Temperament, A pianist responds

[David Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Birkett" <birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: December 13, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Temperament, A pianist responds


> It was patently not intended for the modern
> piano, simply because that instrument didn't exist until after
> Beethoven was dead.

I didn't say intended, I was arguing against those who say that his work
cannot be legitimately played on modern instruments.

> Well I dunno about that. The instrument with the largest dynamic >range is
the clavichord.

I was refering to range of acoustic power.


>The camps are represented by those who feel that music such as we >are
discussing must be played on the instruments of the day feel that >the music
transcends the time in which it was composed.

> Why must there be camps.

I never said there must be two camps, I said that there are two camps.  I
agree that the two camps can and should coexist.


> A point that is often overlooked...the historical piano cannot, and
> should not, replace the modern piano in the broad context.

I agree.

>Scholars much more knowledgeable than I have debated this for >years.
> Yes. I know they have. And generally from a position of total >ignorance.

I think that is a bit hyperbolic, not to mention arrogant.  I am sure that
some could care less about historical precedents.  On the other hand, many
concert pianists and scholars return to original manuscripts and instruments
frequently to try and glean the intentions of the composer.


>We are lucky in the case of Beethoven that he wrote so many >dynamic
instructions in his pieces.

>This is another example of context-sensitive information (and why >Urtext
editions can be very dangerous). Beethoven's dynamic >markings often mean
something different from what the mean to the >modern pianist palying a
modern piano. To interpret them literally in >the modern context is wrong.

My point here was that compared to Mozart, for example, Beethoven gave us
many indications of how he wanted the pieces played and interpreted,
especially in the late sonatas.  Of course these instructions can be
misinterpreted, that was not the point.  Having the composers dynamic
markings and instructions is certainly better than none at all, even at the
risk of misunderstanding them.

> But it is speculation that the instruments drove the compositions.

> Come on. Instruments are tools. Compositions were menat to be >played.
Have some common sense.

I couldn't agree more.  And, in fact, this brings us full circle.  This
entire thread began with the question: To what extent did the temperaments
of the day influence composition?  (We have digressed a bit).  My position
all along has been that just as instruments are tools that change with time,
so have been temperaments.  And while it is important to understand the
context in which pieces were written, great compositions will transcend the
circumstances of their birth and find a legitimate existence in a new
context and not be diminished by it.  Something to keep in mind, this is not
a free form Keith Jarret improvisation we are talking about that lives once
in the moment to be played by him and none other.  These are works published
by the composer which implies that they were intended to outlive the
composer and be played by other people besides the composer.  Interpretation
is understood and accepted just as Beethoven interpreted the works of Bach
and Haydn.  Perhaps Beethoven never imagined that his works would be being
performed a couple hundred years after he was gone.  But if he did think
about it, and having seen how pianos had developed in his lifetime alone, do
you think he cringed at the thought that pianos might be different in the
year 2001?  No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.

> To argue for  a hypothetical choice by a dead composer is nothing >more
than an academic exercise at best. The flip side requires no >proof at all,
once it is  properly stated, simply because it is >demonstrably true that
historical

I never argued that point.  I simply posed the question.  You gave the
definitive answer that Beethoven would prefer his own instruments over that
of the modern piano.  Perhaps you are doing some channeling.  I don't claim
to have an answer.  But if I had to speculate, just for fun, I don't think
he would storm out of the hall in disgust.  Just my opinion.

David Love