On 1 Sep 2009 at 23:20, Ray Horton wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 1 Sep 2009 at 21:22, Ray Horton wrote: > >> "Pianoforte" and "Fortepiano" were both used as early names for the > >> invention, soon shortened to "piano" for general use. "Fortepiano" has > >> come into use in recent decades to distinguish an early instrument or > >> reproduction. The name "piano" persisted from soon after invention to > >> present day, as I said, and can still describe all of the above. > > > > Yes, of course. As part of my dissertion research, I catalogued all > > the advertisements for keyboard instruments published in the Wiener > > Zeitung from c. 1785 (I can't remember the exact start date of the > > WZ) to c. 1800. The terms were used interchangeably. > > > > But once we decided to look into and and attempt to recreate the > > older instruments, we needed a term to distinguish it from the > > lineague that had absorbed all the verious terms, hence, > > "fortepiano." > > > But that is not what you said.
It is what I *thought* I was saying, but I can see a different reading of this than what was intended: > It is conventional to use the term "fortepiano," as they did > at the time, to refer to the instrument of Mozart's period and > beyond. You're using it as an exclusive usage, as in: > It is conventional to use the term "fortepiano," as they did at the > time [and that was the only term they used for it], to refer to the > instrument of Mozart's period and beyond. Whereas my intended meaning was: > It is conventional to use the term "fortepiano," as they did at the > time [among other terms], to refer to the instrument of Mozart's > period and beyond [since that term has fallen out of use such that its > historical referent can be recovered]. Sure, that's heavily qualified, but it's what I was thinking. There was several terms, fortepiano, pianoforte and the shortened piano that were used from Mozart's time on (though fortepiano actually predominated in German-speaking countries in Mozart's time, when they weren't using the weasel words to avoid committing to harpsichord of piano, while pianoforte become dominant in English- speaking countries more quickly than in German-speaking lands; I'm not certain about France and Italy, as I've done no research on this issue in those countries), but today, fortepiano has fallen out of use (it fell out by c. 1820, at the latest, seems to me), and thus, the term was available for revival as the term to refer to instruments built on the historic model. > Your statement was to the effect that > the modern piano was granted a different name than the old one. I think that's a strongly mistaken reading of what I wrote, but not wholly unwarranted, precisely because I left too much unsaid. > The > piano kept it's name through so many changes it became unrecognizable, > so a new name was revived for the old instrument. Yes. This is what I was intending to say. > The ophecleide went > through radical changes (keys to valve) while keeping the name, now a > modern version, not too changed from the 1850 valved ophecleide, takes > on the name. My question is: Who needs the invented modern version? What's wrong with the historical instrument(s)? It looks like laziness to me, just as my college piano teacher and his wife (who was a wonderful violinist) gave up on being a fortepiano/violin duo when they realized she'd have to play a Classical instrument for the duo to have any credibility. They weren't willing to make that sacrifice, so they didn't do it (despite the fact that her style on modern violin indicated a real sympathy for the sound ideal of Classical strings -- i.e., her sound was sweet and limpid and lyrical and with ornamental vibrato even when playing the modern instrument). I see the same thing in the call for using a modern invention -- the players aren't willing to do the work to do it right, and thus they will fail to learn all that the historical instruments can teach them about the music of the time. > Another point is that instruments do not always keep the name their > inventors give them. Saxophone is common, Saxhorn less so. The "Modern > Ophecleide" is certainly NOT an entirely new instrument, so the name > will suffice until a better name comes along, if the instrument > survives. I just don't see the point of inventing a new instrument instead of reviving the old instrument(s). It seems like Landowska all over again to me, and runs the danger of fundamentally misconstruing the sound ideal (just like Landowska did) in the pursuit of tuning stability and accuracy that would come with practice were players to dedicate themselves sufficiently to the study of the instrument(s). > > I don't see your point here. > > > > It seems to me that it's an analogue to the ophecleide situation that > > argues against your contention, which as I understand it, is that > > it's worthwhile to invent an entirely new instrument instead of > > attempting to tease out what the details of the historical > > instruments were, and then try to revive them in all their variety > > and idiosyncratic glory. > > If any modern symphonic player is willing to "tease out what the details > of the historical instruments were" it is Roger Bobo, and you attacked > his opinions on the subject. I attacked his clear attitude that the historical instruments were primitive and in need of improvement. The varied tone qualities of the different ranges of the fortepiano was something the piano builders of the 19th century worked to get rid of, and the result is an instrument that can't play large swaths of Mozart and Beethoven without sounding like mud (compare the beginning of Beethoven's "Waldstein" on fortepiano and modern piano -- there's no question that the modern piano is a failure in terms of clarity). > I've tried every kind of historical > instrument I could get my hands on, and you've attacked my opinions, as > well as the facts I've relayed. There is no point in continuing this. > But have the last word if you want. Facts? What facts? My issue is with the attitude that some new modern instrument needs to be created to accommodate the inability or unwillingness of modern players to spend the time to engage on a long-term basis with the older instruments. And I will *not* accept the idea that you can't play both, as I've plenty of experience of switching back and forth between fortepiano and modern piano in my Oberlin days (my senior recital was half modern piano, half fortepiano). It doesn't take a musical genious to be able to master both and play both well. That the effort is dismissed out of hand as not worth it, and tons of resources invested in creating and purchasing modern bastard instruments to replace the real historical instruments offends me greatly. These people aren't really interested in the historical sounds -- they're just interested in getting more paying gigs. Or so it seems to me from my background as someone who has spent the greater part of his musical life trying to learn how to play early instruments. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
