'Temperament', by Stuart Isacoff

[robert newman]

I am starting to agree strongly with Rod's point of view, having heard some remarkable recordings on period instruments in the last few years. (Early recordings on period instruments that I heard in the 70's and 80's were not specially interesting to me. That's definitely changing with the arrival of recordings made in more recent years). The more familiar I become with a piece the more interesting it becomes to hear it performed/recorded on instruments of the time when it was written. Just my opinion and, here too, I admit to having changed my mind on this in recent years.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
For me the modern conception of the keyboard (ie the piano) is a dead instrument, fit only for Jazz and Barry Manilow.

Since the design has not altered significantly from the 1860s one has to question your assertion. For something to have remained unchanged for so long only reflects the great success of the design.

From 1709 until the 1860s the piano was constantly evolving because it was not satisfactory - each development leading to the magnificent instrument we have today, capable of a vast variety of tone colour, way beyond the fortepiano - hardly the dead dull monotous monstrosity you portray! As late as 1826 Beethoven was not satisfied with the instrument - he was very much in favour of the new innovations.

You may not like the music of Liszt, Debussy and Ravel but that alone demonstrates its superior capabilities over the fortepiano. Their music requires the utmost technical control, extremes of dynamics and a huge pallette of colours that are impossible on the old instrument.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 05-23-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Since the design has not altered significantly from the 1860s one has to question your assertion. For something to have remained unchanged for so long only reflects the great success of the design.

From 1709 until the 1860s the piano was constantly evolving because it was not satisfactory - each development leading to the magnificent instrument we have today, capable of a vast variety of tone colour, way beyond the fortepiano - hardly the dead dull monotous monstrosity you portray! As late as 1826 Beethoven was not satisfied with the instrument - he was very much in favour of the new innovations.

You may not like the music of Liszt, Debussy and Ravel but that alone demonstrates its superior capabilities over the fortepiano. Their music requires the utmost technical control, extremes of dynamics and a huge pallette of colours that are impossible on the old instrument.

Dead in terms of the tone, the 1850 Streicher I heard at the apparently pseudo Eroica house sounds nothing like the instrument I heard at the Barbican Hall a few weeks back. Believe me this size of this piano makes a modern concert grand look diminutive. So some time after that the current concept of piano sound developed well after Beethoven could have possible lived. The current piano was all but already developed in Beethoven's time by Broadwood, and Beethoven was not satisfied with that either. So Beethoven was nothing more than the typical fussy concert pianist we sometimes have today. Perhaps if he was right then he is still right now.

It is ironic you discuss colour as it is clear to me that an instrument such as the Graf or the above Streicher has colour inimaginable on the modern piano. Good pianists and music writers have observed this too...and my Mrs. I just remind you of the mp3s from op109 or 110 I posted here.

But back to temperament in particular, remember it would have been different in Beethoven's Vienna to what we have now. This is a basic fact.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-23-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Originally posted by Rod:
But back to temperament in particular, remember it would have been different in Beethoven's Vienna to what we have now. This is a basic fact.

[/B]

Rod

Do you mean 'different'in terms of the intervals between the notes, or in terms of the 'reference' pitch (say A) , or both?

Euan

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Dead in terms of the tone, the 1850 Streicher I heard at the apparently pseudo Eroica house sounds nothing like the instrument I heard at the Barbican Hall a few weeks back. Believe me this size of this piano makes a modern concert grand look diminutive. So some time after that the current concept of piano sound developed well after Beethoven could have possible lived. The current piano was all but already developed in Beethoven's time by Broadwood, and Beethoven was not satisfied with that either. So Beethoven was nothing more than the typical fussy concert pianist we sometimes have today. Perhaps if he was right then he is still right now.

It is ironic you discuss colour as it is clear to me that an instrument such as the Graf or the above Streicher has colour inimaginable on the modern piano. Good pianists and music writers have observed this too...and my Mrs. I just remind you of the mp3s from op109 or 110 I posted here.

But back to temperament in particular, remember it would have been different in Beethoven's Vienna to what we have now. This is a basic fact.

No two modern instruments are anymore alike than two old ones. A Hamburg Steinway is different from a New York Steinway. Perhaps the dead tone was the fault of the pianist or the technicians? There are so many factors, but to label all post 1860 pianos as the same is as ridiculous as saying all Fortepianos were the same.

Yes tuning is different, so many things are - we live in the modern world and have to adapt. By all accounts Beethoven's pianos were generally out of tune with several broken strings anyway - you can take authenticity to absurd lengths. At least when they recreated the Dec 1808 concert there was a heatwave in Vienna and we didn't freeze as they did back then!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 05-23-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert,

After a good deal of floundering (on my part) I may (just may) be beginning to understand at least some of what you are saying.

Let me try to summarise. Note: part of this summary will involve considering what you (appear to) mean by ‘temperament’, ‘pioneer’, and ‘anticipate’.


Point 1. Newton to Einstein (Relativity) is a ‘paradigm shift’ of huge significance.

Point 2. There is a comparable shift ‘waiting to happen’ in music.

And, given that you write:

To me, temperance is how instruments may be tuned so as to produce in combination with others certain harmonics commonly shared that themselves may be an integral part of musical performance

Point 3a. Either this ‘comparable shift’ will be achieved by realising the ‘additional’ pitches and their duration that can be achieved by certain combinations of notes and instruments in the existing orchestra,

Point 3b. and/or this ‘comparable shift’ will be achieved by abandoning notions of ‘temperament’ altogether (presumably either by building instruments that are not limited to fixed pitches, i.e. more instruments that are as flexible as a violin or trombone or, indeed, the human voice)

And/or, given that you write:

Music for keyboards is not part of what I think might be the future of revolutionary developments in music

Point 3c. By dispensing with any instruments that, by virtue of their construction, have fixed pitches and hence are locked into a fixed temperament (at least at the time of a performance).


Is that right so far?


But you go further and claim (my emphases):

Point 4. To me, music has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in science. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated science.


Now, just as I defined ‘temperament’ last time, let’s make sure we agree what is meant by ‘pioneered’ or ‘anticipated’ – see footnote.

Clearly both these words mean that if A pioneers or anticipates B, then there is some form of causal or predictive relationship between A and BA.

Thus my original question asked for examples where music has had some causal or predictive relationship with some subsequent development in science.


Given this clarification, let me examine your argument. You write:

… in asserting that developments in music have always anticipated discoveries in science I never thought that I'd said anything controversial though it seems to have startled you. I think saying such a thing is actually as true in the history of, say, Art, as it is for Music.

Would you not allow Claude Debussy and his bold musical innovations to be as significant for music as what the Impressionists such as Guagin, Van Gough and, say Pointillists were for the history of Art ? In both cases they seem to anticipate a new age which, decades later, is to be found in the new physics of Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, etc. - a physics that transcended that of the 'mechanical' universe of Newtonian physics.


But there is absolutely nothing causal or predictive in any of this, merely that one event preceded another in time or that an event in a given Art Form was significant within that Art Form.


Perhaps, therefore, Robert you could provide some examples where something in music had a predictive or causal relationship with some subsequent thing in science. And of course, given the tenor and thrust of your overall ‘temperament argument’, it seems to me reasonable to expect the examples will be substantial ones.


Euan


Footnote

Using Webster’s on-line dictionary, we have:

Pioneer vt. To go before, and prepare or open a way for

Anticipate vt. To take up or introduce beforehand, or before the proper or normal time; to cause to occur earlier or prematurely


[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-23-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
Rod

Do you mean 'different'in terms of the intervals between the notes, or in terms of the 'reference' pitch (say A) , or both?

Euan

Sorry I missed this post earlier, but now you mention it, temperament and pitch too, which has steadily risen over time.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Yes, up to point 3c (inclusive) of your letter I believe you understand it very well. The big issue (or so it seems to me) is how we can accurately obtain and exploit the countless pitches and colours that exist between semitones in such a way that they become audible - i.e. to exploit them musically - to make them an integral part of musical composition and performance - without making the orchestra and the practical business of playing/singing music impractical.

I will post on the rest of your letter separately.

Robert

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
No two modern instruments are anymore alike than two old ones. A Hamburg Steinway is different from a New York Steinway. Perhaps the dead tone was the fault of the pianist or the technicians? There are so many factors, but to label all post 1860 pianos as the same is as ridiculous as saying all Fortepianos were the same.

Yes tuning is different, so many things are - we live in the modern world and have to adapt. By all accounts Beethoven's pianos were generally out of tune with several broken strings anyway - you can take authenticity to absurd lengths. At least when they recreated the Dec 1808 concert there was a heatwave in Vienna and we didn't freeze as they did back then!

'but to label all post 1860 pianos as the same is as ridiculous as saying all Fortepianos were the same.' - when did I say this?

The structural intergrity of the piano is another issue, strings break on my guitar as they did on guitars 200 years ago despite the invention of steel. It is a relative issue which has not stopped fortepianists peddling their trade today.

I freeze in my flat each winter as they did in Vienna long ago, listening to Beethoven. It is a noble act of sacrifice and commemorance, is it not?

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rod:
'but to label all post 1860 pianos as the same is as ridiculous as saying all Fortepianos were the same.' - when did I say this?

"For me the modern conception of the keyboard (ie the piano) is a dead instrument, fit only for Jazz and Barry Manilow." - Something of a sweeping generalisation I think which also ignores the 19th century. As I mentioned it took around 150 years for the modern piano to evolve and it has remained virtually unchanged for as long which surely says something? No bad design lasts.


I freeze in my flat each winter as they did in Vienna long ago, listening to Beethoven. It is a noble act of sacrifice and commemorance, is it not?

Ah but they didn't have cds so you might as well put that heater on and put the candles away!



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter:

Originally posted by Rod:
'but to label all post 1860 pianos as the same is as ridiculous as saying all Fortepianos were the same.' - when did I say this?

"For me the modern conception of the keyboard (ie the piano) is a dead instrument, fit only for Jazz and Barry Manilow." - Something of a sweeping generalisation I think which also ignores the 19th century. As I mentioned it took around 150 years for the modern piano to evolve and it has remained virtually unchanged for as long which surely says something? No bad design lasts.

OK I could have added Rachmaninov, and I stand by this point. I do not think the tone of the piano as we know it today was developed with music from the Classical era in mind. Which goes to explain why this music often sounds more fresh and modern on the old pianos and so dated on the new.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-24-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
OK I could have added Rachmaninov, and I stand by this point. I do not think the tone of the piano as we know it today was developed with music from the Classical era in mind. Which goes to explain why this music often sounds more fresh and modern on the old pianos and so dated on the new.

No I think it was with the Romantics in mind - although Schumann, Liszt and Chopin grew up with the old fortepianos. However the changes were taking place throughout the classical era anyway. You cannot deny that Beethoven was always seeking out the latest pianos, nor that he expressed his dissatisfaction with the instrument as late as 1826? I don't think he ever asked for a reconditioned 1790s piano in the 1820s?

It seems to me that of far more importance is the interpretation and the ability of the player, but I notice you always place that 2nd to the instruments used.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter:

Ah but they didn't have cds so you might as well put that heater on and put the candles away!

Ha! Or Rod and his new bride could consider moving to Phoenix where we never use a heater!!

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[This message has been edited by Joy (edited 05-24-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
No I think it was with the Romantics in mind - although Schumann, Liszt and Chopin grew up with the old fortepianos. However the changes were taking place throughout the classical era anyway. You cannot deny that Beethoven was always seeking out the latest pianos, nor that he expressed his dissatisfaction with the instrument as late as 1826? I don't think he ever asked for a reconditioned 1790s piano in the 1820s?

It seems to me that of far more importance is the interpretation and the ability of the player, but I notice you always place that 2nd to the instruments used.

Yet again you put words into my mouth. Did I not refrain from presenting the fantasy op77 at the mp3 page (performed on Beethoven's Broadwood) solely on the grounds of Melvyn Tan's lamentable performance?? I have stated from the outset I will only present tracks that do at least reasonable justice to the music. Considering all these performances are on period instruments this means by default the interpetation.

All the 'early Romantics' in and around Vienna played Viennese actioned piano's that were still available until well after the 1850s, Brahm's owned a Streicher too I believe. I think the piano tone as we know it must have been fine tuned in the last quarter of the 1800s, when the 'English Action' became universally the preferred choice. The earliest Steinway I've heard live (owned by a friend of mine) is from 1901 and sounds near enough as they and most other concert grands do today, but absolutely nothing like the 1850s Streicher I heard in Vienna.

If Beethoven's concern could have been with the relative fragility of the instrument (certainly in his hands!) was it not Beethoven who said many years before 'The piano must break!'?.

Don't read too much to one comment made at one moment in time, there are many more quotes where he is more positive about contemporary pianos. For example in 1796 he praised Streicher for his 'excellent instrument'.

So looking at other possibilities, the tone would have been largely irrelevant to him in 1826 as by then he was stone deaf to any piano ever made, then and now, but the music is clearly suited to the lighter tone offered by the Viennese action, the action we know Beethoven preferred. So perhaps we caught Beethoven on a bad day, piano speaking. He was still talking positively about Streicher in the 'discussion books' era.

The only writer I know of who had looked at the issue of Beethoven's pianistic preferences is William S. Newman in his book 'Beethoven on Beethoven - playing his piano music his way'. After careful consideration of all the anecdotes and quotations and most of all the music itself he concludes 'Beethoven's evident preference for Viennese pianos' as opposed to the Anglo/French models that are the ancestors of todays.

We've gone through all this a thousand times before, including your attempts to radicalise my thoroughly rational position. But Bach to temperament...

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-24-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Joy:
Ha! Or Rod and his new bride could consider moving to Phoenix where we never use a heater!!

Yahoo!!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin