Dear Les: I love your posts and save them. I'm glad someone finally dropped an ice cube (sanity) into the boiling waters of HT. Dan Hallett, Jr. RPT Hallett's Piano Service dhalle@toolcity.net > You've hit an important point here, but I interpret it slightly different- > ly. First a little bit about HT's, which you are in a unique position to > understand. Although I speak for myself, I don't think that there's a > single tech on the list who EVER tried to say that the older composers-- > Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Clementi, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, > Chopin, etc,-- used ET. That is NOT the issue. Further, I don't think > any of us have ever tried to say that a clavichord, a harpsichord, or > a forte-piano should EVER be tuned in anything but an HT appropriate to > its day. That, too, is NOT the issue. > > What IS the issue is this: The tunings the old composers used were meant > SPECIFICALLY TO ACCOMODATE OR FIT THE TONAL PROPERTIES OF THE INTRUMENTS > THEY WERE WRITING FOR --ie TO MAXIMIZE THEIR VIRTUES AND TO MINIMIZE > THEIR FAULTS. By that I mean this:Bach wrote the Well-Tempered Clavichord; > he did NOT WRITE The Well-Tempered late 20th Century Concert Grand! > The tonal differences between a modern concert grand and a clavichord are > the differences between a B-1 Stealth Bomber and a balsawood rubberband- > driven model airplane! The problem arises when one tries to force a > temperament designed to take advantage of, or optimize, the tonal prop- > erties of one instrument, and apply it to another, totally different > instrument, whose tonal properties are light years away from the original > instrument. When you tune a modern concert grand to a temperament intended > for a clavichord YOU ARE NOT HEARING BACH THE WAY EITHER HE OR HIS > CONTEMPORARIES HEARD IT. Am I clear, so far? > > Now take Chopin's piano--the Pleyel, NOT the Broadwood. :) Whether restor- > ing an original, or fabricating a reproduction, I can't imagine your tun- > it in ANYTHING but a temperament appropriate to Paris-1840. However, the > tonal properties of that Pleyel differ HUGELY from a modern concert grand. > By "Modern Concert Grand" I mean specifically that instrument which came > into being at the latter part of the 19th century. The very best nine- > footers that Steinway and Knabe had to offer circa 1885. Are you with me? > > These pianos not only differed markedly from the Pleyel in matters such > the full cast iron plate, the over-strung bass, the 7 1/3 octave span, > the 200+ strings with their many tons of tension, but the action, too, > was markedly different from the Pleyel. Because their dynamic range was > far greater than the pianos which came before them, and because their > actions gave pianists the ability to control those greater dynamics with > extreme precision, it was concert grands such as these which revolutioniz- > ed piano playing by permitting artists to do things musically which either > had not been possible before, or possible, but not to this degree before. > > Pianos such as these changed HOW music was played. With these changes > there were certain things from the past which were lost, but there were > also many new things which were gained. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE DEVELOP- > MENT OF THESE PIANOS-- AND THE STYLE OF PLAYING I AM ABOUT TO DES- > CRIBE-- COINCIDES EXACTLY WITH THE RISE IN THE USE OF ET, which you > have accurately noted started in the latter part of the 19th century. > Here's why I believed it happened. > > Let's talk Schubert's Impromptu in Gb, Opus 90, #3. First some basics > for others following this. First, good pianists ARE ALWAYS PLAING AT > SEVERAL DYNAMIC LEVELS AT THE SAME TIME!!! Beginning students are taught > to play the "melody" louder than the "accompaniment". Thus, even though > the LH may have a three note chord, it's played softer than the single > note RH. TWO dynamic levels. Next. that first year student learns to > "lean" on the bottom note of that triad to play it slightly louder than > the other two notes in order to emphasize-slightly--the bass line. The > result is THREE DYNAMIC LEVELS AT THE SAME TIME--two in the LH and one > in the right. This is with a FIRST YEAR Student! This balancing of the > different voices according to their importance is fundamental to high- > quality piano playing, especially the concert repertoire. > > Although the minimum number of dynamic levels required for this kind of > playing is about 16, those late 19th century grands could produce 24 > OR MORE different dynamic levels and their actions gave the pianist to > control them with great accuracy when playing multiple levels at the > same time. The best of these pianos--properly regulated and voiced-- > could produce a pppp WITHOUT the soft pedal, and at the same time a > high end of FFFFZ! In between these extremes were a seemingly infinite > number of small dynamic gradations whereby small changes in finger > pressure/weight were instantly translated into small, but perceptible > changes in volume. This allowed the pianist to control the balancing > between the many separate voices with an accuracy never before possible. > ANYTHING which interferred with this control of the dynamics of the > various voices was deemed undesirable. THUS A TEMPERAMENT WHICH MADE > CERTAIN INTERVALS PROMINENT BY ITSELF, INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE PIANIST > TO CONTROL THEIR DYNAMICS, WAS NOT LONGER WANTED. > > Here--with apologies to Steve--is how Schubrt's Gb Impromptu is played > on a modern concert grand. This piece is written in four voices-- > soprano, alto, tenor and bass. Their order of importance is soprano > (which carries the melody), Bass (bassline), tenor, and then the alto > which carries the accompaniment figuration. Four voices, four different > dynamic levels ALWAYS! The loudest voice--the soprano--and the softest > voice--the alto-- are in the SAME HAND. The accompaniment figuration > in the alto consists of over TWO THOUSAND notes. The piano must be > regulated and voiced AND TUNED in such a way that the amount of fin- > ger pressure/weight needed to produce a given dynamic level IS THE > SAME FOR ALL 2000 notes! A flange which is too tight, or too loose; > a single improperly voiced or regulated note; a sluggish jack, or > binding key, will mar the performance. So will any weirdly beating > intervals in this, or any other voice which stand out when they're > not supposed to. The PIANIST controls which notes wil be prominent > and which won't, NOT THE TEMPERAMENT! > > As the Impromptu is played, the balance between the voices--S,B,T,A-- > is ALWAYS ( well, almost) maintained. The Soprano leads. When it > crescendos, they all do; when it decrescendos, they all do, HOWEVER > always maintaining that S,B,T,A, balance. Sometimes, the pianist WILL > CHOOSE to bring out an inner voice progression in order to emphasize a > key or chord change; When a theme is repeated he can vary both the > dynamics and/or the balance of the voices for variety's sake. The > choice of what to emphasize and when, IS HIS. > > This identical balance of the voices occurs in the first movement of > the "Moonlight Sonata". The soprano has the melody, the alto the > moving, accompaniment figuration. Look at the LH-- two C#'s. DON'T > play them "flat". "Lean slightly on the Bass note. It should be played > "slightly" louder than the tenor. Four voices. Four dynamic levels. > > You see this same thing in the middle movement of the Pathetique. The > soprano has the melody and the alto has the accompaniment figuration. > There is no tenor to begin with, only the bass. The three voices are > balanced S,B,A. The accompaniment figuration ALWAYS must be carefully > balanced against the melody when both are in the same hand, so that the > listener never is lead to confuse an accompaniment note with the melody. > > Fur Elise. The melody is in the RH ONLY!. The LH is the accompaniment. > HOWEVER, the first note in each measure of the LH acc. should be slight- > ly louder than the other LH notes which follow. Thus three dynamic > levels--two in the LH, another in the RH, which carries the melody. > > That last bit wasn't meant for you, Steve, just anyone else who might not > have heard this stuff before. This kind of dynamic balancing of the voices > goes on constantly when a pianist is playing. He is ALWAY playing at seve- > ral dynamic levels at the same time, no matter whether he is playing > Scarlatti, Bach, Chopin. Further, he is able to do this BETTER than any > of the composer's original instruments allowed them to do. A pianist play- > ing a Bach fugue on a modern concert grand not only plays each voice at a > different dynamic level, but as theme and counterpoints switch from voice > to voice he is constantly changing the balance of the voices to bring > that out. Whether playing a clavichord, a harpsichord, or an organ, old > Bach could only dream of an instrument capable of doing such things, so > well. > > Well, Steve, that's about it. The thesis is that the development of the > concert grand as it evolved in the latter 19th century, lead to a new > style of playing specifically designed to take advantage of the new > capabilities of the instrument. Its huge dynamic spectrum, coupled with > an action which allowed very precise control of those expanded dynamics > led to the playing old music in new ways. In some ways, such as being > able to precisely control the balance of several voices at the same time, > it lead to being able to play those old pieces with more clarity of the > movement of the individual voices than EVER before. It also put the > control of which voices and intervals would predominate, directly into > the hands of the pianist, NOT THE TEMPERAMENT. And, of course, there > WERE all those new and tempting high-end dynamics! :) > > Then too, an aggressive HT that was entirely suitable for a piano like > Schubert's, where--because of its relatively small tonal output-- the > roughness would not be so noticable-- would be ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE on > a modern concert grand where-because of its much greater tonal output-- > the roughness would be highly objectionable. HT'S SOUND BEST WHEN USED > ON THE HISTORICAL INSTRUMENTS THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR! If one doesn't > like the way Chopin sounds on a modern grand, STOP COMPLAINING, and > pay Steve to build you a copy of an early Pleyel. The modern concert > grand was no more designed to sound like an early Pleyel, than a > Corvette is designed to drive like a Model T. > > Anyway, a temperament was needed that would complement--not fight-- > the tonal properties of the late 19th century concert grand, and the > style of playing which evolved to take maximum advantage of those > properties. ET filled the bill. Its rise to prominence in the latter > part of the 19th century, exactly coincided with the coming of age > of the AMERICAN-BUILT concert grand, the best of which still remain > as examples of some of the finest pianos ever built by anyone, any- > where, anytime. Very early recordings clearly show the likes of Moriz > Rosenthal--who studied with LISZT--and Joseff Lhevinne--who made his > debut with ANTON RUBINSTEIN--playing in ET AND SOUNDING GREAT! That's > why the over-whelming majority of the finest concert pianists this > century has known chose to play and record in ET. They knew EXACTLY > what they were doing. > > Respectfully, > > Les Smith > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC