BaL 16.12.17 - Schubert: Piano Sonata no. 21 in B flat D960

[french frank]

Anyway. Would there be any musicological reason why almost 100% of Schubert's complete sonatas, post D650, have a first movement that is substantially longer than the other three? I'm assuming they have repeats, but then why would they have repeats and not the others - if that is the case? Is it just a form that a first movement customarily takes?

[Richard Barrett]

Anyway. Would there be any musicological reason why almost 100% of Schubert's complete sonatas, post D650, have a first movement that is substantially longer than the other three? I'm assuming they have repeats, but then why would they have repeats and not the others - if that is the case? Is it just a form that a first movement customarily takes?

First movements are longer than others, but they aren't the only movements with repeats.

[silvestrione]

Can the instrument really matter all that much? Honest question from someone who knows little about these things.

My thinking (until corrected by someone with more expertise here) is this: the fortepianos in Schubert's day were surely heterogeneous in the extreme. It was a period of technical and mechanical experimentation. Some had this mechanism, some had that. Some were this shape; some were that. And so on. Surely, if you tramped from house to house across Vienna, you'd find all manner of strange beasts in the parlours of the bourgeoisie, all with their own particular growl and snap.........Now, if this is true, then can it really be the case that Schubert had particular sounds in mind, or that he meant to exploit the tonal qualities of a given instrument? Wasn't he just writing for the piano in general and wouldn't he have expected (and hoped) that his music would be played on a variety of instruments? In other words, is there really such a thing as "the fortepiano" and is this truly distinct from the modern piano?

As a I said, these are only my untutored thoughts. Glad to be schooled.

Intriguing. I'm not knowledgeable here myself. What I have noticed, and which also intrigues me, is that the first modern fortepiano recordings that I heard I dismissed as terrible: the sound was recessed, it swum, the touch and tone lacked variety. Tuning could be unstable.

Now, we are getting marvellous recordings, very often of copies of fortepianos and period pianos (Brautigam, Staier, Schiff), and to my ears they sound much closer to the best of modern pianos, e.g. Bosendorfers and Steinways. Their range of tone colour and security of tuning and tone is remarkable, with nothing like the problems that, e.g. Bilson and Tan once contended with.

Is this right? Do those who listen a lot to period pianos agree, or not?

I've had another listen to Zimerman, with his Steinway he has adapted in some way to enable him better to play Schubert, and I notice a lighter action, perhaps. I do think it a great performance, irrespective, especially the first movement, though he does not make as much of the rhythmic figure in the bass when the main theme comes back, in the slow movement, as, e.g. Richter, Schnabel, Brendel

[Richard Barrett]

My thinking (until corrected by someone with more expertise here) is this: the fortepianos in Schubert's day were surely heterogeneous in the extreme. It was a period of technical and mechanical experimentation. Some had this mechanism, some had that. Some were this shape; some were that. And so on. Surely, if you tramped from house to house across Vienna, you'd find all manner of strange beasts in the parlours of the bourgeoisie, all with their own particular growl and snap.........Now, if this is true, then can it really be the case that Schubert had particular sounds in mind, or that he meant to exploit the tonal qualities of a given instrument? Wasn't he just writing for the piano in general and wouldn't he have expected (and hoped) that his music would be played on a variety of instruments? In other words, is there really such a thing as "the fortepiano" and is this truly distinct from the modern piano?

You're absolutely right that in the pre-industrial era musical instruments were much less standardised than they later became, and that in Schubert's day there were numerous types of piano which sounded quite distinct from one another. However, they all differed from the "modern" piano in certain important respects; in particular they had wooden rather than iron frames, a simpler action, usually two rather than three strings in the upper registers, and so on, so that pianos produced up until the mid-19th century had considerably more in common with one another than with the "modern" instrument. Schubert was indeed writing for "the piano in general" but for an instrument whose sound was quite distinct from the instrument as it later developed. While Beethoven's music could I suppose be claimed as a body of work for which the greater sustaining power and volume of the later piano would bring benefits (although this isn't my view!), that would seem to apply to Schubert's more delicate treatment of the instrument to a far lesser extent.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Schubert couldn't afford the top-range pianos that manufacturers gave to Beethoven, and relied on the instruments belonging to his friends in order to play. One model that he used was the Tafelklavier ("table keyboard") made by Anton Walter & Sons in the early Nineteenth Century:

[waldo]

I've had another listen to Zimerman, with his Steinway he has adapted in some way to enable him better to play Schubert, and I notice a lighter action, perhaps.....

In the liner notes to Uchida's boxset, she claims it took two whole years of tinkering and what-not to get her Steinway to the point where she would consider playing Schubert on it. I can't remember if she went into any detail here: I will have a look tomorrow........

[waldo]

You're absolutely right that in the pre-industrial era musical instruments were much less standardised than they later became, and that in Schubert's day there were numerous types of piano which sounded quite distinct from one another. However, they all differed from the "modern" piano in certain important respects; in particular they had wooden rather than iron frames, a simpler action, usually two rather than three strings in the upper registers, and so on, so that pianos produced up until the mid-19th century had considerably more in common with one another than with the "modern" instrument. Schubert was indeed writing for "the piano in general" but for an instrument whose sound was quite distinct from the instrument as it later developed. While Beethoven's music could I suppose be claimed as a body of work for which the greater sustaining power and volume of the later piano would bring benefits (although this isn't my view!), that would seem to apply to Schubert's more delicate treatment of the instrument to a far lesser extent.

That's extremely helpful. Thanks. I did know a lot of this, I just couldn't find the right way of thinking about the issue.

[Tony Halstead]

... and a harpsichord for Bach of course! - but, regarding "unsuitable equipment", how many amateurs have a full-size grand piano? I was talking about my preference regarding concerts or recordings by people whose facility with the instrument enables them to express insights about the music that my own bashing-through isn't going to deliver to anyone, except myself. My playing of Schubert wouldn't benefit that much from having am early 19th century piano at my disposal! (although I wouldn't say no if someone offered me one)

I haven't heard Zimerman's recording & I'm always willing to give anything a try.

"how many amateurs have a full-size grand piano" ( my underlining!).
Speaking as an 'old grump' one of my pet gripes is that all too often even the best chamber music venues have got in place only a 'full-size' ( i.e. 9 feet long) Steinway. This size of piano is designed to compete with a symphony orchestra, for goodness sake, not a solitary violin, flute or singer! I well remember how dismayed I was, about 25 years ago, to find only a 9 foot Steinway on stage when I turned up at the Wigmore Hall to accompany the superb double-bass player Tom Martin (renowned expert on BOTTESINI) in a programme that included not only Bottesini but also J.S. Bach and Hindemith. Throughout the entire recital I found myself playing as if I were walking on eggshells!

A 'full-size concert grand' IMV is totally inappropriate for any kind of chamber music.

Back to Schubert: I am very happy indeed with my CD of Malcolm Bilson in this work and I also have a special affection for Clifford Curzon's and Radu Lupu's recordings.
Somewhere in the BBC 'vaults' ( unless they have wiped the tapes) there is a really beautiful recording of MICHAEL ROLL
(desperately under-rated, under-valued and under-exposed) playing it.

[Richard Barrett]

"how many amateurs have a full-size grand piano"

What I should have said was: any kind of grand piano!

[Richard Barrett]

In the liner notes to Uchida's boxset, she claims it took two whole years of tinkering and what-not to get her Steinway to the point where she would consider playing Schubert on it.

- which of course begs the question why not play it on an instrument which wouldn't require the tinkering!

[Arnold Bax]

A shame. Two of my favourites, Gulda and Staier appear to be out of the catalogue at the moment.

I've got Melvyn Tan on EMI Reflexe CDC 7 49631-2 coupled with D.959 (I'm a bit of a period instrument groupie, I'm afraid). Surely this marvellous recording cannot be deleted? Is nothing sacred?

[Tony Halstead]

I've got Melvyn Tan on EMI Reflexe CDC 7 49631-2 coupled with D.959 (I'm a bit of a period instrument groupie, I'm afraid). Surely this marvellous recording cannot be deleted? Is nothing sacred?

Please. please, don't be 'afraid' of being a period instrument groupie!

[silvestrione]

- which of course begs the question why not play it on an instrument which wouldn't require the tinkering!

Well, why don't they? It's a real question.

[Pianoman]

- which of course begs the question why not play it on an instrument which wouldn't require the tinkering!

Quite, and in all honesty I can’t for the life of me hear any real difference in either Uchida or Zimerman’s after all this ‘tinkering’...

[waldo]

Quite, and in all honesty I can’t for the life of me hear any real difference in either Uchida or Zimerman’s after all this ‘tinkering’...

Maybe they feel different........

I was just reading an interview with Uchida in which she claims she can instantly tell if someone else has been playing on her piano. Not impossible. My father could always tell if someone had been in his tool box.