# Interesting Lecture about Performance Practice



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I know there aren't a ton of musicians on this forum, let alone music teachers or performance professionals, however, I think non-musicians and classical enthusiasts can get a lot out of this lecture too. Might make you _listen _differently. It's clearly relevant to me though since I've reached a point in my performing career where I actually _can _make decisions to shape my playing outside of teachers.






Comments, agreements, criticisms, all welcome.


----------



## michaels (Oct 3, 2014)

A wonderful lecture! A bit much on the issues that arise with composer writing to instruments and the modern piano, but love the underlying question: when is it so much that we loose the essence of the piece? 

Really enjoyed the reading of music for performance within that understanding and the context of time, etc... wonderful discussion! 

Thank you for sharing and best wishes on your performance career!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Right, this person's values are considered controversial, such as that Beethoven is only meant to be performed on period instruments because the modern piano simply doesn't have the capabilities to execute Beethoven 's sentiments. This is very contentious among pianists today. I'm a flutist however, and our debate has more to do with metal vs. wood flutes, and fortunately metal flutes _are_ capable of period performance practice because ultimately it lies in the player's ability to control their embouchure (mouth shape). A metal flute can be made to sound like a wooden flute if played by an experienced flutist.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

An interesting topic, unfortunately I am not able to view that video. 

"blocked on copyright grounds"


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I didn't watch the video, but suspect it's a fortepianist holding forth about how the fortepiano is the only proper instrument for Beethoven. Astonishing, not.

Just don't get Between Beethoven and that Steinway he really wants. Very dangerous.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Thanks for posting this.

The thing I found most convincing was his Chopin with period rubato.

I'm not so sure about some of the other things, but it was a very interesting and engaging lecture.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm so glad this is back online - it used to be but disappeared. Should be compulsory viewing for anyone interested in music!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I didn't watch the video, but suspect it's a fortepianist holding forth about how the fortepiano is the only proper instrument for Beethoven. Astonishing, not.
> 
> Just don't get Between Beethoven and that Steinway he really wants. Very dangerous.


Why don't you just watch it, Ken. It's really terrific. As someone interested in Beethoven, you might enjoy some fresh or different insights about performance


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, I'll probably watch it. But actually I like Bilson in some Beethoven. His Diabellis are in my top two!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

That was wonderful. I enjoyed it very much.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

dgee said:


> I'm so glad this is back online - it used to be but disappeared. Should be compulsory viewing for anyone interested in music!


I agree completely :tiphat:


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Maybe this is just the indoctrination from my teenage piano lessons.

But in the Mozart example he starts talking about at 21:40, I strongly, viscerally disagree with what he is saying. I think the quarter note should be held. That's how it makes sense to me. It makes no sense to me the other way. It feels wrong, unnatural, unbeautiful.


----------



## Scififan (Jun 28, 2015)

I just ran across this lecture on You Tube. It is fascinating! I was amazed at the violent attacks on his approach to period instrument performance he mentioned having been made. Mind you, I read a very antagonistic review on Amazon about the period performances of the Haydn works for solo piano on Brilliant Classics. Players included pupils of Bilson. Then I read two other equally intelligent reviews of the discs that highly praised this set. In the end I listened to it myself and purchased it. I found it very enjoyable. 
I also bought the set of Beethoven Sonatas on period instruments performed by Bilson and former pupils (some of whom are on the Haydn set mentioned above). Again, I found these performances revelatory and am delighted that I purchased it. I should add that I still get great pleasure from the pair of Kempff cycles I own and I wouldn't be without these sets. I don't understand why one can't enjoy the insights the different approaches offer.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Scififan said:


> I don't understand why one can't enjoy the insights the different approaches offer.


I agree, but I'm not sure Bilson himself is so open-minded, despite the qualifications he offers at various points.

What I find odd about Bilson's approach in this lecture is that he's willing to draw firm conclusions from pretty long chains of conjecture and speculation derived from isolated statements from Leopold Mozart and Czerny. Despite his focus on "reading the score," we are many degrees removed from the score, here.

Then at various times he finds himself somewhat awkwardly explaining away things Mozart wrote: for example the alternating left hand quarters and right hand eighth notes in the Mozart sonata, which he believes should all be staccato eighth notes, even though Mozart actually wrote the same figure in staccato eighth notes elsewhere in the piece. It seems to me Mozart has shown us pretty clearly what he writes when he wants alternating staccato eighth notes! I'm not saying the quarter notes in the earlier passage should be held for their full value, but I'm pretty sure if they were also supposed to be staccato eighth notes, Mozart would have written them that way, as he does elsewhere.

Nowhere in Bilson's chains of reasoning does he mention the single piece of advice to players that comes up over and over again over centuries since the beginning of people writing about music: the SINGING LINE. Again, I'm not saying everything should be Romantic legato. But I think there's a danger of getting lost in the weeds.

I also agree with the guy in the audience who says he can hear articulation within one of the sample pianist's legato passages; again, you don't have to agree with that approach, but Bilson is being awfully literal here when he says there's "no articulation."


----------



## Scififan (Jun 28, 2015)

Yes, I would agree that Bilson does select and marshal those arguments and examples which support his position and de-emphasizes those that would be problematic--points you illustrate very effectively e.g. articulation and especially "The Singing Line". On the other hand, some of his points are very telling, particularly the stylistic contrast in the two Schubert recordings.

One thing I do wonder about is the dissatisfaction Beethoven certainly had concerning his pianos. But was he annoyed about the _kind_ of tone they gave or simply the fact that they didn't have sufficient volume?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I must confess that arguments about Beethoven played on a period piano are pretty thin, bearing in mnd the revolutionary nature of his piano sonatas and the Diabellis whose concept went far beyond the piano he had available to him. Of course, Beethoven being deaf, are we to say that the piano he had in mind was the one in front of him (which he couldn't hear anyway) or something more futuristic? I think Luigi would have been delighted to hear the Hammerklavier played on a Steinway!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

DavidA said:


> the revolutionary nature of his piano sonatas and the Diabellis whose concept went far beyond the piano he had available to him. !


I think that's the point. He doesn't think that's necessarily true. How do we know Beethoven was _that _pioneering in sound concept? Beethoven worshipers put him on higher and higher pedestals because that's what they want to think about their composer-god. But really, is it even that demoting him to say he had just a _regular _concept of sound in mind instead of a _revolutionary _one? Either way, this is a debate that I am only interested in from the sidelines, since neither modern nor period instrumental recordings make a difference to me in regards to liking Beethoven's melodies.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I think that's the point. He doesn't think that's necessarily true. How do we know Beethoven was _that _pioneering in sound concept? Beethoven worshipers put him on higher and higher pedestals because that's what they want to think about their composer-god. But really, is it even that demoting him to say he had just a _regular _concept of sound in mind instead of a _revolutionary _one? Either way, this is a debate that I am only interested in from the sidelines, since neither modern nor period instrumental recordings make a difference to me in regards to liking Beethoven's melodies.


Whatever sound Beethoven had in mind, I can surely comment about the revolutionary nature of his compositions without being accused of turning him into a 'composer-god' and being accused of 'worshipping' him, neither of which I do. I wish you would actually answer what I've put instead of ascribing motives for it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> But actually I like Bilson in some Beethoven. His Diabellis are in my top two!


Where did you hear him play The Diabelli Variations?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Where did you hear him play The Diabelli Variations?


Remembered wrong! It was Staier on the fortepiano! Schiff also has a fortepiano set that I don't like as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Dia...383&sr=1-1&keywords=beethoven+diabelli+staier


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Remembered wrong! It was Staier on the fortepiano!


As far as I know the only late solo Beethoven Bilson has recorded is op 109.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Whatever sound Beethoven had in mind, I can surely comment about the revolutionary nature of his compositions without being accused of turning him into a 'composer-god' and being accused of 'worshipping' him, neither of which I do. I wish you would actually answer what I've put instead of ascribing motives for it.


There are only a few reasons why someone will ever put words in the mouth of another. One can do it because they legitimately believe it an accurate theory with solid historical basis, but even then there can be motives of the necessity for one's opinion to be validated, either at the further praise of the person, or their detriment. The people that the lecturer quotes in this video clearly are in favor of putting such opinions into Beethoven 's mouth because they have preconceptions of what kind of person he was first because it's what they consider is not only accurate but also more _honorable_ and _respectable_ according to their attitudes of what makes a good composer, or even a good person. If Beethoven were to have been historically proven otherwise, if some handwritten document cropped up where he said he loved nothing more than a fortepiano and felt it suitable for his ideas, it would make a particular segment of the Beethoven appreciation community feel very ashamed.

I'll give you an example that is more relevant to my performance practice situation, since I'm not a pianist. Would Bach approve of the modern metal flute? _I don't know._ And I'm not sure we'll ever know. I don't find it necessary to put words in Bach's mouth regarding this subject because there is historical validation for either theory, a dislike or like. There are only a few things flutists can be certain of, and one of them is this: _he wrote for traverso._ Therefore, it's good for a flutist to have a thorough understanding of the instrument that was at Bach's disposal in that day to understand how it was originally performed. Hence there is debate today in the flutist community not simply wood vs. metal, but wood _sound_ vs. metal sound. As I posted previously, a metal flute can be made to sound wooden if the flutist knows how. I'm in this camp. However, many professional flutists play Bach with a very modern sound, and stand with that decision. "What Bach would have preferred" and "What Bach would think of modern sound" are very valid questions to work out, but ultimately I've found such debates fruitless. Rather, the question I want to answer is "How was it originally performed?" I feel that question is easier to answer because of more historical evidence that can be used to back a theory. Quantz's 1752 book on the flute is considered such a primary resource for playing certain kinds of Baroque flute compositions, and is also valid for _some_ Bach. Other sources claim a different performance for other Bach works for various reasons, such as things unique to his style vs. other German Baroque composers.

The issue I see here is much easier to tackle for flutists than pianists. It is way harder for a pianist to mimic an old sound on modern piano, or otherwise it's impossible. Bilson loves Beethoven as much anyone else, but he emphasizes not putting thoughts and words into Beethoven's head in the process. What I'd like to know in this debate, is regardless of what Beethoven envisioned, how feasible is it to train pianists in the older fortepiano sound? When fortepianos are as inaccessible as they are today, how far are we willing to go to promote them? This lecturer thus, in my opinion, is biting off a lot more than he can chew, unless he can get others to assist. Otherwise he will continue to face disadvantage in promoting "original practice" of Beethoven and probably other composers of that time. Sometimes we just have to take what we have and make the best of it. Not all flutists can buy traversos and play Bach sonatas like that, as cool as that experience would be.


----------

