A Conversation with Fortepianist Daniel Adam Maltz, Part Four
A Conversation with Fortepianist Daniel Adam Maltz
Part Four
This is the penultimate installment of a fascinating conversation with Daniel Adam Maltz, a contemporary artist who has devoted himself to the classical fortepiano. As we begin to understand that instrument, we develop a greater appreciation and respect for the musical indications within the scores of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and others — ideas that do not necessarily “work” on the modern piano.
Part Three of this five-part series can be found at https://lennycavallaro.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-fortepianist-978, and the text provides links to the earlier installments. Part Five will be released in two more days.
LC: I am interested in your thoughts about articulation and phrasing. For example, we see in Beethoven’s piano sonatas and even with the duo sonatas and trios staccato indications that don’t make sense to the modern pianist, or a string of accents or sforzandi — notably the ones in the Op. 106 sonata (“Hammerklavier”). Now, I must respectfully submit that we really cannot have that many sforzandi, because such a passage will not sound particularly musical. However, I must ask the obvious question: what am I missing?
DM: We can see in the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven just how meticulous they were with their articulation marks, and in a way that clearly shifted by the later romantic period, where the preference for much longer melodic lines took over. Before that time, though, the scores show more articulation, and Mozart almost never let a measure go by without some such indication. Ironically, he might not even write in all the notes, yet he would write the articulation where he felt it was important.
LC: Oh, yes! I got that lesson with his Concerto in C Minor, K. 491, where I encountered just a dotted-half-note on occasion — and that was clearly NOT what Mozart intended!
DM: Right, but we see where Mozart is nevertheless very concerned with the articulation, which was such a crucial aspect of classical language and style. This goes with what the late Nikolaus Harnoncourt wrote in his book Musik als Klangrede: Wege zu einem neuen Musikverständnis [Music as Sound Speech: Ways to a New Understanding of Music]. He felt that musical expression before the French Revolution related primarily to human speech, and musical expression after the French Revolution related more to “painting” or “singing,” or whatever metaphor one may want to use. Of course, it’s not quite as clear-cut as that, but nevertheless, in the Classical-era musicians (e.g,, Quantz and Türk) wrote about how the musician’s job can be compared to that of an orator..
When we speak, we don’t restrict ourselves to one articulation, any more than we speak at one tempo or in one dynamic. We express things in so many different ways and so did the music! Now the important thing to remember is that these aspects of the instruments that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven used facilitate that approach to rhetorical articulation.
LC: Can you give us an example?
DM: Sure. Think about those numerous two-note slurs — for example, in some of Mozart’s sonatas. If your instrument’s sound doesn’t decay, how can you possibly execute these? On the modern piano, the tone actually swells initially. On the fortepiano, that aspect of articulation, the ways of making staccato and legato, and other such nuances are more immediately possible, because the instrument, which is lighter and more transparent — and doesn’t become “muddy” easily — allows the performer to speak in that way naturally. It is indeed a “speaking” instrument, more than a “painting” or a “singing” one! Essentially, it’s a perspective shift.
LC: Wow! That’s quite a concept to process!
DM: I think there is a significant truth to that Harnoncourt statement. Moreover, it is supported by the historical documents, and it forms a lot of the basis of my approach to musical interpretation.
Returning to your question about the Beethoven, my answer is that those articulations and dynamic indications are correct on a fortepiano, because the sforzandi will decay so much more quickly.
For another example, think about the opening chord in the “Pathetique" Sonata. Czerny wrote that Beethoven would play it and let it die away before starting again. Now, if you tried that on a modern Steinway, the audience might sit there for twenty seconds or so, and Beethoven’s nuance wouldn’t make any sense musically. Thus, we can see that their language — I refer to the composers of the Classical era — and their instruments were different. Somebody pointed out to me that a musical instrument is simply a tool, and different tools do different things, so (for example) you wouldn’t try to hammer a nail with a wrench. These tools express the music that the composers wrote. The modern instruments were built to do different things. I wouldn’t want to listen to Rachmaninoff on a fortepiano.
LC: Or Debussy on a harpsichord!
DM: Well, perhaps Chopin on a clavichord?
LC: Now that’s an idea! But seriously, I find it fascinating to see the work that has been done, and this segues to my next question. With harpsichord, we can probably say the revival goes back to Wanda Landowska, and after her another generation, which includes Ralph Kirkpatrick, who had studied with her. Thus, we see the resurgence of the harpsichord by certainly the 1960s and 70s. When does something analogous begin with the comparable resurrection of the fortepiano?
I should probably append that when I was in graduate school — the 1970s — I was aware of some pretty good harpsichords built from kits. Unfortunately, the fortepiano kits, with all due respect, were considered mediocre at best.
DM: I think the problem with fortepiano and the reason why it’s still not as popular as other aspects of historical performance — as compared, let us say, to the orchestral world, which is widely accepted — is that fortepiano has lagged somewhat behind structurally. I believe that a large part of the reason is simply that harpsichords are much easier to build. Thus, there are far more examples of harpsichords around at the present time. You mentioned the kits, and I must agree with you; the harpsichord kits really weren’t bad. In fact, some of them actually sound pretty good!
LC: I also heard a clavichord that was quite good, but I heard exactly one fortepiano from a kit. It was supposed to be modeled after a Stein, but it was really rather sub-par.
DM: Yes, you’re right. The early examples of fortepianos from kits weren’t particularly good, and unfortunately many people concluded “that’s how the fortepiano sounded,” and they didn’t particularly like it. Thus, it took a while before the actual construction caught up to the high standards to which we’re accustomed at the present time. Today, people can appreciate that these are beautiful artistic vehicles.
LC: When would you say they reached a mature form?
DM: I played on a couple of fortepianos built in the 1980s that certainly weren’t terrible, but I would say it wasn’t until around 2000 that we got more meticulously constructed instruments.
Now, look at the situation today. We have harpsichordists galore, and in some parts of the world we might almost say they’re “a dime a dozen.” With fortepianists, on the other hand, we haven’t reached that level. Of course, the problem comes down to how many instruments are available, how difficult it is to access them, and how hard it is to build them. It’s much more complicated with a fortepiano than with a harpsichord at this time.
[to be continued…]