A question about pedal

[manel]

Has the first mvt. of the moonlight sonata to be performed all the time with the pedal down? (delicatissimamente e senza sordini)

[stevebob]

The short answer is yes; senza sordini means without dampers, i.e., with the dampers raised.  But that doesn't mean one should depress the pedal at the start of the movement and hold it indefinitely; it should be "changed" with each change of harmony, at the very least.

It's been suggested that Beethoven actually did intend that the pedal be held throughout the movement.  If that's true, it would be because the instruments of his era had so little sonority that it would have been feasible to do so without the accumulation of muddy sound that would result on modern pianos.

[manel]

Thanks, Stevebob. I’m learning this piece right now. The notes are not very challenging, but I don’t know when the pedal is to be depressed, so I hold it down all the time and tray to touch the keys very softly in order to avoid an excess of muddy sound …   

[CC]

I know this is a minority opinion because proper pedaling (aka avoiding dissonances) is so ingrained in piano pedagogy.  But I believe the pedal should be down all the time, as LVB instructed.  I have never yet seen an instance in which LVB was wrong, and don't buy the argument about the difference in sustain, because there is no evidence that sustain was that different.  So what are my arguments?
(1) LVB was a rule breaker in the sense that he produced great new material by breaking rules, not for the sake of breaking rules but because it brought new insights. As a rule breaker, this one fits the bill, especially because in much of his music, the pedal is used sparingly.
(2) the pedal also explains why he used such clear harmonies and a main theme containing only one note repeated three times!  Even with the pedal down, a repeated single note will never produce a dissonance!  Cutting the pedal simply negates perhaps the most brilliant idea in this piece.
(3) many established pianists complain that students too often play this piece too slowly; its correct speed should be faster.  I disagree. You need to play faster only if you cut the pedal. With the pedal down, you HAVE to slow down, otherwise it gets too muddy and loud.  My interpretation is, that is exactly what LVB intended; this piece is a contrast between the slow 1st mvmt and the fast 3rd. Note that the 3rd mvmnt is just the 1st mvmnt played at a crazy speed. It starts with a similar arpeggio which is continued up and the 3 repeated notes are abbreviated into 2 at the top. Therefore, the 1st must be slow.
(4) another point of contrast LVB created is the contrast between the dissonant background that develops because of the pedal; the idea here is to contrast this constant background with the beautiful, clear harmonies he creates. He tells us this in no uncertain terms in bar 48 which has a mysterious cresc., followed by a sudden P in bar 49 (does anyone know if this cresc./P is in his original MS?). Why the sudden P instead of decresc.? Because bar 48 creates a roaring background upon which the clear harmonies of bar 49 can be superimposed in P -- how much more clearly can you break the pedaling rule?  Otherwise, this cresc. is just an arbitrary cresc. with no particular purpose.

[stevebob]

I ... don't buy the argument about the difference in sustain, because there is no evidence that sustain was that different.

Knowledge of the evolution of the piano and minimal exposure to the sound of historical instruments provides that evidence.  The modern piano is capable of volume, sonority and sustain levels that are intrinsic to its technology and wouldn't have been possible with earlier designs.

[tunneller]

Mine even has a volume control and a USB port.

 

[manel]

Thanks, CC. I suspect that Barenboim plays this piece with the pedal down all the time, but I’m not absolutely sure  … It also plays it very, very slow (6:27’)

[CC]

Thanks, CC. I suspect that Barenboim plays this piece with the pedal down all the time, but I’m not absolutely sure  … It also plays it very, very slow (6:27’)

Nice observation. But I was of course referring to LVB music that should be played with a minimum of pedal, such as the first movement of the Appassionata that I recently heard.  Don't get me wrong, though, because Barenboim is quite popular. Goes to show how recognized masters can get away with things that would cause us to fail an audition.

Returning to the Moonlight, I think that dissonance plays a MAJOR role in this piece; this is all about tragic sorrow (but, as with all LVB, there is an unmistakeable hope and uplifting basis which I'll discuss briefly), and dissonance represents the pain of sorrow. So I imagine the clear harmony as love, and the dissonance as pain -- again another sharp contrast. Even with "conventional" pedaling, you can't avoid the dissonance in bar 2.  Bar 2!  why so early?  because LVB (IMO) wanted to tell us: "dissonance is OK, we need it in this piece", and he didn't want to wait 5 bars for the background dissonance to develop naturally because the beginning is so harmonious. This bar did not have to be dissonant, so there must be a reason for its dissonance.

He then goes ahead and uses dissonance to great effect, as seen in the ninths of bars 16 and 18, where the melancholy repetition of the B is punctuated by the "painful" dissonance with the C.  Since I have small hands, I play the lower note of the ninth with the LH which also provides the special control that this note demands.  The almost interminable repetition of the B here is a device LVB used to great effect in many of his pieces, where the conversations with the other notes and the rhythm (cut time, like the tolling of a bell) creates music with this repetition.  This answers the question, "how did he create music by just repeating a single note so many times?"

I think that LVB was particularly fond of the octave effect (eg, LH tremolo in Pathetique), and almost every melodic note of the RH is accompanied by its lower octave (as well as in the LH); therefore both notes of the octave should be clearly audible. Many recordings, especially the faster ones, emphasize the clear upper melodic lines and ignores the octave. Most audiences are quite happy with this because the mental work needed to appreciate LVB can be too much for most.  Many in the audience just want their music presented simply on a silver platter, which is easier to digest. But the intent of great composers was to create infinitely deep music, which I define as wonderful music that you can listen to repeatedly without getting tired of it.  The difficulty with composing those great melodies as represented by the Moonlight is that the melodies quickly become familiar and will cause boredom unless it is infinitely deep. How did he do it?

One of the (probably many) ways in which he accomplished depth is to combine so many ideas in every bar that it was impossible for the audience to pay attention to all of them at once; if a person becomes familiar with one aspect, a different one becomes noticeable the next time, so in effect there are an infinite number of permutations within a long piece if there are, say, 5 different effects in every segment.

Before counting these 5 (or more!) ideas, let me digress because there is another matter that is part and parcel of this whole presentation/composition topic.  In many ways, musicians must be magicians. Both strive to control the minds of the audience. In addition, the magic works best if the audience doesn't know the trick.  This is also true in music: if you can control the emotions of the audience without their knowing how you did it,  it has a larger effect. Cresc. and PP, and changes in speed are obvious devices, but do not contribute substantially to depth because they are obvious.  Of course, there is musical depth and structural depth; here I only discuss structural depth which seems particularly easy to spot in LVB. My point is that these structural ideas can be used by the pianist to produce music that the audience can listen to repeatedly, and wonder why it still sounds so good after so many times.  It also helps you to play; in fact it would be terribly difficult to perform if the music consisted of only one familiar melodic line. This is one of the biggest advantages of the piano compared to instruments such as the violin, because the piano has this infinity of possibilities and depth that others do not (although they have their own sets of infinities to exploit).

So let's count these structural ideas in the Moonlight (most of which have been discussed). (1) dissonance vs harmony, (2) slow vs fast (3rd mvmnt) -- ie, some ideas take effect later, (3) use of repeated notes (creates tension that can be released at the end) (4) although this piece is obviously sad, it is also full of hope and strength -- how did LVB do that?  I'll leave this one for you to figure out yourself, I have some of my own ideas, (5) the "insane" use of the pedal, (6) use of a major theme consisting of only one note repeated 3 times, (7) use of a constant, dissonant background in which a clear harmonic melody is superposed, ( the octave effect, (9) use of extremism (extreme slow vs fast, dissonance vs harmony, pedal vs no pedal, sad vs hope), etc., combined with doubtlessly many musical ideas. Magic!

[scottmcc]

there are literally hundreds of interpretations of the Moonlight, some good, some bad, and most in the middle, and they are all very much different.  for an interesting view of this, please see this link from NPR:  https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18577817

Regarding tempo, there is no consensus at all as to how fast the first movement should be played.  Andras Schiff takes it quite quickly, based on the alla breve indication ("cut time").  listen to his discussion on guardian UK if you haven't already (google schiff guardian uk).  others take it much slower, based on the adagio sostenuto tempo mark.  I prefer somewhere in the middle.

regarding the pedal, I prefer to change it with the change in harmonies.  but this is an interpretative choice, as beethoven did not leave pedal marks (as he does in the third movement), but simply said senza sordini.

[manel]

Hey, Scott, what do you mean, exactly, by change in harmonies? Are you speaking of modulations?

Regarding the tempi, Gould’s is really extreme (and horrendous): 4:15’   

[manel]

Thanks a lot, Scott, by posting the reference on the Andras Schiff ‘s explanations of the Beethoven Sonatas: they are marvellous! 

[scottmcc]

Hey, Scott, what do you mean, exactly, by change in harmonies? Are you speaking of modulations?

Regarding the tempi, Gould’s is really extreme (and horrendous): 4:15’   

whenever the chord progresses.  so for instance, I hold the pedal down the entire first measure, then I switch it (ever so briefly) at the start of the second measure.  for the most part, it's when the left hand changes to a different note, although there are a few times in the middle (ie during the broken arpeggio sequences) where the right hand chord changes without changing the left hand note (the low G#).  make sense?

I just re-read the liner notes of my Wilhelm Kempff collection, and they say that he keeps the pedal depressed the entire time, but that he uses partial pedalling throughout and makes very subtle adjustments to how much pedal he is using as he goes.  if you haven't listened to his rendition, I recommend it highly.

regarding Schiff, I love those lectures, and have listened to each of them at least 2-3 times, and much more for the sonatas I've played.  even if you don't agree with all of his interpretative choices, the scholarly discussion is fabulous.

one more thing at chang...you said something about beethoven never being wrong.  I disagree.  while beethoven is in my opinion the best composer to date, he was not infallible, and there are scores of errors and inconsistencies in his works.  his sketchbooks are full of corrections, as are the early proofs, and the manuscripts and first editions are often very different.  if beethoven is never wrong, how do you explain him writing a crescendo on a held note, for instance?  (op 14 nr 1 mvt 2, meas 62) 

one more thing...if you go to the museum of fine arts in boston (https://www.mfa.org/), you can see a lovely exhibit of period instruments, including a piano from beethoven's day, and you can listen to a recording of the pathetique on that piano.  clearly the tone is very, very different from a modern concert grand, and the sonority and sustain are quite worlds apart.  to say otherwise is a fallacy.