# Speculation about 19th Century Romantic Revival and Historically Informed Performance



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

This thread "Some Thoughts about the Romantic Revival" attempts to consider (once again on TC) in a very informal and open-ended way an area that has fascinated me since I became a serious piano student over 50 years ago. But sometimes I wonder if my way of thinking is obsolete or plain wrong, so I'd like to know what others think.

First, I started buying historic recordings from the organization now known as the International Piano Archives (University of Maryland), of pianists both well-known and obscure -- Josef Hofmann, Josef Lhevinne, Jose Vianna de Motta, Arthur Loesser, and others. I read Harold Schonberg's "The Great Pianists" (1963) and later heard him lecture on the topic. I learned about the The Festival of Neglected Romantic Music, founded by musicologist Frank Cooper at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1968, which expanded the area to focus on seldom-heard composers -- of other instrumental music, choral music, even ballet. Record magazines emphasized new recordings; forgotten works were again being performed. Cpo and Hyperion are among the stalwart companies that continue this work. (And there's also been an undertow of criticism, that the music isn't that good and what's the fuss about?)

At music school I learned about revivals of Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music that have being active since the 19th century rise of historical musicology, and saw later the embrace of Historically Informed Performance in music studies and performance -- at my own university. HIP now includes the
Classical period, and the Romantic period is of increasing interest. 

So now I wonder: are the 19th century Romantic Revival and 19th century Historically Informed Practice merging, or should they do so? Or are they inherently different, and must they remain apart? Or does it matter not a bit? In a time when we're questioning many things, what about this one?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This recording is based on Anna Scott's ideas









The blurb says

"Recorded in the Ehrbar Saal, Vienna on authentic pianos of the period.

As a culmination of many years of research and in preparation for our recording of the Brahms piano quartets using period pianos and gut strings, we convened a four day symposium in Birmingham to workshop, debate and discuss the latest thinking in the field with Dr. Anna Scott, Claire Holden, Dr. Kate Bennett Wadsworth, Professor Ronald Woodley, Jung Yoon Cho and Job Ter Haar.

Pianist Dr. Anna Scott made a compelling case for allowing the evidence of how members of the Schumann-Brahms circle played in early recordings to "romanticise" our very conception of Brahms. Stretching and compressing pulse within an overall tempo and free expressive use of asynchronicity, arpeggiation, rhythmic alteration, agogically inflected dynamic shapes and rubato give her own performances a rich expressivity. She is also the living proof that such playing can work on the modern piano, although most keyboard players find it easier and more natural to adopt period practice on period pianos. During the symposium the Primrose used an 1850's Wilhelm Wieck piano, having previously enjoyed access to an 1890's Blüthner in Hampshire that was factory selected by Brahms for a student, as well as to an exceptional Erard in the former Finchcocks collection.

If pianists generally embrace the sheer beauty of early pianos, modern string players have issues with gut strings that include instability of tuning and lack of power. Fortunately these problems are mitigated by the recording process and the use of smaller pianos. Diferent types of gut ofer an opportunity to characterise diferent strings with diferent colours (just as an early piano makes no apology for having diferent colours in diferent registers). String players in the Primrose regularly use gut, and have been taught, like so many in our generation, by teachers with close and direct links back to Brahms. Discussion and experimentation with expressive slides (portamento), extreme (to modern ears) time taking and speeding up, varying colours with varied vibrato, bow speed, and bow pressure was informed by Claire Holden's work on early recordings of the Vienna Philharmonic, which also revealed that orchestra's ability to come in and out of pure ensemble in order to make part playing more transparent and lines freer and more expressive where appropriate. We also heard from Dr Kate Bennett Wadsworth about her preparations for her recording of the Brahms cello sonatas, using the Bärenreiter edition that she prepared with Professor Clive Brown, considering how the fingerings and bowings of contemporary cellists had interpretational implications. This informed our own work on editions, aided by observations from friends and students when we undertook additional workshops."

But see my next post.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It looks like Anna Scott's thesis is based on the performance style of people who'd studied with Clara Schumann.

https://challengingperformance.com/interviews-recordings/anna-scott/

Schumann's pupils include Fanny Davies, Ilona Eibenschutz, Adelina de Lara, Natalie Janotha, and Carl Friedberg.

Here's Fanny Davies playing Schumann, it does not seem specially romantic to me, on the contrary. I can't find any recording of her playing Brahms






Neither does this recording of Ilona Eibenschutz playing a Brahms ballade






Nor this recording of a Brahms intermezzo by Carl Friedberg


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Here a nice analysis and recreation by James Rosser:




And here a violin performance (1903) by and old Joseph Joachim for comparison:




And the closest comparable later recording, by young Leonid Kogan (1950s):


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> So now I wonder: are the 19th century Romantic Revival and 19th century Historically Informed Practice merging, or should they do so? Or are they inherently different, and must they remain apart? Or does it matter not a bit? In a time when we're questioning many things, what about this one?


I don't worry about the questions you raise but enjoy PI recordings of the Romantic repertory, as I do for earlier periods. I have several recordings of Brahms and Liszt on period pianos, and in the case of Brahms his chamber music, e.g. the sextets, and while they won't always replace the modern recordings they have a special appeal.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Dont know the answer, but remember in the early 1970s the likes of Earl Wilde, Raymond Lewenthal, Michael Ponti, etc. were having fun reviving works by Scharwenka, Alkan, and other late 19th c, virtuoso composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

< Late Romantic HIP: What Are We Waiting For? >


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I like this comment by the member "Josquin13" in the thread <hammerklavier fugue>:

"I think it's very difficult to make the fugue work on a modern piano--as modern grands are too resonant, & clangorous in comparison to the kind of antique piano or pianos that Beethoven had in mind--which he tailored this music to. So often the fugue ends up sounding like an unwieldy mess on a modern grand--although some pianists manage to pull it off, I'm not denying that (Richter, A. Fischer, Gilels, Pollini, Webster, Solomon, Levit ...), even though they usually have to slow the fugue down to a bit, in order to accommodate the greater resonance from their instrument.

Here's Ronald Brautigam playing the fugue on a period piano: to my ears, the musical lines are more lithe, clear & distinct than on a modern grand, and as a result, I'd imagine this is closer to what Beethoven had in mind for the movement:"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"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."
< The message of a Pianist: Chopin's Pedal Markings in Barcarolle F# Major Op.60 | Alisha Walker |
View attachment 1400-Article Text-3353-1-10-20150913.pdf
>


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The now defunct Romantic Revival didn't need a lot of HIP interventions - so many of the participants grew up learning and knowing the style from their teachers. They weren't too far removed from the composers in a time line. But as far as the instruments go, it is very fascinating to hear familiar music played much more akin to how it probably sounded way back when. The older piano sound I still find irritating, authentic it may be.

Years ago I was at a symposium when Lorin Maazel was speaking and he addressed some of the HIP practices that many of us would find unacceptable. First among them was the vastly increased use of string portamento. The Mengelberg Mahler 4th sounds so odd with so much of it. Charles Mackerras made a spendid Elgar 2 where he carefully inserted the portamentos Elgar's own recording uses and it works!

I also find it fascinating to hear romantic warhorses played on period instruments - smaller bore brass, a lot of French bassoons, natural horns. This Scheherazade is especially interesting and makes a good example of how things have changed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Personally, I find that, in general, when it comes to keyboard instruments, HIP works less the farther one moves into the 19th century. IMO, the harpsichord is a different instrument from the piano, not some kind of forerunner, so even though I like works composed for the harpsichord played on a modern piano, the resulting sound is not what the composer intended.

On the other hand the fortepiano of the early 18th century is the true forerunner of the modern piano and was constantly being improved over the decades with the increase of octaves and the addition of the escapement, sustain pedal and soft pedal (among other things). Starting early in the 19th century, the piano music being composed was demanding more of the piano and as development came ever and ever closer to the modern grand, previously composed piano music only sounded better, the more modern the piano. 

Beethoven looked on the Broadwood piano that he received later in life as meeting some of his ever-increasing demands of the instrument and I’m sure he would have looked on the modern grand as a godsend with one proviso that he probably would have preferred some of the lighter touch of the Viennese pianos of the time.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> On the other hand the fortepiano of the early 18th century is the true forerunner of the modern piano and was constantly being improved over the decades with the increase of octaves and the addition of the escapement, sustain pedal and soft pedal (among other things). Starting early in the 19th century, the piano music being composed was demanding more of the piano and as development came ever and ever closer to the modern grand, previously composed piano music only sounded better, the more modern the piano.
> 
> .


The problem is that part of that so called improvement involves increasing uniformity of timbre and increasing purity of tone -- which doesn't always do music by the likes of Chopin or Beethoven any favours.

But of course, HIP is also about how to translate the score into sound.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> The problem is that part of that so called improvement involves increasing uniformity of timbre and increasing purity of tone -- which doesn't always do music by the likes of Chopin or Beethoven any favours...


Well, that's a matter of opinion and can depend as much on the pianist.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I have little to offer to this thread's commentary. I can enjoy original instruments and non-original instruments depending upon a number of factors including what music is being played, how well the music is played, the interpretation, the production values....

I'll be interested, though, in learning how HIP will someday apply to our recent and contemporary "computer" music -- all those taped accompanying sounds generated via machines in modern music. Will we be discussing the merits of using first generation computers, or tape recorders when the most modern device will likely be able to duplicate the sound of the first generation stuff? 
Even the "bird recordings" for something like the sound-effect in Respighi's _Pines of Rome_. If the original recording was on shellac record running at 78rpms, are we misinformed to use vinyl records running at 33 1/3 or, forgive me!, digital means of reproducing those bird calls? And what about that dog bark in Piston's _Incredible Flutist_? Record, tape, or digital? Or, if we were to use a real live (trained) dog on stage, would the animal have to have been schooled in historical barking practices?

Hope I'm around to engage in those discussions.

For now I'm happy to generally avoid music on fortepianos. I'm not a big fan of that sound even though I realize that such a sound is what Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert likely heard with keyboards most of their lives. I do suspect each of those composers would have loved our modern grand pianos. Alas ....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I can hear differences of course when Sir John E. Gardiner conducted Brahms' _German Requiem_ and I enjoy the differences. It's not as big a difference as say the same conducting a Bach Passion versus a 1950's grand maestro's version of the same work.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> The now defunct Romantic Revival didn't need a lot of HIP interventions - so many of the participants grew up learning and knowing the style from their teachers. They weren't too far removed from the composers in a time line. But as far as the instruments go, it is very fascinating to hear familiar music played much more akin to how it probably sounded way back when. The older piano sound I still find irritating, authentic it may be.
> ...


I agree; the fortepiano in the example may be "lithe, clear and distinct", but to me it sounds "spidery", like an old Baldwin spinet. There's a reason instruments evolved: it's because of perceived weaknesses in the older types. Give me a Boehm flute over a Baroque traverso any day, lovely though the traverso may be.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

consuono said:


> I agree; the fortepiano in the example may be "lithe, clear and distinct", but to me it sounds "spidery", like an old Baldwin spinet. There's a reason instruments evolved: it's because of perceived weaknesses in the older types. Give me a Boehm flute over a Baroque traverso any day, lovely though the traverso may be.


I agree, with one exception - I much prefer the rich tones of the Baroque oboe and oboe d'amore to the pinched sound of the modern oboe.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I agree; the fortepiano in the example may be "lithe, clear and distinct", but to me it sounds "spidery", like an old Baldwin spinet.


It can depend on recording quality:







consuono said:


> There's a reason instruments evolved: it's because of perceived weaknesses in the older types.


They evolved because of changes of aesthetic values over time. 
Why not say musical styles also "evolved" (rather than "changed") as time went on?

What do you honestly think about what Bilson describes as a "Baroque angel" in this? 




These are far more a "naked emperor" than any weaknesses of HIP practices described in this thread.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I agree, with one exception - I much prefer the rich tones of the Baroque oboe and oboe d'amore to the pinched sound of the modern oboe.


I agree there. Another advantage of the Baroque oboe is you don't hear the clacking keys.


hammeredklavier said:


> They evolved because of changes of aesthetic values over time.


I don't think the structural quality of a piano or a flute changed solely as a result of aesthetics, and anyway those aesthetic values changed that drastically between 1840-1880? How much of the "bad" aspects of the modern grand are structural, and how much is due to equal temperament?


> Why not say musical styles also "evolved" (rather than "changed") as time went on?


Well they did, sometimes for the better overall; sometimes it was more of a devolution. But that really is aesthetics and not, say, structural strength or tonal power. *That's* similar to the reason why we're not driving cars with a top speed of 40 mph anymore.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I don't think the structural quality of a piano or a flute changed solely as a result of aesthetics, and anyway those aesthetic values changed that drastically between 1840-1880? How much of the "bad" aspects of the modern grand are structural, and how much is due to equal temperament?


There are some things in music that depend on subjective preferences, but we have to admit when we say we like "modern piano performances of old classical music" (ex. The Pires recordings of Mozart concertos and sonatas), we're essentially saying we like "their way of playing constantly at mezzo-piano in the bass to mimic the sonority of the fortepiano", and we like "their constant disregard for the composer's indication of articulation markings and slurs". -These things are hard, objective facts. Aren't they?







hammeredklavier said:


> "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."
> < The message of a Pianist: Chopin's Pedal Markings in Barcarolle F# Major Op.60 | Alisha Walker |
> View attachment 152017
> >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are some things in music that depend on subjective preferences, but we have to admit when we say like "modern piano performances of old classical music" (ex. The Pires recordings of Mozart concertos and sonatas), we're essentially saying we like "their way of playing at constant mezzo-piano in the bass to mimic the sonority of the fortepiano", and we like "their constant disregard for the composer's indication of articulation markings and slurs". -These things are hard, objective facts. Aren't they?


Well that's the nature of Mozart's music, though. It doesn't seem to be designed to.be played at the volume of Liszt's "Mazeppa"...which, incidentally, was composed when the piano was relatively "weak" compared to the modern type.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well they did, sometimes for the better overall; sometimes it was more of a devolution. But that really is aesthetics and not, say, structural strength or tonal power. *That's* similar to the reason why we're not driving cars with a top speed of 40 mph anymore.


Music is not science or engineering though. Einstein had better tools and a better understanding of nature than Newton did. But we can't say the same for Beethoven and Bach. In certain ways, modern instruments are a "devolution" when it comes to performance of old classical music. Some of their features are actually just unnecessary; they hinder rather than enhance performance.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Beethoven looked on the Broadwood piano that he received later in life as meeting some of his ever-increasing demands of the instrument and I'm sure he would have looked on the modern grand as a godsend with one proviso that he probably would have preferred some of the lighter touch of the Viennese pianos of the time.


Perhaps, but he would probably have written different music, if he had access to the modern grand. How can we be sure he would have approved of its crossed-strung bass and slow hammer action speed, which actually make the the chord that opens the pathetique sonata, the ostinato chords that open the waldstein sonata and the fugue of the hammerklavier sonata sound "muddy". Did it really "evolve" in the way he would have wanted?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Perhaps, but he would probably have written different music, if he had access to the modern grand. How can we be sure he would have approved of its crossed-strung bass and slow hammer action speed, which actually make the the chord that opens the pathetique sonata, the ostinato chords that open the waldstein sonata and the fugue of the hammerklavier sonata sound "muddy" ...


I don't hear a great deal of difference in musical detail and clarity between that fortepiano performance and, say, Schnabel's recording. The main differences would be that Schnabel doen't sound tinkly and spidery and of course there are flubs here and there which weren't as obsessed over as they are now. The "muddiness" depends on the performance. 
I don't think late Beethoven sounds all that alien on a modern piano. Neither does Chopin really. If the Mozart-era fortepianos were such an acme of musical expression, why were they replaced?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> If the Mozart-era fortepianos were such an acme of musical expression, why were they replaced?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I agree, with one exception - I much prefer the rich tones of the Baroque oboe and oboe d'amore to the pinched sound of the modern oboe.


But that oboe sound really depends on the player, the reed, the instrument....I like a big, dark, thick oboe sound with a lot of harmonics - and there are players out there who have it. The English and American schools of oboe playing have a sound I really like. We just lost Laubin of Laubin oboes - they have a marvelous sound assuming they're properly matched with a reed style and a player.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Perhaps, but he would probably have written different music, if he had access to the modern grand. How can we be sure he would have approved of its crossed-strung bass and slow hammer action speed, which actually make the the chord that opens the pathetique sonata, the ostinato chords that open the waldstein sonata and the fugue of the hammerklavier sonata sound "muddy". Did it really "evolve" in the way he would have wanted?


Well, you're assuming that they sound muddy. No part of those works sound 'muddy' to me on a good modern grand piano.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


>


To meet "the artistic ideals of their particular time"... it's assumed then that fortepiano players always felt that the instrument they were playing was ideal for their particular time. I don't buy that. If that were true the piano and the music written for it never would have changed at all. How can we be sure Mozart thought the fortepiano was ideal, and not simply the best available instrument? Isn't it possible that Mozart, knowing the limitations of the piano of his time, limited his musical expression to fit the piano rather than molding his composing style to fit what he thought was a near-perfect instrument? In other words, the instrument formed the music and not the other way around. From what I can tell, it was composers wishing to break out of that 5-octave tinkly box that brought about the technical changes in the piano. I don't know if Mozart or Beethoven or Bach would've looked on the grand piano with the disdain that HIP enthusiasts do, and in the case of Bach and Beethoven the main difference in music composed for the modern piano would probably lie in taking advantage of the modern's more powerful bass. A cellist from the Baroque era might consider a modern HIP cellist to be a little wacky for not taking advantage of developments like an angled fingerboard or the endpin, instead of looking on those developments as some kind of artistic transgression.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> To meet "the artistic ideals of their particular time"... it's assumed then that fortepiano players always felt that the instrument they were playing was ideal for their particular time. I don't buy that. If that were true the piano and the music written for it never would have changed at all.


We have to think of the composers and their music properly in terms of "historical context". They composed music in their own times (and idiomatic values) with the resources of their time, -and our understanding and perception of their music should only be based on that. 
Why not say "Bach should have heard Beethoven and Brahms and should have been inspired by their use of dynamics, cause his use is primitive" then? 
Since you love that analogy of "primitive cars" - "long ago, they had primitive cars, so the method of transportation back then was primitive". Can we also say the same thing about music? Musical styles conceived with what you call "primitive instruments" are "primitive styles"?



consuono said:


> How can we be sure Mozart thought the fortepiano was ideal, and not simply the best available instrument? Isn't it possible that Mozart, knowing the limitations of the piano of his time, limited his musical expression to fit the piano rather than molding his composing style to fit what he thought was a near-perfect instrument? In other words, the instrument formed the music and not the other way around.


Again, we have to think classical music in terms of its proper "historical context". The modern grand isn't "perfect" either, it can't solve all the "problems" in classical music performance.



consuono said:


> From what I can tell, it was composers wishing to break out of that 5-octave tinkly box that brought about the technical changes in the piano.


None of these address the points of my post [#20] though. I think all you're saying is just personal complaints; "I just like what I'm used to hearing and playing myself", and refusal to accept historical facts (cause they're inconvenient for you). Give me evidence that Mozart or Chopin wanted more futuristic pianos than the ones they had.





"I think that instruments from every period have effects and colours that cannot be reproduced on today's pianos-that *compositions were always conceived with the instruments of their time in mind*, and only on those can they achieve their full effect" (Anton Rubinstein, 1892)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Again, we have to think classical music in terms of its proper "historical context". The modern grand isn't "perfect" either, it can't solve all the "problems" in classical music performance.


Nobody says it is or does, but I don't see any reason for thinking that Beethoven's Op. 106 *has* to be played on a pre-1820 instrument to be "correct'.


> None of these address the points of my post [#20] though. I think all you're saying is just personal complaints; "I just like what I'm used to hearing and playing myself", and refusal to accept historical facts (cause they're inconvenient for you). Give me evidence that Mozart or Chopin wanted more futuristic pianos than the ones they had.


Give me evidence that they didn't want improvements. The fact that we have improvements is evidence enough that somebody other than Steinway salesmen wanted such improvements. Instrument makers don't work in a vacuum. I'd say they've always operated on feedback from performers and composers. Bach was one such feedback provider.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


>


I really have to agree with Bilson, that the articulation markings are important.



hammeredklavier said:


> "Mozart connoisseurs and admirers know of course about what is bizarre in the finale of his very last string quartet, K. 590. In its development the harshness of the tone language is particularly unparalleled in the Mozart oeuvre. But the unsettling already starts shortly before the end of the first section: The otherwise so airily sparkling sixteenth notes stall all of a sudden in an almost stranded-like repetitive three-note kink. It is just this spot that Mozart vehemently corrected in his manuscript. The investigation of this correction offers us at hand an analytical key to the understanding of this absolutely special movement.
> This spluttering three-note figure, in itself circular, seized up, as it were, against the meter,
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Give me evidence that they didn't want improvements.


If you like to hear things non-HIP, that's fine. By all means, listen or play whatever you want.
but if someone pretends like that's what the composers actually intended, that person isn't any different from Wim Winters to me.
Again, anyone who says he likes non-HIP recordings of Mozart piano stuff better than HIP recordings is essentially telling me these things: post2025509
If you want to say anything more to me, please try to address the points I specifically raised in that post, rather than saying things like "wouldn't Mozart have wanted a better piano than the one he had?", which honestly don't get you anywhere. Bach wrote his ricercar a 6 on the harpsichord, which was even an "older model" to the fortepiano -why not call it a "5-octave sewing machine" then?



consuono said:


> that 5-octave tinkly box


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Does anyone here actually watch the videos I post links to?

"The frustration with playing Mozart, and I think the problem that many performers on the modern piano face - is that there is this constant battle between the instrument that we have at our disposal, let's say the Steinway, and the music in question.
And so as a young pianist, you grow up playing these pieces, and everyone yells at you all the time about playing "mezzo piano", and gracefully, and "grazioso", and not too heavy here, and don't bend too hard, and phrasing and all this..
And it was very clear to me early on that this couldn't be right. The man who is precocious, and full of attitude, and has all these strong ideas, and a very high opinion of himself as well, could not be the same person who plays this kind of constant "mezzo piano" on the Steinway.
*So when I discovered the fortepiano, I suddenly could play in an unbelievably visceral, dramatic style. I could play very "fortissimo" and very "pianissimo", and the scale of the piano didn't go too far*. It went just far enough that one could recapture this sense of Sturm und Drang and tempestuousness that I'm sure is present in Mozart's music and that he would have wanted.." -Kristian Bezuidenhout


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> < Late Romantic HIP: What Are We Waiting For? >


Thank you for drawing attention to "Late Romantic HIP." I wasn't aware of that thread, with its excellent OP by Woodduck and accompanying video. I've only had a quick look but the posts seem very good and of course they are on the same topic as this new thread. In the days ahead it'll be interesting to compare and see what we end up with.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Does anyone here actually watch the videos I post links to?
> 
> "The frustration with playing Mozart, and I think the problem that many performers on the modern piano face - is that there is this constant battle between the instrument that we have at our disposal, let's say the Steinway, and the music in question.
> And so as a young pianist, you grow up playing these pieces, and everyone yells at you all the time about playing "mezzo piano", and gracefully, and "grazioso", and not too heavy here, and don't bend too hard, and phrasing and all this..
> ...


I do, and sometimes I find them unconvincing. A demonstration will be to take great care playing a passage on a fortepiano and then turning to a grand and "mumble" through it with a "see there?". You mean you can't play staccato and legato on a Steinway? Of course you can.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

How anyone thinks they can play the Hammerklavier on a modern piano beats me. Listen to this from about 9.50 to the end.






Just as impossible without the timbres of a proper Beethoven piano -- the first movement of the Waldstein. This is what it needs to sound like, both to capture composer's intentions and, IMO, to make it interesting to hear


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> You mean you can't play staccato and legato on a Steinway? Of course you can.


Again, this shows you haven't understood the points raised in the videos. You can play staccato on a Steinway, but the slow action speed (and other unwanted features of the modern grand) makes things problematic - it's like using an elephant where you have to use a horse.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Anyone who denies these things about the modern grand doesn't understand its mechanism:
















It's like talking to someone who's been taught in a certain educational system or religious environment from childhood, and has difficulty accepting the "real history". All they say is "the modern grand is the best for performing any type of keyboard music! Since It's what I grew up with!"


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

I wonder if anyone can give some insight into HIP singing vis a vis the recording of Schubert and Schumann lieder with Penelope Crawford on fortepiano and Max Van Egmond.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> You mean you can't play staccato and legato on a Steinway? Of course you can.


"Augsburg, Oct. 17, 1777.
... *If I strike hard, whether I let my fingers rest on the notes or lift them, the tone dies away at the same instant that it is heard.* Strike the keys as I choose, the tone always remains even, never either jarring or failing to sound. It is true that a piano of this kind is not to be had for less than three hundred florins, but the pains and skill which Stein bestows on them cannot be sufficiently repaid. His instruments have a feature of their own; they are supplied with a peculiar escapement. Not one in a hundred makers attends to this; but, without it, it is impossible that a piano should not buzz and jar. *His hammers fall as soon as they touch the strings, whether the keys be held down by the fingers or not.* ..." -W.A. Mozart





"The speed of this action is so much greater than those of modern pianos for reasons that we'll see when we look at the action side by side, but just to film very close into the strings when I play notes, you will notice how unbelievably fast the hammer comes up and plays. So fast in fact that the hammer jumps at the string and comes back and you can barely even see the moment of impact. That's the secret of the Viennese mechanism, the Viennese action." -Robert Levin


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> All they say is "the modern grand is the best for performing any type of keyboard music! Since It's what I grew up with!"


I don't say that at all. I just say that the tonal improvement is worth the trade for a lighter action. No piano or fortepiano is capable of true legato.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Of course what's missing in all this discussion about modern vs. old piano mechanisms is that there is a wide range of modern piano construction. You cannot simply lump all modern pianos together. Nor can you say all older pianos were great - they weren't. There is a difference between Steinways built in the US compared to the Hamburg ones. Different actions, different sound. You want big sound? Bosendorfer in Vienna. Bechsteins have a beautiful tone that for some players is unmatched. For many players the Italian made Fazioli is the only piano - it has a lightness of touch unlike anything else. And then we can't forget the Asian made instruments like Kawai and Yamaha. I play on a Kawai; it's balance of clean, precise action, clarity of tone, power, spatial dimensions and price made it the best fit. Like any other musical instrument, it takes a seriously capable player to really understand the difference. I know one pro pianist who spent weeks at the Steinway showroom in New York playing on hundreds of instruments for countless hours until he found the most perfect instrument he could.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I don't say that at all. I just say that the tonal improvement is worth the trade for a lighter action. No piano or fortepiano is capable of true legato.


What tonal improvement? Show me any educational source or video explaining that. 
You're essentially repeating "I personally prefer the sound of the modern grand for everything".



mbhaub said:


> Of course what's missing in all this discussion about modern vs. old piano mechanisms is that there is a wide range of modern piano construction.


Almost all modern pianos (99.9%) have these problems in period music performance (ie. Mozart, Beethoven):
*1. Crossed-strung bass muddy, lacks clarity and focus.
2. Equal distribution of voices creates unpleasant, confusing sound picture.*


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> What tonal improvement? Show me any educational source or video explaining that.
> You're essentially repeating "I personally prefer the sound of the modern grand for everything".


Well you're saying the same thing regarding the fortepiano. If it were the be-all end-all tonally, we'd still all be playing Steins. If you're going to get "this is what Mozart played" granular with it, ultimately the only allowable instruments will be originals or exact replicas of instruments that were used during Mozart's lifetime. That's ridiculous.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, but this discussion is fascinating and much appreciated. I am a fan of HIP in the sense that I think a wide variety of interpretations should exist, and there's no reason some of those shouldn't be based in HIP ideals... additionally, I have to confess I am rather convinced by the above discussion of piano mechanisms as relating to expressivity.

This view may be too dismissive, but as someone who was not raised listening to classical music and in fact has only begun exploring this world recently, one of the main arguments in favor of increasingly stringent HIP recordings is... they are simply so much more enjoyable to listen to! So much more musical, so much more alive, so much more expressive... and I had thought this was mostly true of Baroque and earlier-era music, but now I'm finding it's just as true, if not more, in Romantic music - the portamenti, the rhythmic intrigue - on a purely intuitive level, I really, truly, cannot understand how people hear those traits as 'sloppy' or 'cheesy'. And, I would be curious to know how people immersed mostly in other genres, like jazz for example, might hear those differences.

Since it seems like this thread is more about discussion and the other thread about Romantic HIP is more about recording recommendations, I'm going to make a separate post there.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The tone quality of the modern grand is actually homogenous and "new-agey". It works great for stuff like Debussy and Rachmaninoff, but not for some others;


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> The tone quality of the modern grand is actually homogenous and new-agey


I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.


No it's not. It is pretty homogeneous except at the extreme ends of the keyboard. I'll let hammeredklavier defend new agey.

The modern piano works naturally for Alvin Curran, it is idiomatic in that music, but in Chopin it approaches a translation of the music into a different idiom almost. You gain and miss things in the translation, and clearly some very fine musicians play Chopin on a modern piano, some crap ones on a fortepiano!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> I don't have much to contribute to this thread, but this discussion is fascinating and much appreciated. I am a fan of HIP in the sense that I think a wide variety of interpretations should exist, and there's no reason some of those shouldn't be based in HIP ideals... additionally, I have to confess I am rather convinced by the above discussion of piano mechanisms as relating to expressivity.
> 
> This view may be too dismissive, but as someone who was not raised listening to classical music and in fact has only begun exploring this world recently, one of the main arguments in favor of increasingly stringent HIP recordings is... they are simply so much more enjoyable to listen to! So much more musical, so much more alive, so much more expressive... and I had thought this was mostly true of Baroque and earlier-era music, but now I'm finding it's just as true, if not more, in Romantic music - the portamenti, the rhythmic intrigue - on a purely intuitive level, I really, truly, cannot understand how people hear those traits as 'sloppy' or 'cheesy'. And, I would be curious to know how people immersed mostly in other genres, like jazz for example, might hear those differences.
> 
> Since it seems like this thread is more about discussion and the other thread about Romantic HIP is more about recording recommendations, I'm going to make a separate post there.


I think what HIP fanaticism or dogmatism ultimately does is put composers into very very little itty bitty compartments in which their music can only legitimately be approached by the tiny little sect that likes and has access to instruments that became almost extinct. I don't think many composers from the Baroque and Classical.sras stipulated in their scores exactly what instruments were to be played, exactly what the build would be, exactly what the action would be like. Bach in the WTC certainly didn't.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> I think what HIP fanaticism or dogmatism ultimately does is put composers into very very little itty bitty compartments in which their music can only legitimately be approached by the tiny little sect that likes and has access to instruments that became almost extinct. I don't think many composers from the Baroque and Classical.sras stipulated in their scores exactly what instruments were to be played, exactly what the build would be, exactly what the action would be like. Bach in the WTC certainly didn't.


Well, I have yet to hear of anyone working in HIP actually claiming that non-HIP interpretations should not exist. And of course every year there are orders of magnitude more new recordings in the same modern conservatory style than in any other style. I think the claim is more that perhaps the ratio should be shifted around a bit. I, as someone who adores the portamento-heavy and rhythmically-playful HIP approach to the Romantic string quartet, for example, have found exactly one quartet which actually uses those playing techniques, and they have recorded fewer than 10 records. And, yes, I would gladly redistribute some of the funding or recording opportunities from yet another cookie-cutter modern interpretation towards this extreme-HIP quartet or others like it.

EDIT - looks like I missed your edit, and I guess I sort of misread your intent. I do see your point and I do think HIP runs the risk of cultivating a sense of there being only one 'real' version of the work, or that further recordings of the same work bring us closer and closer to the 'truth' - an attitude I feel the pull of, but try to avoid. I think in my ideal world all kinds of extraordinarily heterodox interpretations of the standard (and non-standard) repertoire coexist...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> No it's not. It is pretty homogeneous except at the extreme ends of the keyboard. I'll let hammeredklavier defend new agey.
> 
> The modern piano works naturally for Alvin Curran, it is idiomatic in that music, but in Chopin it approaches a translation of the music into a different idiom almost. You gain and miss things in the translation, and clearly some very fine musicians play Chopin on a modern piano, some crap ones on a fortepiano!


As a broad statement, it is nonsense, because there's no such thing as 'the' modern grand piano as if they are all the same instrument and introducing Alvin Curran as having some sort of relevance to the discussion of modern grand pianos is not helpful.

Do you play piano? Are you personally familiar with a grand piano? The tone, timbre and other characteristics of a grand can be modified by tuning, voicing, messing with or changing the hammers and all sorts of other things.

Chopin's favorite and final touring piano was a Pleyel and it and others of that era still exist. Would the majority of people prefer hearing Chopin on a Pleyel of the time or a present-day Steinway? In order to get whatever benefit a few might get from playing or hearing Chopin on that Pleyel, probably a good majority would be aware of a loss without being able to play or hear 'modern grand piano Chopin'.

Also, fwiw, it has been implied that people prefer modern grands because that's all they know. Well. It isn't that simple. The grand piano was constantly being modified and changed in a direction that was preferred by players and listeners alike. It is interesting that while minor innovations continue to be made, there are not the sort of changes occurring that are forcing major changes in design anymore. And there certainly isn't any major demand or attempt to go back to 19th century piano characteristics and overall sound because of which particular pianos composers of that era played.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

DaveM said:


> It is interesting that while minor innovations continue to be made, there are not the sort of changes occurring that are forcing major changes in design anymore.


If you look at the history of instruments around the world, design changes typically pick up speed whenever there is more money invested into whatever type of music the instrument is used for. A striking example is that the harps played throughout South America by indigenous communities are almost identical to the harps introduced from Spain in the 16th century - in 400 years there have been almost no design developments, in contrast to what happened with the same instrument in Europe. Contemporary instrument builders wanting to replicate Renaissance and Baroque harps actually study South American harps for clues.

Did the 16th century Spanish harp simply happen to align precisely with the specific tastes of indigenous communities, so that they didn't need to make any changes? Whereas in Europe that harp wasn't quite what they wanted, so they had to keep working to make a better harp? Of course not. Public preference and design developments are in a mutual feedback loop both with each other and with the forces of capital.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Malcolm Bilson argues that during Liszt's time and before, there was huge variety of how pianos were built and sounded. Every differences translated into the score that Beethoven or Liszt composed. Furthermore, Bilson argues that today, there is only a very few piano builders and these are the "standard" instruments pianists play, and it would be inconceivable back in the 18th/19th centuries to have only a "standard" sound.

In any case, listen to whichever instruments and players you enjoy.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> Public preference and design developments are in a mutual feedback loop both with each other and with the forces of capital.


 Which is why the fortepiano will most likely remain in the realm of historical curiosity. Just as in the middle of the 19th century, most players and listeners prefer most modern versions. That's why the fortepiano went into hibernation in the first place.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I think what HIP fanaticism or dogmatism ultimately does is put composers into very very little itty bitty compartments in which their music can only legitimately be approached by the tiny little sect that likes and has access to instruments that became almost extinct. I don't think many composers from the Baroque and Classical.sras stipulated in their scores exactly what instruments were to be played, exactly what the build would be, exactly what the action would be like. Bach in the WTC certainly didn't.


And it's funny you accuse some performers for "not following the composers' intentions".
What should we call this? "Non-HIP hipocrisy", "non-HIP double standards"?
It's impossible to follow Mozart's articulation markings (which he always specified on score) on the modern grand. It's an objective fact.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> Which is why the fortepiano will most likely remain in the realm of historical curiosity. Just as in the middle of the 19th century, most players and listeners prefer most modern versions. That's why the fortepiano went into hibernation in the first place.


Well, sure, you're probably correct, but I think this state of affairs is regrettable. The point I was trying to make was that changes are often made according to some nebulous 'public preference' or an effort to show off 'modern-ness' which has little do with things sounding 'better'. Or, even more simply put, newer isn't always better. As far as I can tell, this is exactly the same logic as saying that the works of Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach are still worthy of performance today, even though they are old - i.e., if you can accept that Mozart is worthy of performance today, then you can accept that the fortepiano might bring something to the table that can't be matched by a modern grand - there's no way to argue one without the other.

More broadly, I don't think it's really tenable to argue for 'public taste' as arbiter for the quality of anything, when you listen to classical music in the 21st century. Then I could ask, why don't you listen to Rihanna? And then you could say, well, you care about the taste of _educated_ listeners... but then your argument would become circular, as you simply define a narrow subset of the 'public' in order to justify your argument specifically according to your preexisting preferences.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> And it's funny you accuse some performers for "not following the composers' intentions".
> What should we call this? "Non-HIP hipocrisy", "non-HIP double standards"?
> It's impossible to follow Mozart's articulation markings (which he always specified on score) on the modern grand. It's an objective fact.


If it's an indication of legato, it's impossible to play on a piano from any era. That's also an objective fact.

Just curious, do you have a piano at home? A fortepiano?


cheregi said:


> More broadly, I don't think it's really tenable to argue for 'public taste' as arbiter for the quality of anything, when you listen to classical music in the 21st century.


Public taste? It's musician taste as well. I don't see widespread adoption of the fortepiano.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> Public taste? It's musician taste as well. I don't see widespread adoption of the fortepiano.


Well, sure, but fortepiano recordings have been surging recently in connection with HIP, as the rest of this thread amply demonstrates. And of course there's tons of testimony from these recording artists about the many strengths of the fortepiano in certain contexts, and how much more pleasing it can sound. So any recourse to 'musician taste' as well would have to assert that some musicians' taste matters more than others.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'm not really sure what qualifies as 'newer is better' here - isn't part of the appeal of HIP records that they sound novel and new to listeners who mostly have heard classical performances on concert grand-style instruments?


----------



## BobBrines (Jun 14, 2018)

HIP comes in two parts:

1. Historically informed PERFORMANCE.
2. Original instruments.

What kind of piano you use has little to do with 1. You either try to emulate the style of the composer or you play in whatever passes for contemporary style today. 

What instrument you play on can make a world of difference. Ever since the early 1700's, the main goal has been LOUDER. Improvements in mechanisms have been great and instruments are now much easier to play than in the past, particularly wind instruments -- I am a wind player. But the main difference is absolute volume. There is no real reason for the 100-key Bosendorfer Imperial grand except that the larger soundboard is louder.

The problem with using modern instruments for older music is the instruments just don't sound the same. For instance, a modern cylindrical Boehm flute sounds nothing like a 1-key conical flute. I'll say nothing about the change in sound of pianos over the las 2 1/2 centuries.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

MBHAUB. valved horns had been the norm for many years by the time Rimsky-Korsakov wrote Scheherazade , and natural horns and trumpets had gone out of use and were not revived until well into the 20th century . I've heard some of Immerseel's recording of Russian music and they don't really sound different from the orchestras we're accustomed to except perhaps for a somewhat thinner string sound .


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

BobBrines said:


> ...
> 
> The problem with using modern instruments for older music is the instruments just don't sound the same. For instance, a modern cylindrical Boehm flute sounds nothing like a 1-key conical flute. ...


That's a bit of a stretch. A Boehm flute and the earlier models still all bear a sonic family resemblance. The Boehm flute is more powerful and a little more stable as far as intonation is concerned.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> Well, sure, but fortepiano recordings have been surging recently in connection with HIP, as the rest of this thread amply demonstrates. And of course there's tons of testimony from these recording artists about the many strengths of the fortepiano in certain contexts, and how much more pleasing it can sound. So any recourse to 'musician taste' as well would have to assert that some musicians' taste matters more than others.


Schiff has recorded on an early piano, a Broadwood I think. Though I could be wrong, I don't believe it led him to ditch his modern piano.


fbjim said:


> I'm not really sure what qualifies as 'newer is better' here - isn't part of the appeal of HIP records that they sound novel and new to listeners who mostly have heard classical performances on concert grand-style instruments?


Yeah, good point. I've even seen some HIP performances described as "innovative", ironically. And some of them are. What it is is conjectural, for the most part. But it can be interesting.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> The now defunct Romantic Revival didn't need a lot of HIP interventions - so many of the participants grew up learning and knowing the style from their teachers. They weren't too far removed from the composers in a time line. But as far as the instruments go, it is very fascinating to hear familiar music played much more akin to how it probably sounded way back when. The older piano sound I still find irritating, authentic it may be.
> 
> Years ago I was at a symposium when Lorin Maazel was speaking and he addressed some of the HIP practices that many of us would find unacceptable. First among them was the vastly increased use of string portamento. The Mengelberg Mahler 4th sounds so odd with so much of it. Charles Mackerras made a spendid Elgar 2 where he carefully inserted the portamentos Elgar's own recording uses and it works!
> 
> ...


OK so I'll use "unheralded music of the late Romantic era" and leave aside the "Romantic Revival." And Wooduck's earlier thread that I wasn't aware of -- "Late Romantic HIP - What Are We Waiting For?" (see post #7 on this thread) has been revived with some interesting posts. It's reasonable to assume that it would be the place to continue this discussion, including how the HIP movement responds to early recordings. What I actually think is that there is much to learn and incorporate concerning instruments, but there can't be much consensus on _style_. The 19th century prized individuality of interpretation, but there also were cross-currents, especially coming from French Romantic-Classic composers and performers who were more straight-ahead in interpretation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Just curious, do you have a piano at home? A fortepiano?
> Public taste? It's musician taste as well. I don't see widespread adoption of the fortepiano.


Since you ask for it, I'll give you my honest opinion. It's exactly one of the reasons why I personally see ridiculous non-HIP practices such as modern piano performance of Mozart as a bit of "cheap art", - because modern pianos are so abundant and easily accessible everywhere. Heck they're even used in pop, rock, jazz, pretty much everywhere. It's art for people who don't have the audacity to assess ("ask questions" about) what they're doing, or too lazy in mindset to do some research to come up with a logical reason to justify it themselves. I sense this sort of mentality in them: "we would have played the fortepiano if we had one, but since we don't have one, we'll just use the modern grand to mimic the sound, by playing at constant mezzo-piano in the bass, and we'll just pretend it'll work fine. Take the easy way." -and it strikes me as logically "shallow".
There's no real logic or reasoning involved in the anti-HIP philosophy -it's all just "I-dislike-the-sound-of-the-fortepiano,-so-the-composer-himself-would-also-have-disliked-it" wishful thinking with baseless assumptions and logical fallacies. I would not rate any modern piano performance of Mozart as "great" due to the inherent flaws in performance philosophy.


consuono said:


> If it's an indication of legato, it's impossible to play on a piano from any era. That's also an objective fact.


How does this relate to our discussion?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> I'll let hammeredklavier defend new agey.


Come on, we all know what I'm talking about :lol:


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Since you ask for it, I'll give you my honest opinion. It's exactly one of the reasons why I personally see ridiculous non-HIP practices such as modern piano performance of Mozart as a bit of "cheap art", - because the modern pianos are so abundant and easily accessible everywhere. Heck they're even used in pop, rock, jazz, pretty much everywhere. It's art for people who are too lazy to assess what they're doing, or do some research to come up with a reason to justify it themselves.


This is silly. The purpose of musical performance as art is to produce some sort of emotional affect with a song, not to be historically accurate. The idea that the depth of musical art just depends on having the correct specific type of instrument flies against everything good about music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

like man i don't like most Hammerklavier sonatas played with overly resonant concert grands because the fugue tends to be muddy, but that doesn't make the ones that I do like any less great


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Schumann's pupils include Fanny Davies, Ilona Eibenschutz, Adelina de Lara, Natalie Janotha, and Carl Friedberg.]


Thank you for including these fascinating examples. I like Anna Scott's courageous adoption of Ilona Eibenschutz' style for bringing out the tempestuous Brahms rather than the "sage old man" of yore (Brahms died at 65 and could be a real terror), and Ilona's interpretation of the Ballade op. 118, #3 is really exciting compared to most others. Carl Friedberg's op. 117, #1 is exquisite -- it's a cradle song, points up details well, very moving. Fanny Davies' _Davidsbundlertanz_ no. 3 plodded a bit but later she got more into it. Anyone who performs Brahms should hear these!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Since you ask for it, I'll give you my honest opinion. It's exactly one of the reasons why I personally see ridiculous non-HIP practices such as modern piano performance of Mozart as a bit of "cheap art", - because modern pianos are so abundant and easily accessible everywhere. Heck they're even used in pop, rock, jazz, pretty much everywhere. It's art for people who don't have the audacity to assess ("ask questions" about) what they're doing, or too lazy in mindset to do some research to come up with a logical reason to justify it themselves. I sense this sort of mentality in them: "we would have played the fortepiano if we had one, but since we don't have one, we'll just use the modern grand to mimic the sound, by playing at constant mezzo-piano in the bass, and we'll just pretend it'll work fine. Take the easy way." -And this strikes me as "shallow" logically.
> There's no real logic or reasoning involved in the anti-HIP philosophy -it's all just "I-dislike-the-sound-of-the-fortepiano,-so-the-composer-himself-would-also-have-disliked-it" wishful thinking with baseless assumptions and logical fallacies. I would not rate any modern piano performance of Mozart as "great" due to the inherent flaws in performance philosophy.


You have all the right in the world to prefer the use of the fortepiano for Mozart works all you want, but you don't have the right to ascribe all sorts of motives related to laziness and ignorance of others who prefer the use of a modern piano.

Case in point: Mozart Piano Concerto #20, K466. This is one of Mozart's greatest piano concerto wonders and has an almost foreboding darkly dramatic opening. It is unlike any of his other concertos.

The following is played with a fortepiano. Listen to the entrance of the piano at about 2:15 after the rich orchestral opening: Tinkle, tinkle, tinkle. Listen to the left hand bass at about 3:10. I won't even try to describe it.

2:15





Now listen to the entrance of a modern grand piano at about 2:25: full, sweet sonorous tone befitting the 'gravitas' of the orchestral opening. (For comparison, the left hand bass sequence mentioned above occurs at about 3:25.)






So, as far as using the fortepiano with Mozart is concerned, each to his own, but let's dispense with insulting motives for those who prefer a modern grand.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Listen to the entrance of the piano at about 2:15 after the rich orchestral opening: Tinkle, tinkle, tinkle.


:lol: Yeah, exactly...I guess the orchestra should've been more HIP and tinkly too.


hammeredklavier said:


> There's no real logic or reasoning involved in the anti-HIP philosophy -it's all just "I-dislike-the-sound-of-the-fortepiano,-so-the-composer-himself-would-also-have-disliked-it" wishful thinking with baseless assumptions and logical fallacies.


No, hammeredklavier, it stops with "I don't like the sound of the fortepiano". Mozart's opinion of them isn't going to change the plunkety-tinkly stuff I hear from them. I'd rather hear a harpsichord or clavichord, honestly.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^Does this sound plunkety-tinkly to you?:





But sure, the modern grand sounds "mellow" and the fortepiano "rough" in certain aspects,
but in my view these are not necessarily what make the modern piano "better" and the fortepiano "worse".

In performing Mozart, not only does the modern piano lack "clarity" in sonority, the performer is somehow "forbidden" from playing anything louder than mezzo-piano in the bass. At times, it feels way too polite. It's exactly what Bilson described; "a sort of a Baroque angel kind of Mozart". It comes off as almost "angelic" (even when it's supposed to be "demonic"), it just doesn't fit the style: 



It's just "weird". If you play the piano, try playing on the modern piano any passage of Mozart at forte in the bass. You'll feel the "awkwardness".

Compare that with 







It's exactly the way Bezuidenhout described: "when I discovered the fortepiano, I suddenly could play in an unbelievably visceral, dramatic style. I could play very "fortissimo" and very "pianissimo", and the scale of the piano didn't go too far. It went just far enough that one could recapture this sense of Sturm und Drang and tempestuousness that I'm sure is present in Mozart's music and that he would have wanted."

I think the main reason why consuono said some disparaging things about Mozart's piano music when he first came to this forum is because he doesn't feel at home with the "fortepiano aesthetics".
Listen to this section in K.533/ii in a loud volume: 



 (5:05~5:35), I feel passions (albeit "Classically controlled") anticipating the Tristan und isolde prelude. Played on the modern piano, it just sounds "softened" all the way.

Mozart's piano music aesthetics is based around the 18th century fortepiano. You can't deny this. It would be like trying to understand the US economy and politics without understanding capitalism.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> ^Does this sound plunkety-tinkly to you?:


Yes, even through that ton of reverb.


> In performing Mozart, not only does the modern piano lack "clarity" in sonority, the performer is somehow "forbidden" from playing anything louder than mezzo-piano in the bass. At times, it feels way too polite. It's exactly what Bilson described "a sort of a Baroque angel kind of Mozart". It comes off as almost "angelic" (even when it's supposed to be "demonic"),


I don't sense that in Serkin, for example.


> Mozart's piano music aesthetics is based around the 18th century fortepiano. You can't deny this. It would be like trying to understand the US economy and politics without understanding capitalism.


If Mozart were alive today and had a choice between a modern Bechstein and a Stein fortepiano I think he'd choose the Bechstein. In other words I don't think Mozart would consider it an affront in any way to play his music on a superior instrument.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> In other words I don't think Mozart would consider it an affront in any way to play his music on a superior instrument.


I feel like it's been amply demonstrated over the course of this thread that the differences between the fortepiano and the modern grand are just that - differences. One listener/musician/composer's 'better' is another's 'worse'. And I can't see any reason to suggest that Mozart might choose the modern one over the one from his time. Can't you imagine him saying something like, 'the sound isn't nuanced enough, it's too aggressive and muddy'? I was really struck by the comment that only the fortepiano's relative quietness really lets you 'go ham' in Mozart, as opposed to needing to restrict your intensity on the concert grand in order to avoid muddiness...

Anyway, I think it would be perfectly logically consistent of you to claim, "I derive greater enjoyment from how Mozart sounds on a modern grand piano than on a fortepiano," totally outside of any claims regarding absolute objective quality or Mozart's preferences. Then we would all be having a different and probably more productive conversation.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cheregi said:


> And I can't see any reason to suggest that Mozart might choose the modern one over the one from his time.


I can and I gave an example (PC #20 K466).



> Can't you imagine him saying something like, 'the sound isn't nuanced enough, it's too aggressive and muddy'?...


No, but I can imagine him saying, 'This new modern grand is just what I've really been looking for. I'm so tired of hearing, Tinkle, tinkle, tinkle.'

Of course, the choice of pianos is a personal preference of the listener, but for every criticism of the modern grand, I can come up with 2 or 3 regarding a fortepiano. Over all the years of recordings of Mozart's piano music using a modern grand, I don't recall ever hearing a critic say, 'The modern grand sound is muddy, too aggressive and not nuanced enough. Better we go back to 200 years old technology.'


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> If Mozart were alive today and had a choice between a modern Bechstein and a Stein fortepiano I think he'd choose the Bechstein. In other words I don't think Mozart would consider it an affront in any way to play his music on a superior instrument.





DaveM said:


> Of course, the choice of pianos is a personal preference of the listener, but for every criticism of the modern grand, I can come up with 2 or 3 regarding a fortepiano. Over all the years of recordings of Mozart's piano music using a modern grand, I don't recall ever hearing a critic say, 'The modern grand sound is muddy, too aggressive and not nuanced enough. Better we go back to 200 years old technology.'


Again, even if he did, he would have written *different music for it*.
Do you actually look at any of the sources I cite?

It's like talking with flat-earthers, who wouldn't listen to anyone who shows them actual evidence.




"There is the famous D minor Concerto, which has this theme in the piano... ( A-A'-C# ) ( E-D-D ) ... As we can see, in the score, *these connecting slurs, are very, very clearly marked by Mozart*, and they separate this...( A-A'-C# )... from this...( E-D-D )... In my opinion, that's what the expression is.
Let's play it over here on the Steinway. I don't believe it's really possible to do this here because if I separate... *Those separations sound very artificial.* The reason again that they do, is here is this large powerful instrument that is endeavoring to carry the tone for a long time and I'm cutting it off in the middle of its singing.
I'm sure there are people who think ( A-A'-C#-E-D-D ) is more expressive than ( A-A'-C# ) ( E-D-D ). But *it's absolutely there in the score*, and it really is, in my opinion, *the essence of Mozart*. You know there are sketches of Mozart, incomplete scores of Mozart. In Piano Concerto K. 537, he didn't even bother to write in the left hand, but *there's never a single bar without these articulation slurs, because they are what makes the music speak*, and that's what they thought in the 18th century. -_Music is like speech and it must be inflected properly._" -Malcolm Bilson



consuono said:


> Yeah, he hits the right notes and there's clarity but there isn't much sensitivity there. It's robotic and *the allegro section is played as if its marked presto.* I don't see any point in doing that just to show that you can. And too many other pianists after him do the same thing with this piece, including Schiff unfortunately.


Yes, we must respect the composers' intentions.



consuono said:


> most players and listeners prefer most modern versions.


It doesn't matter, especially if the masses are deluded into thinking all the "*run-on sentences*" they hear in the Mozart performances on the modern piano are actually what Mozart himself intended. Just like how many fans Gould and Schiff have worldwide doesn't matter, in the context of your criticism on them.



consuono said:


> I don't sense that in Serkin, for example.


How? Explain to us, with examples of his playing.



DaveM said:


> Better we go back to 200 years old technology.'


What's wrong with listening to 200-year old music played on 200-year old instrumental designs?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, even if he did, he would have written different music for it.
> Do you actually look at any of the sources I cite?
> 
> It's like talking with flat-earthers, who wouldn't listen to anyone who shows them actual evidence.


It is a common refrain of yours that people aren't reading and accepting everything you write. Personally, I find that often, less is more, and while what you write is often interesting, it isn't always convincing. And, by the way, you haven't responded to any of the points I've made such as the simple fact that IMO the modern grand sounds better than the fortepiano.



> "There is the famous D minor Concerto, which has this theme in the piano... ( A-A'-C# ) ( E-D-D ) ... As we can see, in the score, *these connecting slurs, are very, very clearly marked by Mozart*, and they separate this...( A-A'-C# )... from this...( E-D-D )... In my opinion, that's what the expression is.
> Let's play it over here on the Steinway. I don't believe it's really possible to do this here because if I separate... *Those separations sound very artificial.* The reason again that they do, is here is this large powerful instrument that is endeavoring to carry the tone for a long time and I'm cutting it off in the middle of its singing.
> I'm sure there are people who think ( A-A'-C#-E-D-D ) is more expressive than ( A-A'-C# ) ( E-D-D ). But *it's absolutely there in the score*, and it really is, in my opinion, *the essence of Mozart*. You know there are sketches of Mozart, incomplete scores of Mozart. In Piano Concerto K. 537, he didn't even bother to write in the left hand, but *there's never a single bar without these articulation slurs, because they are what makes the music speak*, and that's what they thought in the 18th century. -_Music is like speech and it must be inflected properly._" -Malcolm Bilson
> 
> Yes, we must respect the composers' intentions.


Exponents of the fortepiano such as Bilson will provide all sorts of evidence in support of it for Mozart's works. Big surprise! As for 'respecting the composers' intentions', Mozart composed based on the available pianos at hand. He didn't make some kind of qualitative choice between the fortepiano and the modern grand or compose with a preference of the fortepiano over the modern grand.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"fortepiano concertos"





Just like these are "harpsichord concertos"





doesn't it make sense?
It doesn't matter how many people hate the sound of the harpsichord or the fortepiano; the works must be interpreted and handled in the respective contexts of their time. You can't turn W.F. Bach harpsichord concertos into "modern piano" concertos simply because you hate the sound of the harpsichord and pretend that they're W.F. Bach "modern piano" concertos. If you do, you're ******* up the composer's intentions.
And again, in certain ways, the 18th century fortepiano is closer to the harpsichord (than it is to the modern grand) in scale and design.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

DaveM said:


> you haven't responded to any of the points I've made such as the simple fact that IMO the modern grand sounds better than the fortepiano.


This isn't a point anyone can respond to. You're just stating what you like to hear. You're welcome to keep listening to Mozart played on the concert grand. The issue at stake is whether playing Mozart on the concert grand respects the composer's intentions, or itself constitutes a rather radical change to the intended sound of the piece. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what you personally enjoy hearing.



DaveM said:


> Exponents of the fortepiano such as Bilson will provide all sorts of evidence in support of it for Mozart's works. Big surprise!.


Your word choice suggests you think this is some kind of 'gotcha' which invalidates Bilson's argument. It isn't. Obviously any performer who thinks Mozart makes more sense on the fortepiano will tend to play Mozart on the fortepiano... Similarly, performers who prefer Mozart on the concert grand will play Mozart on the concert grand...



DaveM said:


> As for 'respecting the composers' intentions', Mozart composed based on the available pianos at hand. He didn't make some kind of qualitative choice between the fortepiano and the modern grand or compose with a preference of the fortepiano over the modern grand.


Sure, but this has been true for every single composer or, indeed, maker of music in history. I think hammeredklavier raises a good point by bringing up harpsichord music. To you the fortepiano is an inferior ancestor to the piano, while the harpsichord counts as a different enough instrument that you don't demand performers use the concert grand instead? Why did you draw the line there? For that matter, why assume that the concert grand really is the 'ultimate' form of this category of instrument? What if they've all been replaced by electronic synthesizers a hundred years from now? Imagine yourself in that scenario, arguing that we have to respect composer intentions and go back to the concert grand, even though it's antiquated and unwieldy and needs maintenance, because the sound of it is crucial for the character of the music... and other people going, no, what do you mean, the new synthesizers are simply objectively superior... I know this is sort of absurd but I do think it's a helpful way to think of things. In other words, your arguments seem to imply that whatever's being done in the present time is the best way to do things, simply because it is the present time.

And of course then you can say, that scenario would never happen, because everyone knows the concert grand sounds better than a synthesizer. And I can say, well, no, different people feel differently (Glenn Gould thought Wendy Carlos' synthesized Brandenburgs were the most perfect Brandenburgs), and opinions change over time (I can link some early-1900s vocal performances if you want to see just how much can change in a hundred years regarding what sorts of sounds people like to hear)! And then we're back to square one, which is you saying you yourself prefer the sound of the concert grand, which would be fine if you didn't use it as a basis for everything else.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cheregi said:


> This isn't a point anyone can respond to. You're just stating what you like to hear. You're welcome to keep listening to Mozart played on the concert grand. The issue at stake is whether playing Mozart on the concert grand respects the composer's intentions, or itself constitutes a rather radical change to the intended sound of the piece. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what you personally enjoy hearing.


I have already pointed out that which one prefers is a justifiable personal choice and my argument was not based on what I prefer regardless of how much you want to go in that direction. As far as the issue at stake being whether playing a concert grand respects the composer's intentions, I directly addressed that. You, nor anyone else knows what Mozart's intentions were since he didn't have the choice of a modern grand. He composed with what was available.

The markings on the score do not prove that an 18th century fortepiano was intended until the end of time. Pianists have been applying them using modern grands for more than a century. It continues to be a matter of opinion which sounds better, fortepiano or modern grand. All indications are that the latter is preferred. Or do you have information to the contrary? Mozart composed for an instrument that was under constant development with the objective of technicians being improved sound. My guess is that Mozart might well have _intended_ that his piano music be played with the best piano available.

Mozart was a composer who was ahead of his time and IMO, there is good reason to believe he would have embraced the used of modern pianos. His operas were so ahead of their time that they stood up well against operas composed well into the 19th century. However, IMO, while his later piano concertos were ahead of their time (particularly K466), they sound dated to the century they were composed in when played with a fortepiano. And if you want to keep harping on the fact that that is a personal opinion based on what I like then it is no different than other personal opinions that the use of a fortepiano is required because that was Mozart's intention.



> Your word choice suggests you think this is some kind of 'gotcha' which invalidates Bilson's argument. It isn't. Obviously any performer who thinks Mozart makes more sense on the fortepiano will tend to play Mozart on the fortepiano... Similarly, performers who prefer Mozart on the concert grand will play Mozart on the concert grand...


It's impressive that you think that you know what I think. I merely stated essentially what you do above except that I added that the proponents are going to try to prove their point as being the right one. That doesn't make them right which the poster I was replying to was inferring.



> Sure, but this has been true for every single composer or, indeed, maker of music in history. I think hammeredklavier raises a good point by bringing up harpsichord music. To you the fortepiano is an inferior ancestor to the piano, while the harpsichord counts as a different enough instrument that you don't demand performers use the concert grand instead? Why did you draw the line there?


Because a harpsichord has plectrums that pluck the strings while a piano has hammers that strike the strings. The fortepiano is an early piano. The harpsichord isn't. They are 2 different animals. Any improvement of the harpsichord came to an end, as did compositions for it, toward the end of the 18th century. (Perhaps there is a limit to how much one can improve the sound of plucking strings from a keyboard.)

On the contrary, the 'piano' continued to be improved on constantly because composers and pianists 'demanded' it and listeners responded positively to the changes. Beethoven had a strong dislike for the fortepianos of his day and kept demanding for something better. In the last years of his life he felt that pianos still needed improvement. Maybe Mozart felt the same.



> For that matter, why assume that the concert grand really is the 'ultimate' form of this category of instrument? What if they've all been replaced by electronic synthesizers a hundred years from now? Imagine yourself in that scenario, arguing that we have to respect composer intentions and go back to the concert grand, even though it's antiquated and unwieldy and needs maintenance, because the sound of it is crucial for the character of the music... and other people going, no, what do you mean, the new synthesizers are simply objectively superior... I know this is sort of absurd but I do think it's a helpful way to think of things.


You are right. It is absurd.



> In other words, your arguments seem to imply that whatever's being done in the present time is the best way to do things, simply because it is the present time.


They imply nothing of the sort. We're talking about pianos regardless of your wishing to talk about synthesizers and all sorts of unrelated whatnot.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> I have already pointed out that which one prefers is a justifiable personal choice and my argument was not based on what I prefer regardless of how much you want to go in that direction. As far as the issue at stake being whether playing a concert grand respects the composer's intentions, I directly addressed that. You, nor anyone else knows what Mozart's intentions were since he didn't have the choice of a modern grand. He composed with what was available.


Stop making these "baseless assumptions". If he lived in the Romantic era, he would have composed Romantic music. Does that prove Romantic music is stylistically superior to the music he wrote? His music must be understood in the context of his time.



DaveM said:


> The markings on the score do not prove that an 18th century fortepiano was intended until the end of time. Pianists have been applying them using modern grands for more than a century. It continues to be a matter of opinion which sounds better, fortepiano or modern grand.


No it doesn't sound better. In fact, I think modern listeners are rather "brainwashed" into thinking the modern piano is the solution to performing a range of classical music spanning 200~300 years (which is simply ridiculous). The tone quality is frankly too "syrupy" for period music like Mozart; it's "brute power" is more appropriate for the later eras' sentimental and bombastic stuff. It's strengths and advantages (ex. The fact that its pitch range spans more than 5 octaves) can't even be exploited in performance of period music. And again, it's impossible to emulate fortepiano actions on the modern piano. *Playing at constant mezzo-piano in the bass and ignoring all articulation and slur markings* doesn't constitute a valid solution.



DaveM said:


> All indications are that the latter is preferred. Or do you have information to the contrary? Mozart composed for an instrument that was under constant development with the objective of technicians being improved sound. My guess is that Mozart might well have _intended_ that his piano music be played with the best piano available..


Maybe Mozart would have (been educated to) favor and compose atonal or serial music, since you and consuono regard its practitioners as "the dominant group, the dogma" of today. It seems that consuono also has a penchant to call anything he doesn't like, "dogmatic". Somehow it has never occurred to him, that by the logic he uses, - his criticism on Gould and Schiff (about them "not following the composers' intentions") is also invalid, - cause the performers are popular.



DaveM said:


> However, IMO, while his later piano concertos were ahead of their time (particularly K466), they sound dated to the century they were composed in when played with a fortepiano. And if you want to keep harping on the fact that that is a personal opinion based on what I like then it is no different than other personal opinions that the use of a fortepiano is required because that was Mozart's intention.


The 18th century fortepiano is perfectly appropriate for performing all of Mozart's piano music. The modern piano is way too heavy and clumsy in action for the 18th century practice of articulation and dynamics.



DaveM said:


> Because a harpsichord has plectrums that pluck the strings while a piano has hammers that strike the strings. The fortepiano is an early piano. The harpsichord isn't. They are 2 different animals. Any improvement of the harpsichord came to an end, as did compositions for it, toward the end of the 18th century. (Perhaps there is a limit to how much one can improve the sound of plucking strings from a keyboard.)


Again, in terms of scale and design, the fortepiano is even closer to the harpsichord than it is to the modern piano. 



There are plenty of people who think the sound of the harpsichord is terrible and would want it replaced by the modern piano in all performances of period music.



DaveM said:


> On the contrary, the 'piano' continued to be improved on constantly because composers and pianists 'demanded' it and listeners responded positively to the changes. Beethoven had a strong dislike for the fortepianos of his day and kept demanding for something better. In the last years of his life he felt that pianos still needed improvement. Maybe Mozart felt the same.


Mozart never felt his fortepiano needed "improvement". Neither did Chopin. And the "changes" made to the piano over time weren't "improvements" in the real sense. Beethoven would not have approved of the cross-stringing of the bass, and the ridiculously slow hammer action speed of the modern grand. We have no way of knowing he would have liked the modern piano, and even if he did, he would have written different music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Somehow it has never occurred to him, that by the logic he uses, - his criticism on Gould and Schiff (about them "not following the composers' intentions") is also invalid, - cause the performers are popular.


Well when you come down to it the only possibility is to use the exact piano Mozart used. Otherwise you're not following his intentions.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Well when you come down to it the only possibility is to use the exact piano Mozart used. Otherwise you're not following his intentions.


LOL. That makes Mozart's music sound like improvisation - where you'd expect the performer to be responding to the particular characteristics of the instrument.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DaveM said:


> You, nor anyone else knows what Mozart's intentions were since he didn't have the choice of a modern grand. He composed with what was available.





hammeredklavier said:


> Stop making these "baseless assumptions".


You can't prove they're baseless unless you've been channeling Mozart.



> No it doesn't sound better. In fact, *I think modern listeners are rather "brainwashed" *into thinking the modern piano is the solution to performing a range of classical music spanning 200~300 years (which is simply ridiculous). The tone quality is frankly too "syrupy" for period music like Mozart; it's "brute power" is more appropriate for the later eras' sentimental and bombastic stuff.


I'll just let that sit and marinate for awhile. Listeners, pianists and recording engineers everywhere will be happy to see what you think of them.



> Maybe Mozart would have (been educated to) favor and compose atonal or serial music, since you and consuono regard its practitioners as "the dominant group, the dogma" of today.


Huh?



> Again, in terms of scale and design, the fortepiano is even closer to the harpsichord than it is to the modern piano.


The harpsichord through most of its life was designed to play standing. The strings are plucked. There is only one string per note. Yes, sure sounds like the 'scale and design' of the pianoforte to me. 



> *Mozart never felt his fortepiano needed "improvement". Neither did Chopin.* *And the "changes" made to the piano over time weren't "improvements" in the real sense. Beethoven would not have approved of the cross-stringing of the bass, and the ridiculously slow hammer action speed of the modern grand.* We have no way of knowing he would have liked the modern piano, and even if he did, he would have written different music.


So you're channeling Mozart, Chopin _and_ Beethoven and what was that about 'baseless assumptions'?

The 'changes' to the piano over time were so successful that the harpsichord couldn't compete and we know for a fact that Beethoven preferred his new Broadwood over his previous pianos. But then, you probably think Beethoven was also brainwashed.

Also, we know that when keys for lower pitches were added to pianos circa 1800, Beethoven wanted to make use of them, but held off until Op 101 when pianos with the extended range were more widely available. Anyone who has played his sonatas knows how much the left hand deep bass are an important part of them. IMO, he would have been overjoyed with the sound of cross-stringing of the bass.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

This idea of composer's intention is a red herring. We will never know any composer's intentions who either is dead and did not leave explicit instructions with the score. We have to assume that Mozart wrote for the instruments he had available to him during his lifetime. It is pure speculation that Mozart wold prefer the modern grand piano, and in fact one coud also say that he might very well rewrite the keyboard works to take advantage of the specific attributes of the modern grand, just as he did with the fortepiano.

Further the entire HIP/PI movement is based primarily on the taste and sensibilities of _our time_, not Mozart's (Richard Taruskin has written much on this issue). Even using what we know and the performance practices of the period and the instruments in all likelihood we are performing the music very differently from how Bach, or Mozart, did, and especially for much earlier music, e.g. the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

For me, *I like HIP/PI recordings because I prefer how they sound*. I do not like them because I think they are more "authentic".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> For me, *I like HIP/PI recordings because I prefer how they sound*. I do not like them because I think they are more "authentic".


I suppose that this whole debate gets its life because, in the second half of the twentieth century, there was in Europe and America a widespread conception of what a musician is. A musician is someone who is the servant of the composer, who treats what information we have about the work the composer creates like rules, rails.

And to use an example mentioned above, one thing we do know as sure as eggs is eggs, Mozart didn't have it in mind that the D minor piano concerto be played on a modern piano!

I think to a great extent this conception of a musician has lost its force. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find that it has lost its force for 50 years or more, since 1968 and all that.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

DaveM said:


> You can't prove they're baseless unless you've been channeling Mozart.


It seems like a fundamental issue here is that you continue to describe the concert grand as, strictly and objectively, an improvement over the fortepiano, but we've just had 6 pages of quotes and videos from experts demonstrating that, in a very literal and audible sense, the fortepiano _can do things that the concert grand simply cannot do_ (just as, of course, in other ways the concert grand can do things the fortepiano cannot do). I often see phrases like 'the concert grand's design _improved on the volume_ of the fortepiano' when what is really being communicated is 'the concert grand is louder', which is of course not at all the same thing (I'm guessing you don't want dramatic electronic amplification of the concert grand, for example). The details of the fortepiano's sensitive action also seem particularly relevant to me here, with the examples of specific markings in Mozart's scores that cannot be played on a concert grand. So, what gives? Why do you insist on using language that assumes the objective superiority of the concert grand?



DaveM said:


> Listeners, pianists and recording engineers everywhere will be happy to see what you think of them.


I actually think that taking into consideration listeners, pianists, and recording engineers rather works against your argument, as, even in a world where classical listeners have been brought up listening to concert grands and modern conservatory technique, the market share of HIP has continually and rather quickly increased for decades and decades, with more and more pianists embracing the extra effort of learning new techniques and seeking out rarer instruments in order to produce HIP recordings. Actually, let's take perhaps a more realistic example than my earlier digression about synthesizers - I find it plausible that, within, say, 30 years, a majority of Mozart recordings will feature fortepianos rather than concert grands. What would you say if that happened? In 2021 the 'learned opinion' is correct, but in 2051 it is incorrect? And it doesn't matter for my argument if ultimately this comes to pass or not - the point is it's totally circular for you to point to cite 'the way things are done now' as an argument regarding correctness or validity.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> ..For me, *I like HIP/PI recordings because I prefer how they sound*. I do not like them because I think they are more "authentic".


That's an important distinction.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

Actually, sorry, I've just had another thought I didn't want to get buried as an edit to my previous post: let's go back to the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 that was linked on the previous page - you don't seem to enjoy the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, and prefer the grand. But we know that Mozart literally wrote the piece for fortepiano. Of course we don't know exactly what Mozart envisioned in his mind's ear when he wrote the piece, or what it really sounded like when it was first performed (and of course those could be two different things...) - but we know, at least, that it was the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, which you don't enjoy. So, it seems that you now are faced with the distinct possibility that, if you could step into a time machine back to Mozart's era, you _wouldn't necessarily enjoy what you heard_, because what you enjoy hearing is the 20th century concert grand version of Mozart. Whether you like it or not, Mozart wrote the tinkle tinkle tinkle.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cheregi said:


> It seems like a fundamental issue here is that you continue to describe the concert grand as, strictly and objectively, an improvement over the fortepiano, but we've just had 6 pages of quotes and videos from experts demonstrating that, in a very literal and audible sense, the fortepiano _can do things that the concert grand simply cannot do_ (just as, of course, in other ways the concert grand can do things the fortepiano cannot do)...So, what gives? Why do you insist on using language that assumes the objective superiority of the concert grand?


Fact: the pianoforte has underwent almost constant changes from the latter 18th century, throughout the 19th and into the 20th. Changes like this occur because presumably listeners, pianists and composers look on them as improvements. I don't need to proclaim the superiority of the modern grand over the pianoforte and the popularity of the modern grand over the pianoforte has nothing to do with my preference.

If the pianoforte is the better instrument for Mozart, Chopin or any other composer of those times, you're going to have to convince an awful lot of people. And btw, what is your endgame here other than to diminish my position? Do you think you are going to change the fact that, when it comes to playing and recording the piano music of these early composers, the modern grand rules? Or do you think that it has nothing to do with the fact that most people consciously prefer it, but rather they are 'brainwashed' (as per hammeredklavier)?



DaveM said:


> _Listeners, pianists and recording engineers everywhere will be happy to see what you think of them._





> *I actually think that taking into consideration listeners, pianists, and recording engineers rather works against your argument*, as, even in a world where classical listeners have been brought up listening to concert grands and modern conservatory technique, the market share of HIP has continually and rather quickly increased for decades and decades, with more and more pianists embracing the extra effort of learning new techniques and seeking out rarer instruments in order to produce HIP recordings.


What does that quote of mine above have to do with my argument? It was in reference to the claim that, rather than the modern grand being a superior instrument, listeners have been brainwashed. Are you hanging your hat on the 'brainwash' theory?



> Actually, let's take perhaps a more realistic example than my earlier digression about synthesizers - I find it plausible that, within, say, 30 years, a majority of Mozart recordings will feature fortepianos rather than concert grands. What would you say if that happened? In 2021 the 'learned opinion' is correct, but in 2051 it is incorrect? And it doesn't matter for my argument if ultimately this comes to pass or not - the point is it's totally circular for you to point to cite 'the way things are done now' as an argument regarding correctness or validity.


You forecast something that, until proven otherwise, is a pipe dream and use that as some sort of judgment about what I might 'say' then. And then have the nerve to use the word 'circular'? 'The way things are done now' are the way the majority of people prefer. It's up to you to prove otherwise. And there is absolutely no evidence of pianoforte Mozart recordings outdistancing those using a modern grand in the near or distant future.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cheregi said:


> Actually, sorry, I've just had another thought I didn't want to get buried as an edit to my previous post: let's go back to the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 that was linked on the previous page - you don't seem to enjoy the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, and prefer the grand. But we know that Mozart literally wrote the piece for fortepiano. Of course we don't know exactly what Mozart envisioned in his mind's ear when he wrote the piece, or what it really sounded like when it was first performed (and of course those could be two different things...) - but we know, at least, that it was the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, which you don't enjoy. So, it seems that you now are faced with the distinct possibility that, if you could step into a time machine back to Mozart's era, you _wouldn't necessarily enjoy what you heard_, because what you enjoy hearing is the 20th century concert grand version of Mozart. Whether you like it or not, Mozart wrote the tinkle tinkle tinkle.


No he didn't or are there instructions in the score: '_tinkle, tinkle, tinkle sound preferred_?' He wrote notes for the only instrument available.

Btw, I enjoy Mozart under any circumstances including his operas sung by young rank amateurs with only a piano accompaniment.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

cheregi said:


> Actually, sorry, I've just had another thought I didn't want to get buried as an edit to my previous post: let's go back to the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 that was linked on the previous page - you don't seem to enjoy the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, and prefer the grand. But we know that Mozart literally wrote the piece for fortepiano. Of course we don't know exactly what Mozart envisioned in his mind's ear when he wrote the piece, or what it really sounded like when it was first performed (and of course those could be two different things...) - but we know, at least, that it was the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, which you don't enjoy. So, it seems that you now are faced with the distinct possibility that, if you could step into a time machine back to Mozart's era, you _wouldn't necessarily enjoy what you heard_, because what you enjoy hearing is the 20th century concert grand version of Mozart. Whether you like it or not, Mozart wrote the tinkle tinkle tinkle.


It ought to be obvious that Mozart had never heard the modern grand piano. All he knew were the clavichord, harpsichord and fortepiano. Mozart wrote his music for the fortepiano, and took into account the quick decay, the shorter range, the action, and the overall sound across all octaves, (the higher register was brighter and the lower register darker). Mozart was a good composer and exploited all of these attributes of the fortepiano, as he did for every instrument he wrote for.

If we apply the axiom, explain problems with the simplest and most direct answer, then we must conclude that since Mozart had no knowledge of the modern concert grand, there is no reason to think he would prefer it for his keyboard music. It is only because we have lived with the concert grand that we think it sounds better than the fortepiano.

To apply our taste to Mozart is anachronistic.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> To apply our taste to Mozart is anachronistic.


We are 2021 and the D minor concerto was 1785. The past does not have any sort of authority over the present. There's no reason why the author of the piano concerto should have a veto on our interpretation of the piano concerto, is there?



SanAntone said:


> Mozart wrote his music for the fortepiano, and took into account the quick decay, the shorter range, the action, and the overall sound across all octaves, (the higher register was brighter and the lower register darker). Mozart was a good composer and exploited all of these attributes of the fortepiano, as he did for every instrument he wrote for.


That's interesting, if you can argue for it in this case, the D minor concerto, it would be interesting. But even in such an eventuality, someone could come along tomorrow with a radically anachronistic interpretation of the music which is no less interesting than the HIP one. Mozart himself is not a privileged voice when it comes to playing K466.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> We are 2021 and the D minor concerto was 1785. The past does not have any sort of authority over the present. There's no reason why the author of the piano concerto should have a veto on our interpretation of the piano concerto, is there?
> 
> That's interesting, if you can argue for it in this case, the D minor concerto, it would be interesting. But even in such an eventuality, someone could come along tomorrow with a radically anachronistic interpretation of the music which is no less interesting than the HIP one. Mozart himself is not a privileged voice when it comes to playing K466.


I am not making an argument in favor of HIP performances, I am arguing against the idea that Mozart would prefer the modern piano, an instrument he knew nothing about.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I am arguing against the idea that Mozart would prefer the modern piano, an instrument he knew nothing about.


Ah yes, that idea seems a no hoper to me!

Interesting how far culture has moved from _com'e scritto_, I think the influence of critical theory in the 70s and 80s.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

DaveM said:


> No he didn't or are there instructions in the score: '_tinkle, tinkle, tinkle sound preferred_.' He wrote notes for the only instrument available.
> .





DaveM said:


> Fact: the pianoforte has underwent almost constant changes from the latter 18th century, throughout the 19th and into the 20th. Changes like this occur because presumably listeners, pianists and composers look on them as improvements.


But it's been shown clearly that A) one person's 'difference' is another person's 'improvement', and B) tastes change over time, often in unexpected ways. Jascha Heifetz famously did not regard modern strings as an improvement on gut strings. Many listeners today do not regard the concert grand as a strict upgrade over the fortepiano. More importantly, Mozart did not know how the sound of the piano would change after his lifetime. Isn't at the very least _plausible_ that Mozart simply wrote exactly what he wanted to hear, and the HIP version is the version he would have preferred? We of course can never know, but can't we at least hold up the possibility that if he had wanted the grave, serious, bassy sound of the modern-style performance, but knew it couldn't be achieved on the fortepiano, he would've written something else, or maybe for a different instrument? I'm imagining a hypothetical Mozart going, "hmm, I know this will sound so tinkle-tinkle on the fortepiano, and I want something serious and grave... maybe I will simply trust that in a few hundred years there will be a piano that does that."



DaveM said:


> And btw, what is your endgame here other than to diminish my position?


Mostly I feel as though I'm learning a lot from this, from you, from other users... I guess my endgame is to get you to a place where you can admit that the Mozart you enjoy is the specifically 20th-century Mozart sound which A) isn't the same as Mozart's own Mozart sound, and B) isn't objectively better than any other approach.



DaveM said:


> What does that quote of mine above have to do with my argument? It was in reference to the claim that, rather than the modern grand being a superior instrument, listeners have been brainwashed. Are you hanging your hat on the 'brainwash' theory?


Well, as I see it your quote could be taken one of two ways: "hammeredklavier's point is incorrect because it's mean to listeners, pianists, and recording engineers," or "hammeredklavier's point is incorrect because the educated opinions of present-day listeners, pianists, and recording engineers should be used as a basis for figuring out the truth." I ignored the first meaning because it seems self-evident that that's not any kind of logical response or refutation at all. So, I tried to address the second meaning. As for 'brainwashing,' I have no issue with hammeredklavier's use of that word. It's clear what is meant is, 'people's preferences are shaped by their social conditioning; people aren't just born into this world arbitrarily liking or disliking certain sounds, they acquire those preferences via associations and exposure and all kinds of social factors.'



DaveM said:


> You forecast something that, until proven otherwise, is a pipe dream and use that as some sort of judgment about what I might 'say' then. And then have the nerve to use the word 'circular'? 'The way things are done now' are the way the majority of people prefer. It's up to you to prove otherwise. And there is absolutely no evidence of pianoforte Mozart recordings outdistancing those using a modern grand in the near or distant future.


The reason I keep bringing up these scenarios is, you seem to me to be simultaneously _denying_ that your stand is based on 'what is currently popular', while also continually using 'what is currently popular' as an argument in favor of the validity of your claims. I think there many, many ways that this doesn't work, starting with my mention of Rihanna in my first post in this thread, and continuing on through the fact that many classical listeners/performers today and in the past have contradictory views on what 'sounds good'.



SanAntone said:


> To apply our taste to Mozart is anachronistic.


I completely agree with this post and find it excellently articulated. I'm only noting this on the off chance that you quoted me because my post made it seem like I would disagree.



Mandryka said:


> Mozart himself is not a privileged voice when it comes to playing K466.


I completely agree here as well - I don't think HIP has any kind of claim to being more relevant or more interesting than any other interpretation, and would love to see all kinds of radical stuff.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The 18th century fortepiano in certain ways is more similar to the harpsichord than the modern grand.
-pitch range of 5 octaves
-wooden framed (not steel)
-straight strung
-weighs about 100kg
etc..

The fact remains that performers on the modern grand today don't give a **** about Mozart's articulation markings, which he specified on score every time. Along with the constant slurpy mezzo-piano tone, all they're doing is trying to simulate the fortepiano sound, but they know they can't achieve it. No matter how inconvenient it is for some, we must face the truth.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart never felt his fortepiano needed "improvement". Neither did Chopin. And the "changes" made to the piano over time weren't "improvements" in the real sense. Beethoven would not have approved of the cross-stringing of the bass, and the ridiculously slow hammer action speed of the modern grand. We have no way of knowing he would have liked the modern piano, and even if he did, he would have written different music.


I wonder if there are instances of 19th century pianists bemoaning the passing of the fortepiano and recommending going back to its use? Chopin was a Mozart idolizer and I assume he played Mozart on a piano quite different from the one Mozart played. Same for Liszt and Brahms, I guess. This retro elevation of the fortepiano seems to be more characteristic of the late 20th century and the early 21st.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

i mean i guess "brainwashing" is correct in the sense that we have socially determined reasons for what a orchestral and piano performance "should" sound like, but that's like saying that we're "brainwashed" because we instantly know, for example, that movies should be about 90-120 minutes long or something.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

cheregi said:


> Actually, sorry, I've just had another thought I didn't want to get buried as an edit to my previous post: let's go back to the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 that was linked on the previous page - you don't seem to enjoy the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, and prefer the grand. But we know that Mozart literally wrote the piece for fortepiano. Of course we don't know exactly what Mozart envisioned in his mind's ear when he wrote the piece, or what it really sounded like when it was first performed (and of course those could be two different things...) - but we know, at least, that it was the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, which you don't enjoy. So, it seems that you now are faced with the distinct possibility that, if you could step into a time machine back to Mozart's era, you _wouldn't necessarily enjoy what you heard_, because what you enjoy hearing is the 20th century concert grand version of Mozart. Whether you like it or not, Mozart wrote the tinkle tinkle tinkle.


no. Mozart wrote the score. a performance is living art, an adaptation of the score. Mozart didn't write the "tinkle tinkle tinkle", a HIP performer produced it.

e) like, Mozart wrote a piano piece. we have socially determined expectations for what a solo piano performance should sound like. some people are bringing back HIP as another set of aesthetics for piano performance which is cool, but there's no reason to treat one as more "real" than the other - they're both just aesthetic frameworks with which we enjoy piano music with.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> If we apply the axiom, explain problems with the simplest and most direct answer, then we must conclude that since Mozart had no knowledge of the modern concert grand, there is no reason to think he would prefer it for his keyboard music. It is only because we have lived with the concert grand that we think it sounds better than the fortepiano.


That is a gross oversimplification. In the early 18th century, the changes in the fortepiano were occurring frequently enough that not only listeners and pianists, but also major piano composers like Beethoven were able to hear and compare the differences in sound and design (yes, even Beethoven when he received his Broadwood).

Changes continued to occur throughout the 19th century and again, comparisons were available in real time. If the fact that we think the modern grand sounds better because of some kind of programming, why did those changes in the past continue when people could hear pianos with the older design vs. those with the newer design? Why didn't pianists, composers and listeners say 'Stop, you're ruining the piano!'? 'Bring back the wood frames! Recover the hammers with leather! No more triple-stringing!' 'Get rid of that damn sustain pedal.'

Speaking of the sustain pedal. David Rowland, in his book, _A History of Pianoforte Pedalling_, points to Mozart's '_enthusiastic endorsement of the knee lever on Stein's pianos'_ and was convinced that '_Mozart's use of raised dampers was well ahead of most of his contemporaries.'_ Sounds to me like Mozart would have embraced future improvements to the piano.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

cheregi said:


> > Originally Posted by *SanAntone*
> >
> > To apply our taste to Mozart is anachronistic.
> 
> ...


I was agreeing with you and adding my own thoughts.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> If we apply the axiom, explain problems with the simplest and most direct answer, then we must conclude that since Mozart had no knowledge of the modern concert grand, there is no reason to think he would prefer it for his keyboard music. It is only because we have lived with the concert grand that we think it sounds better than the fortepiano.
> 
> To apply our taste to Mozart is anachronistic.


we aren't performing music to please Mozart's ghost, though. we're performing and listening to it to please ourselves. aesthetic preferences change, evolve, die out, and are reborn over time.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

fbjim said:


> we aren't performing music to please Mozart's ghost, though. we're performing and listening to it to please ourselves. aesthetic preferences change, evolve, die out, and are reborn over time.


Well we do want to honor the composer though. The thing is I don't believe Bach, Mozart or Beethoven would be offended by playing their music on a modern piano. They might even think that those clinging to a fortepiano are a little daffy. I think Beethoven certainly would. Contrary to hammeredklavier, Beethoven was always interested in improvements to the piano of his time. And I suppose he might've played Bach, Handel and Mozart from time to time when he was able, and did so on instruments that were quite different from what the composers "intended". And he probably didn't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> Mozart wrote the score. a performance is living art, an adaptation of the score. Mozart didn't write the "tinkle tinkle tinkle", a HIP performer produced it.


However, Mozart lived at a certain time when certain instruments were available and others that came later were not. So, describing the fortepiano as producing a "tinkle, tinkle, tinkle" was someone's description, and someone who prefers to hear Mozart on the modern grand piano.

For myself, I enjoy both HIP/PI and modern performances of Mozart, and other composers from his and earlier eras (as well as later ones, too). And I recognize the fallacy of the authenticity argument. I consider the HIP/PI movement a post-modernist phenomenon.

But I still like how the period instruments sound playing this music. There are exceptions, I prefer the modern piano to the harpsichord in Bach - but with Medieval, Renaissance and Classical period music I prefer HIP/PI recordings.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

consuono said:


> Well we do want to honor the composer though. The thing is I don't believe Bach, Mozart or Beethoven would be offended by playing their music on a modern piano. They might even think that those clinging to a fortepiano are a little daffy. I think Beethoven certainly would. Contrary to hammeredklavier, Beethoven was always interested in improvements to the piano of his time.


well, we honor the composers by appreciating the songs they wrote. i'm not even sure it matters if Bach would be furious at people playing his toccatas on a modern grand - we have no way of knowing this anyway, nor do we have recordings of how it should have sounded like, and all that well-worn argumentation.

i guess fundamentally i see HIP at its most interesting when it's considered a new set of aesthetics to provide a fresh perspective on a work (and I really do think works can sound better with HIP - baroque orchestral pieces, for instance)- basically I see HIP as an aesthetic movement, and don't really care about it as a musicological one


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> we aren't performing music to please Mozart's ghost, though. we're performing and listening to it to please ourselves. aesthetic preferences change, evolve, die out, and are reborn over time.


Some performers might be trying to please Mozart's ghost, and they have every right to approach his music with that in mind.

I am in favor of as many interpretations as musicians can imagine. I will never promote or support the idea that there is one correct way to play any of this music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> However, Mozart lived at a certain time when certain instruments were available and others that came later were not. So, describing the fortepiano as producing a "tinkle, tinkle, tinkle" was someone's description, and someone who prefers to hear Mozart on the modern grand piano.
> 
> For myself, I enjoy both HIP/PI and modern performances of Mozart, and other composers from his and earlier eras (as well as later ones, too). And I recognize the fallacy of the authenticity argument. I consider the HIP/PI movement a post-modernist phenomenon.
> 
> But I still like how the period instruments sound playing this music. There are exceptions, I prefer the modern piano to the harpsichord in Bach - but with Medieval, Renaissance and Classical period music I refer the HIP/PI recordings.


sure, but one could also say that since Mozart intended his songs to conform to the listener's expectation of what a good piano piece should sound like, adding an affectation to that to confound the listener's expectations is in violation of that.

fun postmodernism, basically

e) to be clear i'm being a little facetious here, what really matters is if it's a good performance, of course!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> sure, but one could also say that since Mozart intended his songs to conform to the listener's expectation of what a good piano piece should sound like, adding an affectation to that to confound the listener's expectations is in violation of that.
> 
> fun postmodernism, basically


People say many things. I am not sure why you are making this point.

I don't concern myself with what Mozart might have wanted or intended, it is out of my hands. That question, beyond what is in the score, may or may not even concern a performer of his music. All I care about is the end product, a recording or concert. I either will like the results or not, and don't much care about what thought process went into the interpretation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I wonder if there are instances of 19th century pianists bemoaning the passing of the fortepiano and recommending going back to its use? Chopin was a Mozart idolizer and I assume he played Mozart on a piano quite different from the one Mozart played. Same for Liszt and Brahms, I guess. This retro elevation of the fortepiano seems to be more characteristic of the late 20th century and the early 21st.


HIP is a relatively recent thing. What's your point?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> I wonder if there are instances of 19th century pianists bemoaning the passing of the fortepiano and recommending going back to its use?.


What's the relevance of this question?



consuono said:


> Chopin was a Mozart idolizer and I assume he played Mozart on a piano quite different from the one Mozart played. Same for Liszt and Brahms, I guess.


So what?



consuono said:


> This retro elevation of the fortepiano seems to be more characteristic of the late 20th century and the early 21st.


Very hard to say. Some old pianos were preserved, so they weren't dismissed as worthless. In my head I can imagine Brahms wanting to play Mozart on one, Clementi wanting to play Scarlatti on one, Mozart wanting to play Bach on one, Beethoven wanting to play Handel on one, I'm sure Liszt would have loved to experiment with one. I don't know if any of them ever had access to one in real life, it doesn't seem an interesting question to me - have I missed your point?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

‘I’m not sure why you’re making this point.’ ‘What’s your point?’ ‘What’s the relevance of this question?’

Some people here seem awfully confused.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I think Beethoven certainly would. Contrary to hammeredklavier, Beethoven was always interested in improvements to the piano of his time.


Watch this part of Bilson's lecture.




_"Czerny, Beethoven's student said that he waited till the sound went away."
"You have to wait quite a long time."_

ROFL. So funny


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Very hard to say. Some old pianos were preserved, so they weren't dismissed as worthless. In my head I can imagine Brahms wanting to play Mozart on one, Clementi wanting to play Scarlatti on one, Mozart wanting to play Bach on one, Beethoven wanting to play Handel on one, I'm sure Liszt would have loved to experiment with one. I don't know if any of them ever had access to one in real life, it doesn't seem an interesting question to me - have I missed your point?


Some old pianos were preserved...do we know that any of those 19th century pianists and composers advocated going back to the instrument of the late 18th century? They knew of them, some had probably played one or two...but they didn't seem to advocate going back to it in the manner of 20th-21st century HIPsters. That's the point.

By the way, if Mozart played Bach on a fortepiano then he was absolutely doing so in defiance of Bach's intentions.

Here's another question for the fortepiano advocates here: is the only use for a fortepiano playing Mozart, Haydn, Clementi, early Beethoven etc? It seems like a lot of trouble and expense just to play music of a handful of composers. Or should the fortepiano be adopted as a general-use thing?


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Watch this part of Bilson's lecture.


This made me laugh out loud, thanks, lmao.

Anyway, in response to others, yes, I may have been a little loose with my language, and I didn't mean to imply that trying (and certainly failing in at least some ways) to reproduce the way a work sounded in its first performance is in any way a more artistically worthy endeavor than any other approach... I think I'm more concerned with countering this 'grand narrative' of historical progress advancing ever upwards, which says that performance practice and instrument design have self-evidently improved since Mozart's time and there's no reason to think anything different. Actually I think this whole thread has been really helpful for me to clarify my ideas around that and get a sense of the contours of Mozart's relationship to 'grand narrative' / teleological theories of history.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> This made me laugh out loud, thanks, lmao.


Bilson throws out a lot of subjective stuff in those videos. "Nobody writes that way [for a modern piano]..." a C minor chord?? And it took a while to fade away on the fortepiano as well. 


> Anyway, in response to others, yes, I may have been a little loose with my language, and I didn't mean to imply that trying (and certainly failing in at least some ways) to reproduce the way a work sounded in its first performance is in any way a more artistically worthy endeavor than any other approach... I think I'm more concerned with countering this 'grand narrative' of historical progress advancing ever upwards, which says that performance practice and instrument design have self-evidently improved since Mozart's time and there's no reason to think anything different. ...


Beethoven apparently felt his Broadwood was an improvement.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> "Nobody writes that way [for a modern piano]..." a C minor chord?? And it took a while to fade away on the fortepiano as well.


I don't think he meant the fact that it was a C minor chord. And I thought the difference in how long the sound took to fade on each instrument was fairly clear.



consuono said:


> Beethoven apparently felt his Broadwood was an improvement.


Well, good for him!



consuono said:


> but they didn't seem to advocate going back to it in the manner of 20th-21st century HIPsters. That's the point.
> 
> By the way, if Mozart played Bach on a fortepiano then he was absolutely doing so in defiance of Bach's intentions.
> 
> is the only use for a fortepiano playing Mozart, Haydn, Clementi, early Beethoven etc? It seems like a lot of trouble and expense just to play music of a handful of composers. Or should the fortepiano be adopted as a general-use thing?


Yes, I think someone else in here mentioned, we all know HIP is itself a contemporary idea, there's no contradiction there.
Similarly, we know that playing Bach on a fortepiano wasn't what Bach had in mind, again, there's no contradiction there. These aren't 'gotchas'.

I'm very glad you asked that last question. This thread has actually piqued my interest in fortepianos generally, I would love to hear fortepiano jazz or new compositions, etc.! I hope such a thing develops.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> I don't think he meant the fact that it was a C minor chord. And I thought the difference in how long the sound took to fade on each instrument was fairly clear.


Chopin's Op. 61 also has long-held chords. So what? Other than that the Bilson videos really come down to "I like the fortepiano".



> Well, good for him!


And apparently he wasn't alone.



> Yes, I think someone else in here mentioned, we all know HIP is itself a contemporary idea, there's no contradiction there.
> Similarly, we know that playing Bach on a fortepiano wasn't what Bach had in mind, again, there's no contradiction there. These aren't 'gotchas'.


"Mozart played a fortepiano" is likewise not a "gotcha".



> I'm very glad you asked that last question. This thread has actually piqued my interest in fortepianos generally, I would love to hear fortepiano jazz or new compositions, etc.! I hope such a thing develops.


:lol: I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> Chopin's Op. 61 also has long-held chords. So what?


I recommend re-watching the clip.



consuono said:


> "Mozart played a fortepiano" is likewise not a "gotcha".


No one is using it like one. Everyone is clear that 'Mozart played a fortepiano' is only one small part of a larger argument. Whenever I have brought up the fact that Mozart played a fortepiano, I have always contextualized that plain fact with explanation of why it's relevant and how it ties to other parts of my argument.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I wonder if there are instances of 19th century pianists bemoaning the passing of the fortepiano and recommending going back to its use?






"I think that instruments from every period have effects and colours that cannot be reproduced on today's pianos-that compositions were always conceived with the instruments of their time in mind, and only on those can they achieve their full effect; played on today's instruments they sound at a disadvantage." 
ANTON RUBINSTEIN, 1892, aus _Die Musik und Ihre Meister_, S.128


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> all they're doing is trying to simulate the fortepiano sound, but they know they can't achieve it.


If the modern piano is such a *naturally ideal, brilliant form of advancement* the 18th-century keyboardists could only dream of, and the keyboard-makers could only conceive in their minds, but could not realize due to "technical limitations" or whatever, -
why do we get performances of *constant mezzo-piano bullcrap* from the top performers today, such as Perahia, Uchida, Pires:












Because the modern piano is used to simulate some other instrument in these cases.
It's just like transcriptions of orchestral symphonies (such as Beethoven's), we don't call them "solo piano symphonies". They're just compositions where the modern piano tries to simulate the sound(s) of some other instrument(s). 
Face it. The modern piano can only be an "impersonator" at best when it comes to Mozart. It doesn't have a "personality" or "voice of its own".  It always tries to copy the fortepiano sound in a rather pathetic way. It's _so fake_. How can we call it a natural advancement of the fortepiano, when it comes to Mozart?
If I were you, I would just listen to the _real thing_.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> If the modern piano is such a *naturally ideal, brilliant form of advancement* the 18th-century keyboardists could only dream of, and the keyboard-makers could only conceive in their minds, but could not realize due to "technical limitations" or whatever, -
> why do we get performances of *constant mezzo-piano bullcrap* from the top performers today, such as Perahia, Uchida, Pires:
> 
> 
> ...


In the end, no matter how many times you post links to Bilson and other proponents of the fortepiano and keep repeating the same thing, the fact is that people prefer the modern grand and have for a long time. If the fortepiano has the superior sound then it should win out over the modern grand, but, apparently, it isn't. The modern piano does have a 'personality' and 'voice of its own'. I can tune my own grand piano. I can bring out her voice. And I am familiar with her unique personality every time I play her.

I don't argue the fact that Mozart wrote for the fortepiano, but the problem is that the modern grand has a full, deep, sonorous tone and people apparently really like the sound of it over the 'dated' sound of the fortepiano. Changes to the fortepiano moving towards the modern grand were considered improvements because people liked them and, likewise, they ended up being incorporated into pianos rather than being dropped because people didn't like them. These are facts and all your railing against modern pianos is not going to change them.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> If the modern piano is such a *naturally ideal, brilliant form of advancement* the 18th-century keyboardists could only dream of, and the keyboard-makers could only conceive in their minds, but could not realize due to "technical limitations" or whatever, -
> why do we get performances of *constant mezzo-piano bullcrap* from the top performers today, such as Perahia, Uchida, Pires:
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think that Perahia, Uchida, and Pires should switch to playing Mozart on the fortepiano at this late point in their careers? Changing the whole mechanics of their playing in their 70's and 80's? Is that practical? If not, why do you insult these pianists for recording Mozart? Is anyone trying to force you to buy their recordings? If not, why don't you leave them alone?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "I think that instruments from every period have effects and colours that cannot be reproduced on today's pianos-that compositions were always conceived with the instruments of their time in mind, and only on those can they achieve their full effect; played on today's instruments they sound at a disadvantage."
> ANTON RUBINSTEIN, 1892, aus _Die Musik und Ihre Meister_, S.128


Yeah, I knew that one was coming. But Rubinstein never adopted the fortepiano, as far as I know.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

consuono said:


> Yeah, I knew that one was coming. But Rubinstein never adopted the fortepiano, as far as I know.


No he never did. And, furthermore, his famous 1872-3 U.S. tour where he played well over 200 performances of fortepiano-era music was sponsored by Steinway. Any guesses out there what piano he played for Mozart, Beethoven and Schumann?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> No he never did. And, furthermore, his famous 1872-3 U.S. tour where he played well over 200 performances of fortepiano-era music was sponsored by Steinway.


Presumably because a Steinway is louder, fill the hall.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

The past few days I've been particularly enjoying fortepianist Edoardo Torbianelli's recording of Clementi's E-minor capriccio (full playlist on youtube), which I think is ideal for demonstrating the usefulness of the fortepiano's higher action (I hope I'm using those words correctly) to produce that gorgeous legato:






For contrast, here's the piece on a grand, which also really highlights what hammeredklavier has been saying about needing to work extra hard to keep the piece quiet enough to work musically and avoid muddiness:






I know this side by side comparison is unlikely to convince anyone of anything, but to my ears it's a clear example of the power of combining period technique with period instrumentation. Also, to my ears, Torbianelli seems more dedicated than other fortepianists to incorporating a current picture of period technique - but I've barely dipped my toe in that world, and would love recommendations. Anyway, what are others' impressions of the two versions?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Presumably because a Steinway is louder, fill the hall.


More likely because Steinway was paying his way during that time to the extent that he was financially reasonably well off for the rest of his life.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

One thing I will say about the fortepiano, though I’ve never played one, is that it may be easier for amateurs to initially learn to play Mozart on. When one looks a some of Mozart’s piano works on the printed page, they look easy to play, but then, when you try to play them, perhaps the same way you played Beethoven, they don’t sound right. I think it’s a truism that it takes longer to play Mozart well on a modern grand than most other composers. But it can be done as time goes on and the result is worth the effort.

Which is why I have the greatest respect for artists such as Perahia and Uchida because they play Mozart well and bring to the table the benefits of the modern grand.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't understand the problem. Why does it bother some people, on either side of the question, that some artists prefer to play (and some listeners prefer it as well) Mozart on a modern piano while others prefer to use the fortepiano?

Surely there is plenty enough to go around for all listeners to be happy.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I don't understand the problem. Why does it bother some people, on either side of the question, that some artists prefer to play (and some listeners prefer it as well) Mozart on a modern piano while others prefer to use the fortepiano?
> 
> Surely there is plenty enough to go around for all listeners to be happy.


There is only one poster who has been telling others what should be preferred and anyone else who doesn't agree is brainwashed and that includes insults on professionals who use the modern grand. If you look at virtually all the other posts by others, nowhere are we/they saying what people should like. Those posts have been about why we/they prefer the modern grand, why we/they think it works just fine with Mozart and why we/they believe that the modern grand is going to continue to be preferred by the masses and why the fortepiano is not and will not be.

Why some posters have tried to turn this into an argument that we/they are telling others what to like is beyond me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> One thing I will say about the fortepiano, though I've never played one, is that it may be easier for amateurs to initially learn to play Mozart on. When one looks a some of Mozart's piano works on the printed page.


It's harder in terms of finger dexterity to play at "presto", music that's actually marked "allegro" (which consuono accuses Gould, Schiff, and many other perfomers of doing, with the sinfonia of Bach's partita) than to just play it at "allegro" as written by the composer.
Likewise, it's harder to use a "fake fortepiano" to imitate the sounds of a "real fortepiano" than to just use a real fortepiano to play pieces originally meant for the fortepiano.












Most performers and recording companies care more about what their fans and consumers want to hear, rather than how Mozart is actually supposed to sound. And most listeners are only interested in hearing "music that sounds good to them" rather than "music Mozart actually intended". Look how many people love the sections of the requiem butchered by Sussmayr.
You say "Mozart did not have a choice between the fortepiano and the modern piano". But how much thought and insight have the modern piano players such as Gulda given on the topic of the fortepiano vs. the modern piano? 
Fortepianos are rare, expensive, hard to obtain. Modern pianos are readily available everywhere, every concert hall, studio, worldwide, used in every music genre including pop and jazz.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I don't understand the problem. Why does it bother some people, on either side of the question, that some artists prefer to play (and some listeners prefer it as well) Mozart on a modern piano while others prefer to use the fortepiano?
> 
> Surely there is plenty enough to go around for all listeners to be happy.


The problem is this. Mozart was the originator of ideas which have excited the imaginations of musicians and listeners for centuries, and no doubt will continue to do so for many generations to come. It seems natural to revere the man for this achievement, and that reverence consists, for many, in trying to make his music come to life in the way he intended, as best we can.

HIP is a sort of _respect_. Not the way that you would respect a policeman with a stick. That sense of "authority" is long dead I think, as far as authors are concerned. But respect in a way which is akin to admire, revere, love, awe.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> The problem is this. Mozart was the originator of ideas which have excited the imaginations of musicians and listeners for centuries, and no doubt will continue to do so for many generations to come. It seems natural to revere the man for this achievement, and that reverence consists, for many, in trying to make his music come to life in the way he intended, as best we can.
> 
> HIP is a sort of _respect_. Not the way that you would respect a policeman with a stick. That sense of "authority" is long dead I think, as far as authors are concerned. But respect in a way which is akin to admire, revere, love, awe.


Oh, I understand that. What I don't understand is why we keep arguing about this HIP vs. modern question.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Oh, I understand that. What I don't understand is why we keep arguing about this HIP vs. modern question.


I do take your point, and I think I do let my language slip into 'it is objectively better on the fortepiano', which isn't ultimately what I believe (which seems to be a disagreement between me and hammeredklavier). I think there's plenty to like about the tradition of playing Mozart on the concert grand and I think those recordings should continue to be made. But I think there's this kind of sneering attitude towards HIP which regards the conventional concert-grand Mozart as both self-evidently better and also self-evidently more reflective of, or more respectful towards, some kind of abstract idea of Mozart's musical imagination/'intent'. And so I want to make the double move of A) composer intent doesn't _need_ to matter, and B) even if I were to presume it _did_, I would end up with a music quite removed from what most people think of when they think of Mozart...

Actually, even more broadly, I think the kind of teleological, progress-oriented thinking that leads people to assume that concert-grand Mozart is the only Mozart worth hearing has rather disturbing political implications, positing a kind of univocal narrative of Western art music as a stable, solid entity consistently working towards an objectively 'better' sound, in contrast to the reality of 'Western art music' as a fuzzy-bordered vague messy multicultural thing artificially bringing together wildly disparate goals, techniques, ideals, etc. ...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's harder in terms of finger dexterity to play at "presto", music that's actually marked "allegro" (which consuono accuses Gould, Schiff, and many other perfomers of doing, with the sinfonia of Bach's partita)


 Gould, but not Schiff really on that particular piece.


SanAntone said:


> I don't understand the problem. Why does it bother some people, on either side of the question, that some artists prefer to play (and some listeners prefer it as well) Mozart on a modern piano while others prefer to use the fortepiano?


It doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is to be told that performances on modern, and in many cases better instruments (so goes the consensus across 150+ years), is somehow illegitimate.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> ...Anyway, what are others' impressions of the two versions?


In all sincerity and honesty, that fortepiano sounds to me like an old, out-of-tune upright. But if you like it, great.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> In all sincerity and honesty, that fortepiano sounds to me like an old, out-of-tune upright. But if you like it, great.


That's funny! I disagree obviously but I see what you mean. It's almost honky-tonk.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

honestly I'd listen to more recordings on uprights. Lieder especially!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

consuono said:


> In all sincerity and honesty, that fortepiano sounds to me like an old, out-of-tune upright. But if you like it, great.


FWIW, after one has played on a grand piano, it is very hard to play on even a very good upright.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

cheregi said:


> I do take your point, and I think I do let my language slip into 'it is objectively better on the fortepiano', which isn't ultimately what I believe (which seems to be a disagreement between me and hammeredklavier). I think there's plenty to like about the tradition of playing Mozart on the concert grand and I think those recordings should continue to be made. But I think there's this kind of sneering attitude towards HIP which regards the conventional concert-grand Mozart as both self-evidently better and also self-evidently more reflective of, or more respectful towards, some kind of abstract idea of Mozart's musical imagination/'intent'. And so I want to make the double move of A) composer intent doesn't _need_ to matter, and B) even if I were to presume it _did_, I would end up with a music quite removed from what most people think of when they think of Mozart...
> 
> Actually, even more broadly, I think the kind of teleological, progress-oriented thinking that leads people to assume that concert-grand Mozart is the only Mozart worth hearing has rather disturbing political implications, positing a kind of univocal narrative of Western art music as a stable, solid entity consistently working towards an objectively 'better' sound, in contrast to the reality of 'Western art music' as a fuzzy-bordered vague messy multicultural thing artificially bringing together wildly disparate goals, techniques, ideals, etc. ...


I know what you mean, but since I enjoy both I guess I don't understand why people on either side of the question can't live and let live.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> That's funny! I disagree obviously but I see what you mean. It's almost honky-tonk.


Yeah, sort of like this. That fortepiano could probably play some mean stride.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

cheregi said:


> So, it seems that you now are faced with the distinct possibility that, if you could step into a time machine back to Mozart's era, you _wouldn't necessarily enjoy what you heard_, because what you enjoy hearing is the 20th century concert grand version of Mozart. Whether you like it or not, Mozart wrote the tinkle tinkle tinkle.


Can't agree more. I'm reminded of this:




"What the 19th century did to Mozart was, it turned Mozart into the definition of taste, of elegance, of beauty. In short it turned Mozart into a fashion model; a beautiful face, a mask. And as a result of that, it cultivated an attitude toward Mozart performance in which things needed to be smooth, things needed to be poised, things needed to be beautiful. And of course what starts by being a notion of beauty ends up being rather prettified, and so we get performances of Mozart that tend to embalm him, rather than to enliven him. And to turn Mozart into an object which is just simply nice, pleasant, pretty is to me unforgivable because his music teems with all of the disorder of the human condition." -Robert Levin


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

cheregi said:


> (Glenn Gould thought Wendy Carlos' synthesized Brandenburgs were the most perfect Brandenburgs), and opinions change over time (I can link some early-1900s vocal performances if you want to see just how much can change in a hundred years regarding what sorts of sounds people like to hear)!


Are these the ones you're talking about?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cheregi said:


> Actually, sorry, I've just had another thought I didn't want to get buried as an edit to my previous post: let's go back to the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 that was linked on the previous page - you don't seem to enjoy the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, and prefer the grand. But we know that Mozart literally wrote the piece for fortepiano. Of course we don't know exactly what Mozart envisioned in his mind's ear when he wrote the piece, or what it really sounded like when it was first performed (and of course those could be two different things...) - but we know, at least, that it was the 'tinkle tinkle tinkle' of the fortepiano, which you don't enjoy. So, it seems that you now are faced with the distinct possibility that, if you could step into a time machine back to Mozart's era, you _wouldn't necessarily enjoy what you heard_, because what you enjoy hearing is the 20th century concert grand version of Mozart. Whether you like it or not, Mozart wrote the tinkle tinkle tinkle.


No, I would probably enjoy it IF the fortepiano happened to be the only type of piano I knew. You don't miss what you haven't heard, and the fortepiano at that time still had a novelty about it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Since a post from pages back is being resurrected: Regarding the '_Mozart wrote the 'tinkle, tinkle, tinkle_', I'll repeat my response to that:



DaveM said:


> No he didn't unless there are instructions in the score: '_tinkle, tinkle, tinkle sound preferred_' He wrote notes for the only instrument available.


As further support for that, as I mentioned earlier, Mozart was excited over the new availability of a Sustain lever for the fortepiano and made good use of it so he was apparently happy with any improvements to the fortepiano that were forthcoming.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Mozart was excited over the new availability of a Sustain lever for the fortepiano and made good use of it so he was apparently happy with any improvements to the fortepiano that were forthcoming.


Well this isn't a logical inference, obviously. For "any" substitute "one"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> As further support for that, as I mentioned earlier, Mozart was excited over the new availability of a Sustain lever for the fortepiano and made good use of it so he was apparently happy with any improvements to the fortepiano that were forthcoming.


All these things you're saying are baseless as "Wagner would have loved Hitler" (I don't think they're any different from millionrainbows' in terms of logical soundness). And again, the modern piano players proved time and time again that all they're doing is trying to imitate the fortepiano sound. 18:24 , 3:16 , 21:33 <--- Why do they play like these? Are they too "shy" to express themselves? Or do they know their instrument , the modern piano , isn't good enough a medium for performing Mozart? 
Again, if I were you, I would just get used to the _real thing_. 



hammeredklavier said:


> "Augsburg, Oct. 17, 1777.
> ... *If I strike hard, whether I let my fingers rest on the notes or lift them, the tone dies away at the same instant that it is heard.* Strike the keys as I choose, the tone always remains even, never either jarring or failing to sound. It is true that a piano of this kind is not to be had for less than three hundred florins, but the pains and skill which Stein bestows on them cannot be sufficiently repaid. His instruments have a feature of their own; they are supplied with a peculiar escapement. Not one in a hundred makers attends to this; but, without it, it is impossible that a piano should not buzz and jar. *His hammers fall as soon as they touch the strings, whether the keys be held down by the fingers or not.* ..." -W.A. Mozart


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Yeah, sort of like this. That fortepiano could probably play some mean stride.


At least the fortepiano never gets "new-agey" in tone like these :lol::


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Are these the ones you're talking about?


I think this is a newer version of the same idea - I'm thinking of Switched-On Bach from 1968. Apparently it was an enormously popular bit of kitsch at the time but is now quite difficult to find on youtube - all I could find was this from the same album







consuono said:


> Yeah, sort of like this. That fortepiano could probably play some mean stride.


Absolutely! I'd love to hear it.



hammeredklavier said:


> Can't agree more. I'm reminded of this:


I'm going to have to go back through this thread and fully watch everuy video you've linked. They all seem fascinating.



hammeredklavier said:


> At least the fortepiano never gets "new-agey" in tone like these


I don't know, I think if someone really wanted to they could make the fortepiano sound new-agey...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> All these things you're saying are baseless as "Wagner would have loved Hitler" (I don't think they're any different from millionrainbows' in terms of logical soundness)...


What on earth are you talking about? Wagner, Hitler, millionrainbows? As far as my opinions being baseless are concerned, you don't seem to be making any headway with yours. Sales of Mozart's piano works with a modern grand don't appear to have come to a halt. Juilliard is not replacing its grand pianos with fortepianos for Mozart's piano works. And I don't see an overwhelming number of people here planning to dump their Mozart Piano recordings with modern grands for fortepiano recordings.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Well this isn't a logical inference, obviously. For "any" substitute "one"


What I find interesting is that you are one of the ones who argues in favor of some of the most avant-garde music, defending it on the basis that almost anything goes when it comes to what sounds people like and yet, here you are supporting and arguing in favor of the fortepiano piano for Mozart as if those of us who prefer the sound of the modern grand have the problem. It seems rather counterintuitive or maybe you just enjoy arguing with me. I say this because your post above comes across as nitpicking. I could be wrong.

Anyway, concerning the fact that it is documented that Mozart very much liked the addition of the Sustain lever (raising the dampers), here's a thought: If the premise is that Mozart's music was composed for the fortepiano and therefore his piano music should be played with the pianoforte rather than pianos that had the changes in the modern grand, does that mean that Mozart would have insisted that piano music he composed before his fortepiano had Sustain should be played without Sustain?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> What I find interesting is that you are one of the ones who argues in favor of some of the most avant-garde music, defending it on the basis that almost anything goes when it comes to what sounds people like and yet, here you are supporting and arguing in favor of the fortepiano piano for Mozart as if those of us who prefer the sound of the modern grand have the problem. It seems rather counterintuitive or maybe you just enjoy arguing with me. I say this because your post above comes across as nitpicking. I could be wrong.


It is not nitpicking. It is a about logic, about not using bad logic and spurious arguments to bulldoze your point of view across in a discussion. I'm assuming that we are all trying to get as close to the truth as possible, in what are quite difficult questions.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> At least the fortepiano never gets "new-agey" in tone like these :lol::


Well it probably could if a "new agey" player played it. You're always using that term and I have no idea what it means. Is late Brahms "new agey"? A violin or cello or flute can be "new agey".


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> It is not nitpicking. It is a about logic, about not using bad logic and spurious arguments to bulldoze your point of view across in a discussion....


Well, that _is_ a subject you know a lot about.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Is late Brahms "new agey"? A violin or cello or flute can be "new agey".


In a way, yes. I'm talking about the TONE quality. It works in the context of Brahms' music, but not so well in Mozart's.
I don't get your "double standards" either. The clavichord and harpsichord can be "Baldwin spinets".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> In a way, yes. I'm talking about the TONE quality. It works in the context of Brahms' music, but not so well in Mozart's.


So can the cello in TONE quality.


> I don't get your "double standards" either. The clavichord and harpsichord can be "Baldwin spinets".


Nope.


----------

