Beethoven at the piano: the extra notes of tradition and why you shouldn't play them

Well-known aporetic questions...

The problem is how the interpreter brings the work to life. Before that moment, it is all still on paper.

It's like talking about the menu of a restaurant you don't know: there is still everything to be seen.

I didn't understand Celibidache if for you Beethoven's fortepiano had or did not have that E.

I wonder how one can still indulge in wasting time on the trite and hackneyed "nugae" of the complexed, vainglorious members of high society who write about music, talk about it, and compose interminable miscellanies because that is all they can do, when interpretive art is something else entirely and a much deeper matter.

What does it matter what that total piece of junk Beethoven fortepiano was like?

What does that "mi" (which has been debated for centuries) matter if the sonata is then interpreted in an unacceptable way?

We are losing our sense of proportion. Life is too short to get lost in dialectics, especially in music.

BRAVO CELIBIDACHE!

But if it's useless to talk about it, why do you intervene?

(I modified the post I had written using iPhone dictation because it was full of errors)

I am of the opinion that the author's thought should NEVER be modified, even if there are borderline cases that do indeed have to do with the acoustic and timbral qualities of the instrument of the period and which are objective in nature rather than "if they had had... then...".

To give an example and stick with Beethoven, at the end of the adagio of op. 110, before the reprise of the inverted fugue, there are chords that go up to fortissimo and then a melodic line in G major that starts from the bass up to the high notes with a forte in diminuendo, all held by the pedal until the reprise of the fugue. In this case, anyone who has played the 110 knows that at that point if you don't vibrate the pedal a little to soften the sound somewhat, when you reach that melodic line you can't understand anything, and yet Beethoven wrote to hold the pedal!

Well, in this case there is, in my view, an objective reason. The fortepianos of the past had a "volume" and an envelope curve (sound decay time) significantly lower than today's pianos, with the result that that melodic line on a period fortepiano, despite the held pedal and the fortissimo of the chords, would have emerged spontaneously; in modern pianos, the sound remains very full and rich and inevitably covers it. We must therefore distinguish those which are truly objective variables from those which are choices. I believe that if an author had needed to double the octaves they would have done so and, should the period fortepiano, given its range, not have allowed it, they would have sought other solutions.

But... I don't know a whole lot about it now, but back then, didn't Beethoven already try the Clementi and Broadwood pianos?!?! Those went even lower than the [current ones] if I'm not mistaken... just musings that are subject to debate, I think...

If I may say what I think, I believe that in art "objectivity" does not exist, just as "technique" or any other intellectual superstructure does not exist, which, unfortunately, books and masters do nothing but continually and systematically propose.

An artist "is". Others simply try, but without being one.

So they begin to reduce everything to a "scholasticism". A grave millennial error.

When I hear people talk about these aspects in music, it still makes me want to cry. It is difficult to get used to it.

How can one speak of the acoustic qualities of an instrument if every environment is different, if every occasion is different, if we ourselves (hopefully) are a little different every time? How can one speak of "touch" if every person (due to their own peculiar psychophysical structure) has a different sound from another.

Mathematics is one thing, art is another.

Of course, a famous poet wrote "the engineer wants to be a poet/the fly studies to be a swallow/the poet tries to imitate the fly", and we all want to be something else instead of simply being ourselves, but it doesn't work that way.

Even speaking of vibrato pedal makes little sense. There are a thousand different ways to "take" that vibrato.

But, above all, how is that passage related to the entire work? Music is not just a succession of horizontal events.

"Here it's done like this, there it's done like that", but then the interpretation falls apart in every way and they don't even notice.

Having satisfied all the "little rules", now that "everything is in order", everything perfect, the music is complete, it is art. My foot!

Quoting from memory (I apologize if there is a synonym or an article instead of another):

"Even a monkey can learn to do it. Knowing how to play the piece does not directly result in art." Andras Schiff

Am I the only one who thinks that notes are part of the interpretation and that octaves can also contribute to the rendering of a piece?

Celibidache wrote:

If I may say what I think, I believe that in art there is no such thing as "objectivity," just as there is no such thing as "technique" or any other intellectual superstructure that, unfortunately, books and masters do nothing but continually and systematically propose.

The artist "is." Others simply try, but without being so.

So they begin to reduce everything to a "scholasticism." A grave millennial error.

When I hear people talk about these aspects in music, it still makes me want to cry. It is difficult to get used to it.

How can one speak of the acoustic qualities of an instrument if every environment is different, if every occasion is different, if we ourselves (hopefully) are a little different every time? How can one speak of "touch" if every person (due to their own peculiar psychophysical structure) has a different sound from another.

Mathematics is one thing, art is another.

Of course, a famous poet wrote "the engineer wants to be a poet/the fly studies to be a swallow/the poet tries to imitate the fly," and we all want to be something else instead of simply being ourselves, but it doesn't work that way.

Even speaking of vibrato pedal makes little sense. There are a thousand different ways to "take" that vibrato.

But, above all, how is that passage related to the entire work? Music is not just a succession of horizontal events.

"Here it's done like this, there it's done like that," but then the interpretation falls apart in every way and they don't even notice.

Once all the "little rules" are satisfied, now that "everything is in order," everything perfect, the music is complete, it is art. My foot!

Quoting from memory (I apologize if there is a synonym or an article instead of another):

"Even a monkey can learn to do it. Knowing how to play the piece does not directly result in art." Andras Schiff

Well, then let's change the notes too... since there are plenty of those as well

micamahler wrote:

But if it's useless to talk about it, why are you intervening?

In effect, the reason cannot be understood; the question seems quite clear... it is not written anywhere that the right notes must be the only thing that contributes to an interpretation. Evidently, someone who has never played is speaking, otherwise they would ask themselves some questions

No Celibidache, please do not confuse things. There are some things that are simply objective, which cannot be questioned. I am stubborn about these things because 600 people come to read us here every day and I don't want totally erroneous information to be passed on. The piano from 200 years ago had an envelope curve significantly lower than today's piano precisely due to construction issues; there is little to say about this. When a composer writes something, they also do so based on the sense they want to give to the musical phrase in relation to the instrument they are using, and I am quite sure that Beethoven, even though he was "ahead of his time," could not see into the future and could not know that the sound of a note that in his time lasted at most 30 seconds by striking the keyboard with a blow, in 2016 could last as long as one minute and forty seconds; therefore, at a point where one passes from fortissimo to pianissimo in just a bar and a half, if you do not vibrate the pedal on a modern piano, nothing can be understood, and I am ultra-certain that "understanding nothing" was not contemplated in Beethoven's intentions.

Then it is not a question of schooling; one must do what is written in the score. Composers have been extremely careful to include everything necessary to avoid ambiguity of interpretation. If everyone, in the name of art, does as they please, then it is useless for composers to write everything necessary in the score to communicate their intentions and their thoughts!

The truth is that during the study phase, some people come to think certain things; others want to make "art" without ever having concentrated energy and passion on a score and in the end... From the depths of their pride... "Doesn't make a damn bit of sense"...

Simone, you are a musician and you understand... some think they are at a bar; that place where everyone is Balotelli or the best coaches in the world, or the sports club most expert in football transfers that exists.

TheSimon wrote:

No Celibidache, please do not confuse things. There are some things that are simply objective, which cannot be questioned. I insist on these things because 600 people come to read us here every day and I do not want totally incorrect information to be passed on. The piano from 200 years ago had a significantly lower envelope curve than the piano of today precisely due to construction issues; there is little to be said about this. When a composer writes something, they also do so based on the sense they want to give to the musical phrase in relation to the instrument they are using, and I am quite sure that Beethoven, even if he was "ahead of his time," did not see into the future and could not have known that the sound of a note that in his day lasted at most 30 seconds by striking the keyboard with a blow, in 2016 could last as long as one minute and forty seconds; therefore, in a passage where one goes from fortissimo to pianissimo in just a bar and a half, if you do not vibrate the pedal, on a modern piano nothing can be understood, and I am ultra-certain that "understanding nothing" was not contemplated in Beethoven's intentions.

It seems unequivocal to me...

Interpretation up to a certain point: changing the notes, no!

And so we start heating up immediately without having grasped the meaning of my opinion.

Fortunately, we are not facing a musical score, otherwise I can already imagine the mess... Let alone changing the notes.

We don't even know what it is or what it means to interpret...

In any case, when one takes the liberty of calling a person superficial (which can happen...), one must first understand if we have grasped the sense of what was expressed; otherwise, it is like with "carpe diem," which everyone proudly says ten times a day, but which almost no one knows the real meaning of.

The same applies to "being stubborn." Besides the fact that these are all latent insecurities, it prevents personal growth. If we do not impose upon ourselves every day to "review and rediscuss" our positions spontaneously, sharing them with others, even when they are markedly divergent, we will never notice any inaccuracies that, even in the best cases, are always present somewhere.

Everything can be perfected... Nothing is immobile in the universe.

Anyway, who ever said anything about changing the notes? Certainly not me... On the contrary!

You haven't noticed that, believing yourselves to be on the side of a sort of "historically informed philology," of total respect for the score and the composer (how much respect I feel for Beethoven... He is always spoken of as if he were a total idiot...), you have fallen into the typical blindness of hysterical dogmatism. (an attitude peculiar to the unfortunately widespread religious fundamentalism)

And it is no different here.

Infinite rivers of Aristotelian debate arguments are spent on whether a note "was perhaps or was not there on Beethoven's fortepiano...", or, "Beethoven had already tried Broadwoods... he should have known...", even going so far as to measure or hypothesize the decay times of the note, without sensing any sign that perhaps we are producing the deepest and most radical act of corruption and deformation, not to mention perversion, of the original musical content.

In other words, believing ourselves to be rigorous and infallible, in reality, we are dismantling Beethoven without knowing it.

It is the pride of the omniscient...

In reality, Beethoven (I believe even the walls know this) did not compose "exactly for his fortepiano" nor even "for the piano."

Beethoven composed MUSIC and, in the particular case of the piano sonatas, his conception was strongly and intrinsically orchestral and symphonic. It is impossible to understand anything of his piano compositions without constantly keeping in mind the characteristics of the makeup of the symphony orchestra and the string quartet. Let alone fortepiano decay times...

In fact, paradoxically and emphatically speaking, in Beethoven's piano sonatas, the least important aspect is the piano.

Consequently, talking for decades about whether "that E-flat" (the idiot) put it there because he was drunk or because he had seen it on new instruments, is honestly foolish, summary, and something for the pedants who should take up horse racing instead.

Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time. He knew what he was doing.

And if in the published version (from which today's Urtext editions come) a note was or was not there, it means that THAT IS HOW IT MUST BE.

Period.

P.s.

To claim that everything is in the score is like saying that anyone can perform Shakespeare like John Gielgud or Laurence Olivier.

This is incorrect information.

I would respond with several dislikes if it were possible, let's make it possible with the power of imagination

Celibidache wrote:

And if in the version given to the printer (from which today's urtexts derive) a note was or was not there, it means that IT MUST BE SO.

Perhaps one needs to understand the concept of an autograph; there are many examples where even when autographs exist, the notes at the end can be different, and the fact that Beethoven himself was the one giving the print to the printer and not someone else changes little and has nothing to do with knowing what is being done. The critical edition should also go beyond autographs (which is normally the case) and the observations reported in the blog seem reasonable to me.