Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum From "nothing" to genius

Thus, dynamics on a piano optional at the performer's discretion (and risk ).

Regards, JF

OK - maybe I'm wrong about the dynamics - but I definitely think some of those sonatas were dashed off in a hurry! That's just the way Mozart was. I love him very much and, as I said, appreciate him more as time goes on.

So, what is the book you bought? Please post info so I can look it up.

Thanks!

Mary-Rose:

You are actually correct. Mozart's music is incredible. However, he wrote many of his pieces quickly (how else could there be over 600 works in the Koechel catalog when Mozart died before he was 36?), often leaving out dynamic markings. This is in contrast to Beethoven who agonized over many of his works for long periods and especially Brahms who was so self critical that he may have withheld some real masterpieces that we will never hear from publication.

A good example is the first movement of Mozart’s A minor piano sonata, k.310 (one of his greatest piano sonatas, written around the time of the death of his mother in 1778). There are several dynamic markings in this piece (including ff and pp). However, from the p marking at the beginning of the secondary theme in the first movement to the close of the exposition (as well as the corresponding passage in the recapitulation), there are no dynamic markings whatsoever. If we follow Mozart’s directions literally, this entire section should be played piano. However, almost no good pianist would ever play the piece that way.

I am not trying to be unfairly critical of Mozart who is my favorite composer. However, no one (not even Mozart) is perfect.

By Mozart’s time, the keyboard instruments had evolved beyond the harpsichord and could produce different dynamic levels. To quote the composer and musicologist Eva Badura-Skoda, "As a born pianist, Mozart understandably wanted to own the very best concert grand available. His instrument, still extant and now exhibited in Salzburg in the house in which he was born, remains the best fortepiano of the period, an excellent concert grand, precious not only because Mozart gave his many subscription concerts on it, but also because of its quality. Anton Walter's best instruments were indeed the most expensive in Vienna ... but as concert instruments they were also apparently superior to all the others."

Here is some additional information on the keyboard instruments Mozart used and wrote for:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/mozart/piano.shtml
http://www.aam.co.uk/features/9702.htm

Here is a picture of Mozart’s forte piano and concert grand.

http://michaelsroom.co.uk/mozart_room_keyboards.htm

Otis

Mozart didn't even own a piano then! Besides what a silly argument - Mozart didn't write in the dynamics to save time?!

Hi, Dave.

The book I bought is "Mozart - 15 intermediate piano pieces" by Hal Leonard Piano Library/Schirmer performance editions. It includes a CD, fingerings and useful performance notes.

KeyboardKlutz:

Your earlier post said
"That's because most [of the Mozart piano sonatas] are for the harpsichord."
Do you really stand by the fact that most of the Mozart piano sonatas are for the harpsichord, because this is contrary to everything I have been taught (and have read) on the subject?

Regarding the lack of certain dynamic markings in Mozart's pieces such as the passage I mentioned, I don't have a definitive answer as to why this is the case. The argument that this may have been due to Mozart's carelessness was not my own but one that I got from my teacher. If you have a better explanation, please state what it is (preferably citing some sources to provide added weight to your explanation). Just dismissing someone else's explanation as "silly" without providing a plausible one of your own is not convincing.

If you listen to just about any major recording of the first movement of K. 310, it will be obvious that well known pianists almost universally agree that the first movement of the piece should not be played piano from measure 23 to the end of the exposition, a clear violation of the dynamics written by Mozart.

Otis

I'm afraid I'm all out of essays on 18th century performance practice. You'll just have to accept that Mozart wrote down all that was reqiured to perform his music in his day. And yes, at least half his keyboard output would be for harsichord some perhaps composed on a clavichord. The piano had not yet gained its place as the keyboard of choice.

Keyboardklutz:

If you still insist that Mozart wrote at least 50% of his works for harpsichord, please provide sources for this information. In addition to the sources on the Web in my previous post suggesting otherwise, here is some additional information. In Alfred Einstein’s classic biography of Mozart entitled “Mozart: His Character, His Work”, in the beginning of Chapter 14 entitled “The Clavier”, Einstein writes: “it should be noted that he [Mozart] wrote for the same instrument as Beethoven, Weber, or Chopin – not for the clavichord or the harpsichord, but for the pianoforte, although of course not for the powerful instrument we know in the products of Erard or Steinway. The only works that can have been conceived and written for harpsichord are the early concerto arrangements after Johann Christian Bach and minor ‘French’ composers (k. 107, and k. 37, 39, 40, and 41).”

Another book that I have in front of me, “The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music” edited by H. C. Robbins Landon, describes several of the types of pianos Mozart played on but does not anywhere suggest that a large number of his piano works were composed for harpsichord. I could go on with other works by renowned musicologists but there doesn’t seem to be much point to doing so if the evidence I have presented so far is not convincing already.

If Mozart had been writing for the harpsichord after all, why are there dynamic markings in even his early piano sonatas?

Regarding the issue of whether his music contains a sufficient number of dynamic markings as written, that is a matter of opinion. You have your opinions, others (including some very famous pianists) believe differently. We cannot resolve this issue here. However, we owe it to all of the forum readers to clear up misunderstandings of fact. Despite the respect that I have for your participation in the Piano World forums, I cannot accept your assertion that Mozart wrote the majority of his keyboard works for harpsichord given the preponderance of evidence that I have seen to the contrary.

Best Regards,
Otis

Firstly, there is no evidence Mozart owned a piano until he moved to Vienna in the 1780's. In fact in the 1781 he was having to borrow Countess Thun's Stein for concerts. You need to understand (and maybe explore?) the world of music making in the 18th century, it is a domestic thing. Mozart's buying public would have been 95% clavichord or harpsichord owners; the piano being too expensive and new fangled. Don't look at the period with 20th eyes. My guess is Mozart would have used whichever keyboard that was at hand and best suited. We know from Constanze that he composed all his last major works on the clavichord (Magic Flute, Requiem). He needed the piano to play to larger audiences - these was a new phenomenon. Also, they all wanted 'opera-type' music requiring an instrument with a louder dynamic range. None of these things happened over night. The old Romantic notion that Mozart championed the piano is just that, a Romantic notion. Like everyone else, he worked from with the prevailing limitations of his period.

To understand the dynamics in his work you need a considerable knowledge of practice from the composers of the 1740's, 50's, 60's and 70's - as Mozart had. I can highly recommend it.

A further thought - Have you ever noticed how when children read aloud they are often drone-like using limited dynamic/pitch variations? Ask them about their favorite holiday and you'll get something totally different - and alive.

But Mozart grew up un a household with pianofortes. Einstein writes shortly after the passage that I quoted previously, “In the Mozart household there were one or more pianofortes constructed by the Regensburg clavier-builder, Franz Jacob Spaith, but when Mozart made the acquaintance of the instruments of J.A.S. Stein of Augsburg, the latter became his favorites.” There follows a passage in which Mozart describes Stein’s pianofortes (they are clearly not harpsichords). Einstein concludes the paragraph “It was for such an instrument that Mozart wrote his sonatas, variations, and concertos”. The Landon reference from my previous post re-affirms this.

I agree with you here. For works like k. 310, however, Mozart was really pushing things beyond what keyboards of the early 1700s could interpret. Measure 58 is actually marked ff (which is totally appropriate given the almost Beethovenian intensity of this passage), and meaures 62 pp. This piece sounds much better on a modern instrument than on earlier keyboard instruments. This is the earliest example of keyboard writing of this intensity that I am aware of and anticipates some of Beethoven’s minor key works. Do you know of any earlier works for the keyboard in a similar vein by any composer?

This may certainly occur. How is this relevant to our discussion?

Mozart did not grow up in a household with pianos - they would have had a harpsichord and a clavichord. The word 'clavier' was often translated as piano by writers in the 19th and 20th century. The real translation is 'clavichord' from the mid 18th century. Try some book googling.

I can't comment on the FF's I'm not near my scores.

As for reading aloud, do you honestly need all the dynamics given you?

Here's an interesting chart from Authenticity in Performance by Peter le Huray

Ha, ha ha...this is amazing, I disliked Mozart for so long, always used to listen to Bach, Vivaldi, Handel and the other good guys and constantly pushed the 'skip' button when it came to Mozart.... until one day.... I heard his 23rd... I LOVED IT.

This is why I decided to take some lessons in Piano... and play Mozart :-)

enjoy the holidays!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdxwXRD6M8

Orignally you said lack of dynamics was due to Mozart's music being for harpsichord. I had my doubts about this as the books I have read suggest he wrote most of his keyboard works for the piano, but I didn't want to argue. You now say they were for clavichord. Big difference - dynamics would be appropriate for the clavichord which responds to touch. So you have shot down your own argument, keyboardklutz.

Mozart wrote no music for the clavichord - that was a North German thing. In Austria the clavichord was a composing or practice tool.

Are you sure of this, and if so, based on what evidence? Einstein noted that the Mozart household had one or more pianos but does not specify the dates the pianos were acquired. Mozart was also exposed to pianos via his travels as a child prodigy.
In many cases, the answer is yes. Without sufficient instructions for dynamic levels, the performer can easily misinterpret the intentions of the composer. For example, in k. 310, the fact that Mozart has no dynamic markings for the last 33 measures of the first movement is problematic. If we literally follow his dynamic markings, then the entire section should be piano as the last dynamic marking is a piano at measure 103. However, almost no one plays the piece this way. There are too many ways this section can be varied dynamically, and since the performer has to make all of the decisions, some of them are bound to be incorrect. For example, suppose that I choose to play measure 126 forte (as many others do). This may be an entirely incorrect choice. Maybe Mozart really did want this measure to be played piano. In fact, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Mozart actually wanted the last 33 measures of this movement to be played piano just as he wrote in the score. If this is the case, then every recording and performance of this piece that I have heard interprets the end of this movement incorrectly.

This post is right on target. Mozart's piano concerto #23 in A Major, K. 488 is a great work to listen to in order to become familiar with Mozart's piano music. The work is in 3 movements. The 2nd movement is much gloomier than the 1st and 3rd movements. The link in adhg's message is to the 3rd movement.

Adhg, if you like this work, I recommend listening to other Mozart piano concerti including 9, 14-27, and the concerto for 2 pianos (k. 365) (which is actually piano concerto #10).

Otis

If you look at the chart I posted you'll see Archbishop Coloredo didn't aquire one till 1779. Do you honestly think the Mozarts, who were not very well off, would have aquired one before one of the most powerful men in Austria? There is no mention of a piano at home in any Mozart letter but in On October 3rd 1778 he writes to his father “I should also like to have beside my writing desk the clavierl [little clavichord] which Fishietti and Rust had as it suits me better than Stein’s small one.” He undoubtably encounted pianos on his travels and took an interest in the various makers/mechanisms.

Mostly you need to understand the mindset. Mozart was composing to sell (he no doubt lived by JC Bach's maxim 'My brother lives to compose, I compose to live' - in fact he took it to extremes). By the 1780's the piano allowed him to better sell himself, but the harpsichord (or clavichord) his publications. You cannot narrow his keyboard works, or his work, down to the tiny field of the forte-piano. That's to misinterpret the exigencies of financial success in the European keyboard world at the time.
It was not until Beethoven that composer's began to be more specific. Mozart mostly only indicates 'this is a loud passage' 'this is a soft passage'. There is a sense that in a good performer the finer details will be filled in by the fingers rather as the voice fills it in during a speech or in conversation - mostly bypassing consciousness (but also using their knowledge of convention). To be really accurate you need to be aquainted with the genre. I suggest anyone interested in 18th keyboard music to get a copy of CPE'S Versuch - it was Mozart's bible (and Haydn's and Beethoven's and Czerny's).

I've been listening to and to some extent played intermediate pieces by Schumann the last few days. Nothing wrong with his music but Mozart seems more able to convey deep feelings with fewer notes. His music doesn't leave much to hide behind, either. Shumann, on the other hand, doesn't expose the pianist's mistakes so clearly. This clarity is probably what I have learned to appreciate about Mozart lately.