Temperaments

[Les Smith]

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Stephen Birkett wrote:

> Les wrote:
> > First listen to the Beethoven. You probably only have to listen as far
> > as the modulation into F# minor. I've already discussed what's going on
> > here in terms of harmonic and non-harmonic tones in mu first post. Suf-
> > ...
> > Once again, I could go on and on, but in the end, it's better if I let
> > Chopin speak for himself. The C# minor waltz is a masterpiece. There is
> > no other word for it, because all this harmonic razzle-dazzle goes on
> > without the listener being aware of it at all. It never intrudes on the
> >  etc...
> I completely agree re: Chopin's contribution to harmony...I would also 
> add he made an equally important and unique contribution to contrapunt 
> (think of the F- Ballade). All in all his music was considered "weird" 
> (translate unusual etc.) by his contemporaries. Totally unique.
> 
> One other issue here, Les, apart from the musical one...there is a big
> tonal difference between a 1798 Viennese grand (Beethoven Op 27 No 2) and
> an 1838 Pleyel (Chopin C#- waltz). World of difference, and this has to be
> reflected in the harmonic textures employed. Carrying this forward in
> time, the sounds we are all used to hearing - e.g. Chopin + Steinway +
> modern wonderpianist - these are nothing to do with Chopin's world. Until
> you have heard Chopin on the equivalent of say "1838 Pleyel" you haven't
> heard Chopin. The difference in harmonic texture is like night and day. 

Hi, Stephen:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. While readily acknowledging the
difference between Beethoven's and Chopin's instruments, there's a
an important point to be made, I think. In that C# minor waltz, one
sees numerous modulations; sequential-modulations; a huge amount of
Chromaticism; both in the melody and in the movement of the other
voices; suspended 9th's and other chords, linear counterpoint, large
numbers of color, or non-harmonic tones, etc., etc. The one thing
all thse elements have in common is that they are IDEAS, which exist
apart from both the music and the instrument it is being played on.
More so than time, distance, or their individual instruments, the
important thing that separated Chopin from Beethoven--and every one
else, for that matter--were his IDEAS concerning harmony. The ideas
came FIRST. The music which was the embodiment and expression of those
ideas came second. What I'm trying to say is that even if Chopin had
never made to to Paris, he would have found a way to express those
ideas in music no matter what instrument was at his disposal. You
can hear the subtle, shifting harmonies of the E minor prelude even
when playing it on a harpsichord! Fortunately, for all of us, how-
ever, he DID make it to Paris. :)

As for the problems involved in trying to play Chopin on a modern
piano, I would tend to agree, but that's a huge subject in and of
itself. Suffice to say that when I begin to explain to someone the 
need of an instrument that can produce a dozen and a half, or so
basic dynamic levels; and an action responsive enough to be able to
translate small changes in finger pressure/weight into equally small,
but perceptible dynamic changes, because the pianist is constantly
playing at several dynamic levels at the same time as he balances
the various voices, I'm usually met with a blank stare and a rapid
change of the subject.

Anyway, until I became ill, I spent a lifetime doing piano work for
old pianists, playing old music, on old pianos. It's always good to
come across someone who understands the subject. Any further comments
you might have would be warmly received. 

Les Smith