Fp technique

[pianoplayer1224]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has tried reducing the sound of a loud chord marked "fortepiano", like in the opening of Beethoven's Pathetique 1st mvt., by holding it with the pedal and repressing the keys 2-3 times without them sounding. Andras Schiff in his lectures on the Beethoven Sonate, explains this method (at around 6:00 minutes in the link below) and I like the sound he achieves.

I'm just wondering if anyone has tried (or succeeded with) this fp technique, and if it is possible to achieve the same effect on an upright piano?   

[j_menz]

Sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. If the pedal is down and you aren't actually hitting the strings again, I fail to see that you are doing anything at all to the sound.

[faulty_damper]

I think that fp is a misunderstanding of the musical notation.  Clearly, you can't achieve anything remotely close to what Schiff suggests.  I've tried.  But if you listen to what the music is communicating, you know that it really is just a loud, angry cry to attract attention followed by a short contemplation.  The p is really for the short contemplation, not the initial scream.

And also, I don't think Schiff is a very good interpreter of Beethoven.  Have you listened to his Moonlight sonata lecture and his reasoning for why he interprets the music as cut-time?  Yikes!  It sounds pretty bad played that fast.

[pianoplayer1224]

 I'm not too sure but maybe this fp technique has to be executed similar to the "hand-pedalling" technique usually used to help chords fade out at the end of pieces. It is quite a distinct sound Schiff achieves with his "trick" to fp, so there must be a way to do it. I just don't know how to get it to work or if it will work on an upright piano.

faulty_damper, I have listened to his lecture on the Moonlight and despite the fact I disagree with his choice of such a fast tempo, he often brings up interesting points and thoughts to consider.

[nyiregyhazi]

And also, I don't think Schiff is a very good interpreter of Beethoven.  Have you listened to his Moonlight sonata lecture and his reasoning for why he interprets the music as cut-time?  Yikes!  It sounds pretty bad played that fast.

? It is in cut time. That's the correct time signature. It's not "fast" at all, if you judge by the actual beat.

[faulty_damper]

But, most people would interpret adagio sostenuto as slow and sustained.  There is nothing sustained or slow in his interpretation.  Also, it's possible that it was printed incorrectly.  The original manuscript is missing the first page so there is no way to check what Beethoven really wrote as the time signature.

But back to fp and Schiff's interpretation.  He has a tendency to think that the score is gospel, even if it contradicts musical intent.

[nyiregyhazi]

But, most people would interpret adagio sostenuto as slow and sustained.  There is nothing sustained or slow in his interpretation.  Also, it's possible that it was printed incorrectly.  The original manuscript is missing the first page so there is no way to check what Beethoven really wrote as the time signature.

But back to fp and Schiff's interpretation.  He has a tendency to think that the score is gospel, even if it contradicts musical intent.

If you don't find it slow, you're missing the accurate location of the beats. Tempo is judged from the beat.

EDIT- by the way, I have heard Schiff play this a few years back, but I don't recall the fine details. The big issue is how soft the triplets are. If the triplets are extremely quiet and the melody is well projected, it should sound tremendously open and spacious at Schiff's tempo. If it sounds fast with a veiled accompaniment, that is purely about expectations created by other performers. However, if the triplets are loud, it sounds more "busy" and it inevitably sounds like a rapid succession of beats.

I see no reason to assume that an unusual time signature would stem from error- except as a way of supporting a prejudiced belief. Far more common is for 2/2 to accidentally become 4/4. To turn a normal time signature into less predictable 2/2 would be extremely curious error. You can't default to assuming the composer meant 4/4 simply because it's more convenient to your expectations about how the work sounds. If we're going to assume it ought to be 4/4 we'd need a vastly better reason to bring the 2/2 into dispute.