NOT Argerich's Beethoven, NOT LangLang's Beethoven on the brand new grandiose Steinway,
> BUT Beethoven's own Beethoven.


We all want a lot of things but unfortunately Beethoven is dead.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> There is a reason Mozart's most imaginative and brilliant piano works are his concertos and Haydn his piano trios - they could use other instruments to mask problems such as a weak bass and lack of sustain found on the fortepianos of their time.


That is my point, Mozart didn't write for a hypothetical idea piano that he hoped would be created, he wrote to take advantage of the characteristics of the instruments that existed at the time. He wrote music that took advantage of the short sustain of the fortepiano. He used to cello to reinforce the bass. The piano trios and quartets are works of Mozart that I find come off particularly well using a period piano, and which are difficult to bring to life using modern instruments. Mozart may have loved the modern piano, but he would have written different music for it.


----------



## Larkenfield

Toward the end of his life, even Beethoven couldn't hear his own Beethoven and the softer, lighter weight fortepiano kept evolving into the modern piano that was louder, more powerful, and with a greater octave range, though I've heard Brautigam pound just as hard on a fortepiano as on a grand piano to get the sound out as loud and forcefully as he wanted. He might as well have been playing a modern grand and not have to work as hard. Most of the antiquated instruments do not sound good, and even most of the modern reconstructions do not sound good, but the fortepiano enthusiasts rarely if ever mention that. That's the problem, and those who push these instruments on the general public evidently can't hear how bad most of them sound. Nevertheless, a good vintage instrument is worth hearing, no matter how rare it is, and believe me, it's rare with many unbearable examples being posted on this forum of how poor and unsatisfying most of them are. It's hard to imagine they sounded as bad in Beethoven's day. In fact, I doubt if they did because they were _new_ instruments then and not 200-year-old relics.


----------



## tdc

I think all the Haydn and Mozart piano sonatas sound better on a modern piano, but I think in parts of the orchestral/chamber pieces musicians should alter dynamics somewhat because as noted Mozart and Haydn knew the instruments of their time well, but couldn't foresee exactly how future instruments would blend. I think this small compromise is a better idea musically than historical reconstruction and continuing to use the weak sounding fortepianos.

For those that like the sound of the fortepiano, to each their own. Fortunately today we have a wide selection of different recordings and approaches to choose from.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I think all the Haydn and Mozart piano sonatas sound better on a modern piano, but I think in parts of the orchestral/chamber pieces musicians should alter dynamics somewhat because as noted Mozart and Haydn knew the instruments of their time well, but couldn't foresee exactly how future instruments would blend. I think this small compromise is a better idea musically than historical reconstruction and continuing to use the weak sounding fortepianos.
> 
> For those that like the sound of the fortepiano, to each their own. *Fortunately today we have a wide selection of different recordings and approaches to choose from.*


True enough.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> I think all the Haydn and Mozart piano sonatas sound better on a modern piano, but I think in parts of the orchestral/chamber pieces musicians should alter dynamics somewhat because as noted Mozart and Haydn knew the instruments of their time well, but couldn't foresee exactly how future instruments would blend. I think this small compromise is a better idea musically than historical reconstruction and continuing to use the weak sounding fortepianos.
> 
> For those that like the sound of the fortepiano, to each their own. Fortunately today we have a wide selection of different recordings and approaches to choose from.


Ah I understand, it's just that you like the sound of the modern piano! I thought you were saying something about the music.


----------



## isorhythm

I know from experience that there is an issue with passages in Mozart's violin sonatas where the violin is playing thirds underneath a melody in the piano, but that's the fault of the modern violin, not the piano! Anyway you can compensate for it.


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> Ah I understand, it's just that you like the sound of the modern piano! I thought you were saying something about the music.


That is a useful distinction. There is no doubt I find the _sound_ of a modern piano more satisfying than that of the typical period fortepiano. My issue is that I often find that the fortepiano is more effective at bring out Mozart's artistry. (I like the sound of an oboe more than the sound of a clarinet. That doesn't mean I want the clarinet parts in Brahms symphonies played by oboes.)


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> Ah I understand, it's just that you like the sound of the modern piano! I thought you were saying something about the music.


Good one Mandryka! 

You're such a hipster.

But your post also doesn't say anything about the music.

If you (or anyone) would like to present an example of a particular sonata that you feel sounds better on a fortepiano, and discuss why you feel it is more effective in bringing out the artistry, please do, I will listen with an open mind.


----------



## Guest

My example is the Mozart Piano Quartets. I have them by Beaux Arts Trio+, and others using modern instruments. It was like a new piece when I listened to the recording by Sonnerie, probably hard to find now since the label, ASV, is defunct.


----------



## millionrainbows

Glenn Gould had the action on one of his pianos changed radically, so that it would respond more like an older piano or harpsichord. He also had that detached staccato touch that he learned from his Canadian teacher. Combine those, and we have a different thing than 'modern' piano.
Maybe the touch is a factor in pianoforte versions, which maybe affects the performer more than the listener, because it affects his approach. Maybe Glenn Gould had the best of these two worlds: the sound of a piano, but the touch of an older keyboard.

I think the Two & Three Part Inventions feature this modified piano, and mention it in the liner notes. On certain tracks, you can hear a "tic" in one note, which bounces back. Gould let this pass, and it's on the recording.


----------

