Mozart piano sonatas

[Franco]

the importance of to use instruments known for the composer

Why is this important? 

[Antoine Marchand]

Why is this important?  

That's exactly what Olga Tverskaya explains, Franco. Read her words, I can't explain it better than that.

[Que]

I am considering this set and I already have the set by Eschenbach, which I think is decent.  As Mozart is not even among my top 5 favorite composers, I am not going out to get many versions of his PS's.

Strongly recommended (various comments on the early pages of this thread).
But don't miss out on 4 extra discs of variations etc. included in this later set:



Q

[jlaurson]

Fortepianos.

A few points, introduced by my own favorite Fortpiano recording of Mozart sonatas:


"Sturm & Drang"
Adagio in b, K. 540
Fantasias in c and d, K. 475&397
Piano Sonata in c, K. 457
Piano Sonata in a, K. 310
Kristian Bezuidenhout
Modern copy of a 1795 Anton Waller

A splendid recording all-round. But somehow I'd never wish to become an all-fortepiano-all-the-time advocate.

The Fortepiano is supposed to add to our enjoyment of classical music, not replace previous enjoyment had at the hammers of the Fortepiano's much improved successors.

And these would be my first two points:

1.) Fortepianos can do a host of things: approximate the sound known to composers at the time of the composition; unveil certain aspects of performance that might be less obvious with a modern grand piano; change the character of a performance reg. tempi and use of legatos, for example. Wonderful, but wonderful as a supplement, not because it's the only way these works can or should be performed.

2.) There's a reason for the prevalence of the modern grand piano: It's a painstaking, significant improvement over its predecessors. No one will deny that with those massive improvements came about a change of character, also... but to portray Steinway, in particular, as the great equalizer; a sort of mashed potatoes of sound where previously there were hundreds of individually flavored spuds, isn't fair. (For one, even Steinways from the same year and the same manufacturer (Hamburg/New York) all sound different from another. Never-mind the differences between, say, a steel-coiled 1905 Steinway from a copper-coiled 1955 Steinway.)

Weighing one's option between a modern piano and a forte-piano includes pondering whether the improvements outweigh the loss of particularities. (Some which had always been considered disadvantages and not yet romanticized as "character".) I know no composer who has ever had the choice and hasn't gone with the modern instrument.
[The harpsichord doesn't count here, as it's an entirely difference concept/instrument. There are of course modern--and very lovely!--harpsichord concertos.]

It's like considering, for travel across the Atlantic, to cross on a replica of the Pinta, rather than the QEII. I'll grant there's a certain kind of character to doing the former (Scurvy, for one), but it's not very practical for every-week use. Now, Fortepiano performances of Mozart are of course not exactly like Atlantic crossings in one of Colombus' ships: They're better in at least the regard that no one has to die in the process. But they are a historical flavor, not the last and final word in performance practice. And, just like HIP orchestras, there are ways to make the forte-piano, inherently struggling with a sound that hasn't the charming qualities of a modern instrument, sound really shitty. We've come a long way in forte-pianism form its early re-discovery stages to the likes of Egarr, Bezuidenhout, and Brautigam. (Important, among other things, is that modern copies were made of instruments--and old instruments carefully restored, rather than using them as are. It's absurd to think that a dried-up, cracked 250 year old soundboard would produce the same tone as a freshly cut one. New soundboards are, among many other technical aspects, key to making a fortepiano (and even a harpsichord) sound decent.)

And on this (earlier) point no one should become more catholic than the pope. Even our Fortepiano-hero Ronald Brautigam--his Beethoven Sonatas are just magnificent--saw it fit to play and record the Beethoven Concertos on a modern piano. Surely these were not economical considerations, but musical ones on his part. Which goes to show what should be so obvious as to make this entire discussion mute: There are legitimate points in favor of both (not 'either'!) approaches. Which is why we should keep our ears open-minded. And which is why I think Antoine's below stab at Franco--regardless of previous argumentation experience with him--is unfair or at least useless. I'm sure Franco is not entirely close-minded to a friendly argument that is carried on with confidence but without being pompous. But saying up front that he/one/you is/are too ignorant to understand whatever one point would be making... well... that's not an A-effort. Convincing people to allow for consideration of other points (no point in aiming at outright conversion) requires, foremost, love.

Well, Franco, I could say many things: great range of colors; the importance of to use instruments known for the composer; not metal frames; great individuality of every instrument, even when it has been made for the same builder, etc. But we know that nothing of this – or even more accurate explanations - will change our (your) own preferences or it will generate a real dialogue between us because your position is very clear and simply you don't share the preference for this instrument:

[Wanderer]

Post of the month, surely. 

[Franco]

Thanks for that, Jens. 

Here's the response I wrote before reading yours

That's exactly what Olga Tverskaya explains, Franco. Read her words, I can't explain it better than that.

I Googled her and found this quote:

Olga Tverskaya is often asked how she could have adapted her playing to the fortepiano, its predecessor from another age. Her explanation is so important that I reproduce an excerpt here:

    "My view is that the fortepiano is the only surviving witness of how Schubert's works actually sounded, and so it is the most reliable guide for my interpretations.

    By trusting the instrument entirely and never imposing upon it, I let it tell me which tempos and dynamics are most appropriate to the style of the piece I wish to play. With its enormous range of colours, its warm, singing, yet deep and powerful sound, the instrument itself gives vivid insight into the phrases, forms and contrasts as well as the atmospheres Schubert had in mind when composing. Because the instrument is so evocative, a strong sense of intimacy has grown up between me and the music Schubert wrote, to such an extent that I feel I am close to him, that he and I share feelings and thoughts with the listener."

First I find her description of the sound of the instrument exaggerated.  A fortepiano sounds like what it is, a transitional instrument which evolved over decades and improvements into the modern piano, which has more of good things she claims the fortepiano possesses, and none of the bad.  Second, I don't want to hear the music as it sounded in the time of Schubert, no more than I wish to use his bathroom fixtures - I wish to hear the music under ideal conditions, ideal musical conditions, not historical conditions.  The only point she makes which has some tender is the one about the specific characteristics of the sound and how this might influence tempo and phrasing, but I fail to see how we must use a fortepiano to deduce these aspects of performance.

The case is much stronger for playing Bach on harpsichord as opposed to piano since the harpsichord is an entirely different instrument, whereas the fortepiano was eclipsed by the piano, and only fairly recently been championed.

For me the only argument for using the fortepiano is if you think it sounds better, as some people obviously do.  I'm not there yet, it will take more listening for me to come to that judgment, and I won't rule it out, but for now, the piano is my preferred instrument for Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

[jlaurson]

I don't want to hear the music as it sounded in the time of Schubert, no more than I wish to use his bathroom fixtures - I wish to hear the music under ideal conditions, ideal musical conditions, not historical conditions. 

That's certainly your prerogative... perhaps a matter of curiosity. I'm definitely with you on the bathroom fixtures.

And while there may be nothing (curiosity apart) *inherently* desirable to hearing the music as in Schubert's time (aside, we don't actually, anyway... because performance standards then were much lower than today), there are reasons that make it interesting to explore--and you mention them already. Phrasing, tempo, et al. were influenced, and thus we can such instruments guide us to a few answers we may have about how the music was expected ("expected" in a passive, not demanding way) to be played.

The only point she makes which has some tender is the one about the specific characteristics of the sound and how this might influence tempo and phrasing, but I fail to see how we must use a fortepiano to deduce these aspects of performance.

If you fail now to see how a fortepiano can be essential in this process, you might find a show-and-tell by a fortepianist, should you come across one, very interesting. I've attended one with Malcolm Bilson, and it showed nicely how the mechanics of a fortepiano, and its acoustic limitations/characteristics, very determinately affect, influence, and determine the style of playing. There are, in fact, things that a modern grand cannot do that were possible on a fortepiano. Not all, but many related to the instrument's quick (and characteristically different) decay.

The case is much stronger for playing Bach on harpsichord as opposed to piano since the harpsichord is an entirely different instrument, whereas the fortepiano was eclipsed by the piano, and only fairly recently been championed.

Yes, obviously, on the Bach. But the relatively recent championing of the fortepiano is in itself not grounds to dismiss it as a fad.

For me the only argument for using the fortepiano is if you think it sounds better, as some people obviously do.  I'm not there yet, it will take more listening for me to come to that judgment, and I won't rule it out, but for now, the piano is my preferred instrument for Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

Well, not the only argument, as you even say yourself. But yes, if it didn't sound good, then it would entirely be about research, and historicist curiosity. And a fad. The same might have been said about the HIP orchestral movement. Now we know better. And I say "sound good", because it's not about sounding "better". I'm not sure if you can, or should, apply the idea of "better than" when it comes to "modern grand" vs. "fortepiano". In fact: no "vs.". It's certainly a different sound. With different qualities. And some very pleasant attributes of the modern instrument missing. As it turns out, fortepianos don't need to sound bad (though they easily can)... but no fortepiano will or could ever sound like a modern grand. So it's a matter of making the fortepiano sound its best possible (I think the best among the players are really getting there) by underplaying its inherent disadvantages to the modern grand while still making use of those different characteristics that re-add something to the music that allows us to appreciate and enjoy it from a slightly different angle.

[Franco]

Very nice, Jens.  I come away from this discussion more informed and less prone to dismiss the fortepiano out of hand than I was before.

[Que]

Fortepianos.

A few points, introduced by my own favorite Fortpiano recording of Mozart sonatas:


"Sturm & Drang"
Adagio in b, K. 540
Fantasias in c and d, K. 475&397
Piano Sonata in c, K. 457
Piano Sonata in a, K. 310
Kristian Bezuidenhout
Modern copy of a 1795 Anton Waller

Interesting issue that I didn't know of, Jens! 
No doubt in my mind that Kristian Bezuidenhout is a new rising star amongst fortepianists.

Q

[DarkAngel]

Bezuidenhout uses Anton Walter replica.......very nice.

I am pounding the table for that Immerseel/Sony Vivarte sonata collection, before searching out esoteric versions don't overlook
the treasure right in front of you!

[Antoine Marchand]

The Fortepiano is supposed to add to our enjoyment of classical music, not replace previous enjoyment had at the hammers of the Fortepiano's much improved successors...

I'm not too much inspired for a long post today - which it is especially problematic considering my elemental English - but I will say a pair of things, Jens:

Although your opinions are expressed with apparent open-mindedness, finally you make the customary considerations about the fortepiano as a not-improved predecessor of the modern piano - both terms used as generalizations, for sure –: a kind of middle of the road attempt in the "progress" of the instrument, with certain historical and marginal advantages. That's your perspective and it is fine for me. But my point of view is rather different: I don't believe in the eighteenth-century ideal of the indefinite progress, with every human skill and instrument being improved for humanity's advance. IMO, fortepianos are almost a different instrument when they are compared with modern pianos; not a mere undeveloped precedent of them. Philosophically the fortepiano is an instrument thought for small spaces, one day before our overcrowded societies; it is not a bodybuilder prepared in order to face large concert rooms or enormous Mahlerian orchestras. All its mechanism - in the best examples, of course - reflects that: warm, intimacy, a large palette of tones and colors. And modern techniques of recording can capture those features very nicely, not being necessary a resounding instrument for those purposes, at least when you listen to music at a relatively small room, as I do.   

My only real problem with your reply begins when you put words in my mouth, showing your own position as moderate and civilized:

Surely these were not economical considerations, but musical ones on his part. Which goes to show what should be so obvious as to make this entire discussion mute: There are legitimate points in favor of both (not 'either'!) approaches. Which is why we should keep our ears open-minded. And which is why I think Antoine's below stab at Franco--regardless of previous argumentation experience with him--is unfair or at least useless. I'm sure Franco is not entirely close-minded to a friendly argument that is carried on with confidence but without being pompous. But saying up front that he/one/you is/are too ignorant to understand whatever one point would be making... well... that's not an A-effort. Convincing people to allow for consideration of other points (no point in aiming at outright conversion) requires, foremost, love.

I have never said, thought or suggested that Franco is an ignorant person and the mere assertion of that is offensive to me. I have just pointed out one fact: Franco's position in this issue is not innocent at all. He had expressed categorically his own point of view on this matter a few days before, expressing his total lack of interest in the fortepiano. You can read it in the reply quoted by me. Although it is a respectable position in those terms any real dialogue will be so useful as it had been to talk about the advantages of the capitalism with Joseph Stalin. BTW, the latter is a bad joke and I agree with you: dialogue - that old Greek invention - is always an excellent mean to moderate or to explain our positions, as it demonstrates the comparison between your first and last replies in this conversation: 

Of course even richer, fuller, sweeter sounds could be had with a regular grand piano, you know. 
If I wanted to poke fun at you (of course I'd never), I'd mis-paraphrase you: "Man, I wish my forte-pianos could just sound (more) like a Steinway D... then I'd have found my fave HIP Mozart."

[Bulldog]

I'm not too much inspired for a long post today - which it is especially problematic considering my elemental English - but I will say a pair of things, Jens:

Although your opinions are expressed with apparent open-mindedness, finally you make the customary considerations about the fortepiano as a not-improved predecessor of the modern piano - both terms used as generalizations, for sure –: a kind of middle of the road attempt in the "progress" of the instrument, with certain historical and marginal advantages. That's your perspective and it is fine for me. But my point of view is rather different: I don't believe in the eighteenth-century ideal of the indefinite progress, with every human skill and instrument being improved for humanity's advance. IMO, fortepianos are almost a different instrument when they are compared with modern pianos; not a mere undeveloped precedent of them. Philosophically the fortepiano is an instrument thought for small spaces, one day before our overcrowded societies; it is not a bodybuilder prepared in order to face large concert rooms or enormous Mahlerian orchestras. All its mechanism - in the best examples, of course - reflects that: warm, intimacy, a large palette of tones and colors. And modern techniques of recording can capture those features very nicely, not being necessary a resounding instrument for those purposes, at least when you listen to music at a relatively small room, as I do.   

Those are my sentiments also. 

[prémont]

Those are my sentiments also.  

And my sentiments too for sure.

[DavidW]

The concept of evolution in instrument design is an illusion.  This is what actually happened-- as composers wrote increasingly chromatic music, instruments were redesigned to play that type of music better.  The thing is that as the instruments became better at playing 19th and 20th century music, they became worse at playing pre-19th century music.  Pre-19th century instruments are better at playing music for their time because that is what they were designed for.  They were designed for an aesthetic that was transformed into something else.

The 19th century instruments might sound nicer to our ears, but not only are they not superior for playing Mozart, they are inferior since they were not designed to do that.

I like the sound of the modern piano, and frankly I love it in Mozart.  But to say that it is the superior instrument (as compared to the fortepiano) is simply wrong.

[Gurn Blanston]

The concept of evolution in instrument design is an illusion.  This is what actually happened-- as composers wrote increasingly chromatic music, instruments were redesigned to play that type of music better.  The thing is that as the instruments became better at playing 19th and 20th century music, they became worse at playing pre-19th century music.  Pre-19th century instruments are better at playing music for their time because that is what they were designed for.  They were designed for an aesthetic that was transformed into something else.

The 19th century instruments might sound nicer to our ears, but not only are they not superior for playing Mozart, they are inferior since they were not designed to do that.

I like the sound of the modern piano, and frankly I love it in Mozart.  But to say that it is the superior instrument (as compared to the fortepiano) is simply wrong.

Oh, I don't know, David. That's an awfully simple and straightforward concept for some of us to grasp. The whole idea that change is merely change and not necessarily an improvement... I'm scared!  



----------------
Listening to:
Rhorer, Jérémie/Le Cercle de l'Harmonie - K 201 Symphony #29 in A 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[Franco]

Franco's position in this issue is not innocent at all. He had expressed categorically his own point of view on this matter a few days before, expressing his total lack of interest in the fortepiano.

Not really.  What I said was that I preferred the sound of the piano.  I also said I had several recordings of this music played on the fortepiano and liked it as an alternative.  My posts to you were an attempt to solicit the thinking of someone who preferred the fortepiano, and many thanks to Jens for offering the POV when you were either unable or unwilling to.

I do not start from a philosophical position and impose that on the performance of this music (or any music) - I listen and decide if I like how the music sounds.  I suspect that I would like the fortepiano in chamber or solo settings more than in the concerto, and the music next I will sample with the fortepiano will be the Haydn Trios.  I am not an ideologue and have no need to decide that there is a right or wrong concerning which instrument is used, if it sounds good, that is enough for me.

[DavidW]

I suspect that I would like the fortepiano in chamber or solo settings more than in the concerto, and the music next I will sample with the fortepiano will be the Haydn Trios.  I am not an ideologue and have no need to decide that there is a right or wrong concerning which instrument is used, if it sounds good, that is enough for me.

You are in for a treat!   I did not appreciate the fortepiano until I heard the difference in the Haydn piano trios.  Using a fortepiano there is an appropriate sense of balance that is lost with the use of a modern piano.  Out of all of the classical era works, I feel that Haydn's piano trios have the most urgent need of a fortepiano to sound right.  If you like them with fortepiano, it might lead you to hear everything again in a new light and reevaluate classical era keyboard works in general, as what happened with me.  If you still prefer the modern piano in those trio works, I think you can safely write off the fortepiano but say that you tried.

I suggest this unbelievably superb recording--

[Todd]

Has anyone had a chance to sample any of Eric Heidsieck's new Mozart sonata cycle on Victor?  I have a hunch it might be good.

[Franco]

Thanks David - I will look for it, I have Robert Levin on fortepiano on a few Mozart PC.  Gurn has also been praising a set of the Haydn Trios that I plan on hearing as well.  But I won't ever write off the fortepiano even if I continue to prefer the piano.  Just because I prefer one thing does not mean that a change from time to time is not desired or beneficial. 

[DavidW]

Thanks David - I will look for it, I have Robert Levin on fortepiano on a few Mozart PC.  Gurn has also been praising a set of the Haydn Trios that I plan on hearing as well.  But I won't ever write off the fortepiano even if I continue to prefer the piano.  Just because I prefer one thing does not mean that a change from time to time is not desired or beneficial. 

Gurn's set is pricey, but I had one volume and it was terrific.   I think both Sonic Dave and I also really enjoy the Van Swieten Trio.