Reimagining the Use of 19th-Century Techniques on Historical Piano: from the perspective of a 21st-century pianist

 

1.1 The Pianist and the Piano

 

A pianist can feel the difference in touch and tone when playing on different pianos, for example, a Yamaha feels lighter and brighter, while a Kawai feels heavier and more muffled. As a performer, I can also feel the increased effort when performing on a concert-length Steinway Grand Piano and the difference in energy one needs to put into the playing compared to an upright piano mostly used for practice. The difference in embodiment when transitioning from a modern piano to a period piano is even more exaggerated. Dogantan-Dack, when discussing the issue that situates the piano as an artistic collaborator, said:

 

‘The embodiment relationship between a pianist and her instrument is highly complex and existing theoretical frameworks do not fully capture this complexity […] a pianist cannot directly and immediately transfer the kinaesthetic-tactile knowledge and image of a piece of music that she has acquired on one specific piano onto another piano, and achieve the expressive results she intends.’1

 

She further stated that the ‘transfer’ from one piano to another would require ‘a process of learning to embody each new piano’.2 Following this theory, it is even more evident from a modern piano to a historical keyboard instrument.

 

A modern piano from the 21st century is very different from the keyboard instruments from the 18th and 19th centuries such as the fortepiano. When studying the different piano techniques from the 19th century, the main research question that arises from my research is ‘Will attempting 19th century techniques on a historical piano provide a different response than on a modern piano?’, this then led to other questions such as ‘Will they reveal the relationship between historical instruments and the techniques?’, ‘What new perspectives or knowledge will this experience bring?’, and ‘How do these knowledge help a 21st century pianist’s experience on a historical piano?’. Through my artistic experience, I believe one who knows how to play the piano can play a fortepiano and will be able to operate the period instruments. However, the techniques and playing approaches of a modern pianist may not be applied directly and interchangeably onto a period instrument. Transitioning from a modern piano to a period piano may not be as easy as switching the sound of a digital piano from ‘grand piano’ to ‘harpsichord’ due to the techniques we picked up using a modern piano. The embodiment of transitioning from a modern piano to an older piano would force one to go back in time where a modern pianist, used to the weight and the reinforced keys of a modern grand piano, would all of a sudden need to disregard years of training of using more force of the body, and adapt to the total opposite, much more reserved playing method.

 

The techniques of the 19th century passed down through treatises convey relevant information for modern pianists who lack experience on period instruments. While some of these techniques were not easily understood by modern pianists, understanding period instruments and examining one’s artistic experience on the embodiment of 19th century techniques on historical pianos would help us gain more insight, for example, how it may have looked and felt like for 19th century contemporaries to use these techniques, how the techniques react on a period piano, as well as understanding why they were adopted in the 19th century. Just as Taruskin said,

 

‘Experiments based on historical research serve the purpose for performers to: open their minds and ears to new experiences, and enable them to transcend their habitual, and therefore, unconsidered, ways of hearing and thinking about the music […]. The object is not to duplicate the sounds of the past, for if that were our aim we should never know whether we had succeeded. What we are aiming at, rather, is the startling shock of newness, of immediacy, the sense of rightness that occurs when after countless frustrating experiments we feel as though we have achieved the identification of performance style with the demands of the music.’3

 

In this case, instead of blindly following and duplicating the approaches used even without knowing if the reconstructed approaches were accurate, the more important goal is to experiment with these techniques, gain experience in using the researched techniques on an appropriate instrument, and examine the new relationships and knowledge that arise through the artistic practice such as how these techniques would affect one’s playing. While modern pianists have a different approach in playing the modern piano and would unlikely agree to adopt these playing styles on the modern instrument today, the marriage between the experience on a period piano and the knowledge of the 19th century piano techniques would help explain why these techniques were used, taught, and passed down in treatises.

 

This study describes the artistic practice of applying 19th century piano techniques on historical instruments by recording the initial learning experiences as a modern pianist. Through this artistic research, this study investigates the three main aims below:

 

  1. Understanding 19th century techniques and their potential impacts through exploratory actions on historical instruments
  2. Recognizing the connections and interactions between instruments and techniques
  3. Revealing new perspectives that emerged through this practice as a pianist-researcher.

 

It does not signify that one must apply these researched techniques in order for the music performed to be authentic, but rather to explore the possibilities that lie within them, and to be informed by new discoveries of knowledge.

 

1.2 The Journey of Discovery Through First-hand Experience on Historical Instruments

 

As Breitman said:

 

‘Playing an instrument is a two-way street. We ask things of our instruments, and they respond—but not always in the way we expect. Their effect on us is immediate, and they begin teaching us the moment we touch them.’4

 

That said, it would be difficult for a 21st century modern pianist to imagine the touch needed on a historical piano, how the piano would respond to a specific touch, and what kind of tone would follow, despite various information from current literature. First-hand experience on the instrument would be most valuable, and one would be able to learn how 19th century techniques fit the instrument when searching for the right response from the piano. This can be achieved through artistic practice by materializing the subject studied, situating these techniques in the appropriate setting such as the instruments used when they are produced, along with the relevant information such as descriptions of the instruments in the current literature, and the techniques from technical treatises and books from the 19th century.

 

While each individual can take their own path to discover and adapt to the instrument, my artistic experience, which will be the core of this paper, will focus on the adaptation of 19th century techniques to observe how they find their place in the process. These provided first-hand experiences of the effectiveness of the techniques along with the kinaesthetic sensations and the response of the instrument, which then brought a deeper understanding of the relationship between the instrument and the researched techniques. They also help one to understand their roles and effects that are more difficult to be realised on a modern piano, and demonstrate the impact of these techniques on one’s body movements and performance. The current literature and accounts of other pianists would also be used in this section along with my artistic experience to contextualise the process of transitioning from a modern piano to a historical piano.

1.3 Artistic Practice: The Initial Learning Experiences of Historical Techniques on Historical Instruments as a Modern Pianist

 

As we know, the keyboard instruments in the 19th century were developed from those in the late 18th century, making their advancement through the mid-19th century in the direction towards the modern piano. While selections of keyboard instruments throughout the 19th century were quite vast, the historical instruments used in this embodiment experience were a Rosenberger fortepiano from 1795, a Dereck Adlam fortepiano(n.d.), a Conrad Graf fortepiano from ca. 1826, an Erard piano from 1842, and a Pleyel piano from 1866.

 

My first experience with a historical piano was an exploratory visit on an early 19th century fortepiano in January 2022 where I had an opportunity to play on the Rosenberger fortepiano along with a Graf fortepiano. The second visit in February 2023 was a prepared visit using a combination of my own techniques and researched techniques, mainly Ludwig Deppe’s approach on the Erard and Pleyel. Another visit in March 2023 was a continuation of the initial exploratory visit that focused on JN Hummel and Carl Czerny’s instructions on the Dereck Adlam fortepiano. Different 19th century techniques were then applied onto these instruments. During these visits, JN Hummel’s techniques were paired with the Rosenberger and Dereck Adlam fortepiano, Carl Czerny’s techniques with the Graf piano, and late 19th century techniques such as Ludwig Deppe and Theodore Leschetizky’s techniques on the Erard and Pleyel piano. This artistic process would centralize around the embodiment experience of a modern pianist applying the 19th century techniques on these historical instruments on three separate occasions. The experience, including feedback and observations done through autoethnography from these visits will represent the voice of a performer in this paper.

 

Three main roles of the 19th century techniques that surfaced from this artistic practice were mainly due to the touch, control, and tone of the historical instruments. They emerged through the characteristics of the historical pianos, which then affect other parameters such as dynamics and phrasing in a performance. From the perspective of a modern pianist, I realised that these researched techniques also help narrow the gap between modern and period instruments.

1.3.1 Light and Responsive Touch

 

As a result of its mechanism and action, the most distinct characteristic of the fortepiano when transitioning from a modern piano is the touch as the keys of a fortepiano were usually smaller, shallower, and lighter, which resulted in the techniques that are lighter, quieter and smaller in movements. To provide a clearer idea of how different the two instruments were, Gunn compared the fortepiano to an eight foot Steinway D concert grand, and said that the concert grand weighed 6 times more than a Walter fortepiano.5 The action of a fortepiano is also light, simple and uses only a single-lever, as compared to the hammers of a modern piano.6 Not only that, the strings, due to the wooden frame of a fortepiano, can only withstand less than a quarter of the strain of the modern piano, and the keys are also less than half the weight of their modern counterpart.7 Michael Cole, cited in Kobb,8 who is an instrument maker who measured and compared important parts of the piano action between Viennese and modern grand pianos, provided a more detailed comparison. He mentioned that the key head length between a Viennese Stein and 20th century piano had a difference of about 14 to 17mm. The key dip difference between a Viennese piano and a Steinway model D is about 4 to 7mm, and the energy input required to play a C3 quietly on a Stein fortepiano is 1/10th that of a Steinway grand piano. Gunn also mentioned that the energy required to play a key on a fortepiano is only about a third of that used for the modern piano.9 While these informative and quantitative measures provide a good idea of the differences between modern and historical instruments, there isn’t a direct link to transfer these numbers to the realm of tactile and kinaesthetic sensation. This is where techniques may act as a tool to aid this transition.

 

Weyman described the early pianos as ‘light action, small key dip, slight singing quality, [with] little contrast and limited power’, and mentioned that the ‘quiet hand’ was logical and necessary as it would be difficult to control the force needed to fit the delicate action unless the hands were held in a quiet position.10 As such, we can observe that because of the difference in touch and weight between the fortepiano and the modern piano, modern pianists train and learn to use different parts of the hand, arm, and body to fully utilize the potential of a modern concert grand, which is a stark contrast to a fortepiano of the 19th century where terms such as light, shallow, small, and simple were commonly used to describe its touch. If one would play on a historical keyboard instrument using the modern approaches, the tone produced would be very much affected, as these instruments were much more delicate than our instruments today.

 

I distinctly recall my first attempt on the Rosenberger that startled me to a point where I could not even finish a short piece as I would accidentally play some notes with a little too much force and stop occasionally when the tone produced felt ‘stuck’ and ‘forced’. This lack of control resonated with Gunn’s words where she said,

 

‘At first attempt, many modern pianists play too hard, over-attack, and use arm weight, which results in a pressed, forced, and ugly sound. Delicacy, sensitivity to touch, controlled finger action, and finesse are the keywords in capturing fortepiano style on the modern piano.’11

 

The famous Malcolm Bilson also once expressed how he felt when he first played on a fortepiano in an interview, and said:

 

‘I must be the least gifted person for the job; my hands are too big, and I don't have the necessary technique such an instrument required. In trying to operate this light, precise mechanism, I really felt like an elephant in a china closet.’12 

 

I believe the same issue was faced by many modern pianists who tried to attempt on a fortepiano or other historical instruments when approaches and techniques were not carefully considered.

 

As modern pianists were trained to avoid ‘bumps’ in playing legato lines,13 I was naturally attentive to sudden or random accents, which I caught myself doing very often when I was playing on the Rosenberger fortepiano. My hands and fingers that were used to exerting larger forces, using momentum of rotation of the hand and larger joints, and the lack of control of smaller motor parts like the fingers caused these random accents to occur. This concern from my first attempt on the fortepiano was also recognized by Gunn as she pointed out that if one attempts to ‘bite or attack’ a passage on a fortepiano with the same way it is done on a modern piano, it would produce a ‘choked and choppy tone’ due to the different way the modern piano tone develops.14 The random accents and bumps that can be heard all over the place and were not produced to my intention, and were clearly out of my control when unconsciously resorting to the modern piano techniques that were already instilled in me and ingrained in my fingers.

 

I tried to incorporate ideas and concepts by Hummel, for example, his instructions for ‘the elbows [to be] rather turned, towards the body, yet without pressing against it’, ‘the hands… turned rather outwards, like the feet ’, and ‘avoid every violent movements of the elbows and hands’.15  I also experimented with concepts that were brought forward through Hummel’s words such as, ‘the quickness of motion lies only in the joints of the fingers… and not lifted too high from the keys’.16 I kept my elbows close and tried to limit big movements of the arms including the extension of the elbows outwards. The hand position naturally follows to turn outwards when the elbows are kept close to the body; and melodies, when going towards the outer octaves of the piano, would make use of the outwardly turned hand position with the music being led by the fingers. Hummel’s position pushed me to restrict the use of elbows, arms, and even fingers.

 

Modifying my approach by limiting the use of hand and arms, excluding large movements, and confining the work to mostly the fingers alleviated the unevenness in the playing as the stiff and forced tones did not attract as much attention anymore, and the tones became a little more even. However, playing too carefully resembled walking on eggshells, as the fortepiano requires a much lesser force and one needs to be aware not to go too soft as well, which Gunn described as ‘lacking depth’.17 On the other hand, over playing, exerting too much force, and using bigger muscle groups such as the forearm or the whole arm out of habit would jeopardize one’s playing, resulting in harsh and uncharacteristic tones.18 Therefore, one needs to find a good balance to fit the range offered by the instrument.

 

While a very different playing approach was needed for the extremely light touch and sensitive keys of the Rosenberger fortepiano, the stronger Graf fortepiano produced in 1826, presented a slightly more familiar touch compared to the Rosenberger, although the keys are still considered light, and exerting too much force onto the keys would harm the piano. While some of my own movements that were already deep-rooted in my playing can still be vaguely seen when attempting the Graf piano, I employed the use of perpendicular finger movements that were endorsed by Czerny and focused more on using the fingers rather than the arms, keeping the arms straight as Czerny instructed.19 Through video 1, it could be clearly seen that my arms were kept fairly straight from the elbow to the wrist and finger knuckles (see Figure 2), and perpendicular finger actions coming from the base of the fingers (see Figure 3) can also be consistently seen in playing. Transitioning from a modern piano, this technique can be more easily done on a period piano. Czerny’s technique of focusing on the fingers, keeping the arms straight, and avoiding unnecessary gestures were sufficient in producing an adequate effect on the sound and therefore, movements such as wrist rotations and the momentum of arms were not needed.

 

Although modern pianists who were used to much freedom in the movement of arms may consider these movements relatively more restricting, it does not make the body’s posture on the piano appear timid, nor does it cut back on the ability to play on the historical piano. On the other hand, it placed my body in an upright position where calmness can be greatly cultivated. The body appears more upright, with more sense of self-control in playing, especially in the mechanisms of the hand. These techniques made sure these elements were maintained in general, in playing both simple and complex or even challenging passages.

 

When I first learned these historical techniques, I recalled myself wondering if these techniques would even be a viable alternative approach, without beginning to consider challenging passages. I noticed that using my own techniques to play Hummel’s Fantasia was already not an easy task on modern piano, would simplifying or reducing the use of body and hand parts be a viable method? This exploratory experience highlighted a connection between the techniques and the instrument, especially that of Hummel’s techniques and the Rosenberger fortepiano, which I was not able to realize on modern piano despite it being the successor of a fortepiano. While the researched 19th century techniques without any relevant context may sound awkward, unnatural, and restrictive to modern pianists, they were used to complement the instruments, just as how large arm movements are used to maximise the full range of dynamics of a modern piano. It also demonstrated the possible intention and purpose of why the early 19th century techniques were much smaller with an emphasis on the fingers while the use of wrists, elbows, arms, and shoulder were considered extraneous and faced rejection. 

1.3.2 Micro Control of the Keys

 

Another role of the 19th century techniques that arose through my trials and attempts, was the ability to employ micro-level control on the keyboard. Due to the extreme differences in touch, it was no surprise that the control on a fortepiano would be very different as well, as Breitman said, one would ‘require focus on the micro level’.20 This can be especially true on older keyboard instruments such as the fortepiano. The magnitude of force put into playing by modern pianists are much larger than that required on a historical piano.

 

The realisation of the need for smaller movements and finer control was recorded in my reflection log from the 28th of November 2022. I wrote in my reflection log:

 

In following Leschetizky’s instruction of wrist upward movement in playing cantilena melody, I always thought it made sense when I was practicing as I think the swift upward movement would provide support to the wrist and finger when playing, enabling a more firm and powerful touch. However, I did not realise that I was approaching this technique from a more modern perspective. When I compare this swift upward movement of the wrist to the wrist exercise provided at the beginning(section 3) of Brée’s book, inconsistencies between the wrist movement that I attempted to realise and Brée’s instructions can be seen, as she noted that ‘on raising the wrist it does not rise higher than its original position’.21 However, I always ended up raising my wrist higher than the original position in my practice, consequenting in an almost straight arm and wrist, or having the wrist high in an arch. Therefore, the question, ‘can I raise my wrist higher than the original position when using the swift upward movement of the wrist in playing cantilena melody?’ arises.22

 

While this moment of realisation happened during my practice on a modern piano, my experience of the historical techniques on historical piano further confirmed the concept of micro control. When transitioning to a historical piano, the level of control and the sensitivity of touch will need to be expanded, and one would need to adapt to the instrument by changing the usual efforts into micro level efforts. Following my visit of the Dereck Adlam fortepiano on 27th of March 2023, I wrote:

 

I felt I was using larger joints because my smaller movements were not as sufficiently trained to execute them on a fortepiano, thus my instinctive reaction of using my original approach. But once I started playing on the keys, I learned the limit of the instrument and knew that the sound produced was already at its limit, and would not develop to how it would sound on a modern piano.23

 

Therefore, rather than exploring the louder range of the keyboard, it is more necessary to explore the softer range of dynamics. Also, after my attempt on the Erard piano (17th of February 2023), I wrote:

 

[…] the sound produced is quite sensitive to the touch. While it can go loud, it couldn’t withstand playing using the arm weight as the sound produced will be stiff, and not ringing. Assuming that our energy used in playing the usual modern piano is between level 5 to 10, one will need to explore level 2 to 7 on this piano. I was not used to controlling the softer range of the piano as I barely had any control over my hand or fingers; it is either too loud or a missed note. [...] The levels between my tones that are ‘too loud’ for soft dynamics and the missed notes are the gap in [the control of] dynamics that I do not possess, possibly because of the techniques and instruments that I have been using. The sensitivity needed especially in exploring soft dynamics are not parallel to what we use on a modern piano. My own techniques that I use on modern grand piano could be considered excessive. There is a limit to how much force you can apply on the keys, and there is a specific force that is enough for the tone produced to ring and resonate. Applying more than the force needed would only make it worse, leading to stiff notes.24

 

This again, showed that I needed more levels of control in the soft dynamics when playing on the Erard, which was difficult to achieve using modern techniques. Concepts of the 19th-century techniques that focused on smaller parts of the hand and restricted parts of the arm, such as the elbows, were to help refrain the hand from thumps and blows, and to prompt more delicate touches using micro level efforts. They also indicate the rough range of effort-dynamics that are useable within the boundary of the instrument.

 

While this section discussed two different historical instruments – a fortepiano and an Erard piano – which originated from different times in the 19th century, although possess similar characteristics where both needed a more delicate control, they would differ in range and magnitude. While a fortepiano that is extremely light and sensitive as mentioned above would produce a sound when the pianist accidentally touches an unneeded key, an Erard piano while also lighter compared to a modern piano, is not as sensitive as a fortepiano, and is nearer to the modern piano when placed on a spectrum. Therefore, using the modern approach did not seem to be as unfitting, and can almost pass on a mid-19th century piano. However, differences can still be felt and heard when period techniques are applied, revealing how they could be more appropriate on a historical instrument.

 

Although one of the main differences of using historical techniques is to be mindful of large body and hand movements, if we only limit our body movements while adhering to our original techniques, these techniques would not be viable as they cannot be utterly simplified into mere movements. However, submitting and surrendering your body to these smaller movements will help one realise which smaller part of the body or hands should then be used, leading to the nuances that were created through using these approaches. Through this, one can observe how these techniques help lead us in another direction of performing.

 

Ludwig Deppe’s feather-light hand technique that focused on using the arm and shoulder in carrying the hand and fingers naturally demonstrated a lighter touch.25 In learning these light touches, apart from having the upper arm carry the hand, while the hand carries the wrist, these finger touches help discover the layers of key depth as hands were hung from the wrist. When fingers were placed on the key without much tension with the upper arm carrying the hand, the weight of the shoulder and arm does not get transferred into the hand, therefore, when you carefully press in your first note, the fingers can feel the resistance of the keys. While not knowing how much force one would need, with a weaker control of smaller finger parts, one would slowly, little by little lean into the keys, pressing in just a little on the surface, and eventually progressing to the full depth of the key, exploring the interaction between fingers and keys using the feather-light hand technique. After a few practices, one would roughly grasp what is needed to produce the desired soft tones.

 

In connecting the notes, especially in playing melody lines where one note flows to the next, the interaction between fingers and keys became rather dependent on each other. As a modern pianist, I need to resist the urge to put more weight into the keys to make it louder. Instead, I needed to ensure the connectivity of one note to the next by making sure that these touches were not too harsh or stiff that the resonance of the tones was cut off before the next notes were sounded. This can be achieved through resonating tones created through the relaxed wrist, and light hands and arms.

 

The feather-light touches not only succeed on a modern piano, but also on a historical instrument, in an even clearer manner. This can be seen through the video below where I attempted the Erard piano using a combination of my own techniques and the researched techniques in different sections of Chopin’s Andante Spianato et Grande Polonaise Brillante. The beginning phrase of Andante Spianato was played with the right hand mainly with the feather-light hand technique. The right hand was carried by the shoulder and arm, and therefore floats above the keys. It can be seen that the hand hangs down from the wrist, creating weaker touches on the right hand. The palm acts as the control centre for the fingers, so fingers can control the touch or lightness desired. When observing the beginning of Andante Spianato, the posture of hand and the placement of my fingers on the piano was how I made sure the fingers sank into the key without striking, as Deppe requested. While they feel weaker, it draws out the sound of a fortepiano well (refer to Video 2 at 0:00-0:55).

 

These minute nuances of the hand would reveal the colours of the piano, making me feel bare or exposed, as these tones were different from the sonorous or louder tones I achieved from a modern piano. They felt rather light and empty, but the responsive touches created light and flowing tones on a historical piano. However, these nuances can also be easily overworked due to my own modern approach. While a few different shades of tones could be heard through the beginning part of Andante Spianato, I believe a greater variety of tone colours could be developed with more practice and experience with a more stable use of these touches.

 

On the other hand, I started the main theme of the Polonaise (see Figure 426) with my own techniques (refer to Video 2 at 05:19-06:24), and only used Deppe’s feather-light hand approach when the theme returns (refer to Video 2 at 11:12-12:15). The same theme played using two different approaches resulted in two different outcomes. When using my own techniques, circular motion and the extending of elbows were used especially on the right hand when the melody is being played. I tried to make the right-hand melody louder and brighter than the left-hand part. However, the result was that each attack of the note can be heard, and the ringing quality of the opening ‘G’ note was ‘killed’ (see Figure 4 and refer to video 2 at 05:19) and the same scenario occurred for multiple occasions. For example, the G note in bar 19 was also ineffective. My modern technique of extending the elbow must be too overwhelming where the overexerted tone did not sustain and connect to the following note. The Ab notes (circled in blue) in bar 21 that were accentuated, on the other hand, were at the verge of cracking. As a whole, the opening phrase performed with my own techniques had rather uneven tones with some over-accentuated, some more muffled or silenced, while some being at the brink of ‘cracking’. While the tone colour of the right-hand melody was generally brighter, unevenness in the melody can be observed. This demonstrated that although using my own technique where one presses deep into the key with the elbow extending outwards may produce a longer reverberating singing tone on a modern piano (see Figure 6), doing this on the Erard did not produce the same result.

 

However, in using Deppe’s approach where arm weight should be carried, sustained, and not pushed into the keys, the arm carries the forearm and the wrist could be seen to be raised (see Figure 5). As the touch of the Erard is lighter, it sounds slightly softer when using Deppe’s approach, leaving it softer than the left-hand accompaniment, however, the tones reverberate and produce a more ringing tone, retaining a better clarity (refer to video 2 at 11:12). While one can employ the usual efforts used on a modern piano on a historical piano, it pushes the limits of its dynamics and would articulate the attack on the keys, which is less helpful for a ringing quality. As a whole, using historical technique on same phrase presents a more flowing state, as opposed to the rather robust and vigorous playing style from using my own technique. Therefore, the researched techniques, through this artistic practice, supports the concept of ‘less is more’.

1.3.3 Overcoming Shorter Tone Decay

 

One of the most obvious characteristics between a fortepiano and a modern piano would be the tone. A tone produced on a fortepiano is less powerful than a modern piano and it directly affects the capability of sustaining a tone. Gunn pointed out the difference between a modern piano and a fortepiano saying that the tone for modern piano develops through four stages– attack, sustain, bloom and decay,27 while the tone from a fortepiano decays from the moment the hammer strikes the key. When measured scientifically, Breitman mentioned that a middle C played mf on his Steinway would sustain about four seconds, but the same note would diminuendo almost immediately on her Walter copy fortepiano.28 As a modern piano tone would sustain and bloom before decaying, this affects the pianists’ perception and expectation of the tones produced by a fortepiano. Breitman described the difference between modern piano and historical piano saying that the older instruments excel at ‘speaking’ while the modern ones gradually transitioned toward ‘painting’ as they were capable of long melodic lines and grand dynamic contrasts.29 This, in connection, shows the evolution of keyboard instruments from having a lesser ability to sustain and connect notes to the modern piano that are capable of sustaining tones despite being a percussive instrument.

 

This difference when placed in the context of piano playing, results in the change in tempo. For example, Pianist El Bacha, as cited in Chai, when playing on the 1836 replica of the first Steinway grand piano, reacted by saying ‘I find myself wanting to sing in every register … and often to play faster, pushed along by the response of the piano […]’.30

 

Because of these reasons mentioned above, when applying Leschetizky’s techniques that emphasized a lowly positioned wrist, I had trouble figuring out the difference when playing with a low wrist and without, and how this position makes a difference in cantilena melody as described by Brée. I began lowering my wrist intentionally when applying Leschetizky’s techniques on the modern piano, and when unsuccessful, I tried adjusting to different chair heights to match the hand position in hopes of understanding the ‘trick of the trade’ of this hand technique. However, the resulting kinaesthetic sensation and after-thoughts collected from the experience were noted as below(from the 16th and 28th of November 2022 respectively): ‘playing with the sinking wrist feels like the flow of energy was interrupted at the sunk wrist, not being able to transfer the energy through to the hand and hence relying on the use of fingers when playing’,31 and ‘I couldn’t help but wonder, is this how one should place his hand on the piano, but not how it should be when playing? Am I sitting too low? Should I adjust the chair height to make it higher? When the seat is higher, would it be more natural for the wrist to be lower than the knuckles?’.32

 

Nonetheless, I continued to practice with this hand position, hoping to gain some insight through practicing. However, this can all be easily explained when they are done on a historical piano such as the Erard. I applied different parts of the piece using different 19th century techniques, and Leschetizky’s low wrist technique was used in bars 21 to 34 of the Chopin Andante Spianato(00:56-01:26), as well as around bars 115 – 120 of the Polonaise(09:17 -09:27) in video 2 after which it slowly fades into my own techniques. Not only that, the ‘impeded flow of energy’ was not felt or mentioned in my reflection log, but it also made it easier for me to execute the legato lines and gave a more legato effect, and this can especially be seen in the former example. The low position of the wrist made the link between notes more connected with minimal movement of the fingers. Different from Deppe’s feather-light hand that produces lighter and flowy tones, it suited the cantabile melody more as the low wrist, supporting the fingers, gives a deeper touch and perception. This analysis could only be seen through applying the techniques on a historical instrument as the tone decay was shorter and therefore, the logic behind this technique presented itself. These low wrist positions and swift upward wrist movements motivated a more supple wrist. The wrist would need to be in a relaxed state to be able to perform these movements which helps in avoiding overpowered touches that would then lead to harsh and disconnected tones. Where the wrist was tensed, a heavier touch or thump could be applied on the keyboard, resulting in forced tones. These tones produced using the wrist were loud enough to be used on a melody line, but not too harsh that they sounded forced, or stopped.

 

1.3.4 Dynamics

 

The micro effort and micro control from quiet movements and approaches directly informs us of the different dynamic range of the historical instrument. One example of the inclination towards softer dynamics can be seen through Chopin’s words in his letter below that showed the frustration and dislike of harsh playing.

 

‘If I'm in the middle of a letter I can't bear it when the bell rings and in strides a huge, fully-grown, powerful, bewhiskered creature who sits down at the piano, improvises God knows what, storms, bangs like a madman, writhes about, crosses his hands and hammers on one note for fully five minutes with one enormous finger which Heaven intended for holding the whip and reins of some farmsteward away in the Ukraine - such is the portrait of Sowinski [1805-80] who has no other merits than a good appearance and a kind heart. Never could I have a better opportunity of conceiving what is meant by charlatanism or stupidity in art than just now, when I so often have to listen to him as I move about my room while getting washed. I blush to the ears'.33

 

Due to the instruments that Chopin was using, his level of dynamics differed from our understanding and were relatively quieter. Badura-Skoda’s table, mentioned in Eigeldinger, suggested that Chopin’s ff would correspond to our mf, mf with mp, and p with pp-ppp, while pp would almost be inaudible to us. Jean Jacques-Eigeldinger was in support of Badura Skoda’s interpretation and said that one has to take into account Chopin’s dynamics when adapting them onto present pianos for an authentic interpretation and the composer’s aesthetic of sonority.34 If this is the case, it would only make sense for modern pianist to keep this in consideration when transitioning from a modern piano to a historical piano as well.

 

Frederick mentioned the ‘big’ sound was neither what the composers of Chopin’s generation expected nor what they wanted, simply because period pianos do not produce the same sounds.35 The sound that we are used to today on a modern piano, especially in terms of romantic repertoire, is different from that of the 19th century, mainly due to the instrument. The modern techniques used on modern piano did not include the techniques for p or pp on the fortepiano, and furthermore, the soft dynamic levels of the fortepiano could not be realized on a modern piano due to advancements in the instrument. These soft dynamic levels beyond the range of the modern piano thus became an unchartered territory for modern pianists (see Figure 3). Therefore, one needs to expect a different sound and to also use a slightly different approach in playing a historical piano.

 

To better illustrate this phenomenon, the difference in dynamics was observed while playing on the Dereck Adlam fortepiano (29th of March 2023), after which I wrote:

 

In terms of dynamics, I think these techniques help us adapt to the dynamic range that is appropriate to the instrument instead of expecting the instrument to react like a modern piano. If one uses the modern approach, he will be pushing the limits of the piano, forcing the dynamics to the extreme, which will only hinder the production of optimal or desirable tones (see below, video 4). Using concepts that was emphasized in 19th century techniques such as keeping a quiet hand and focusing on the finger joints make the exploration of different soft qualities of tones from the fortepiano possible (see below, video 3) although it was not easy (coming from a background of a pianist).

 

I sometimes practice a small section with gentle touches that do not really involve larger muscle groups like the arm or elbow, but incorporating this into my playing is still a challenge. This is because these sensitive dynamics were significantly softer and more delicate than the soft tones that we produce using una corda on a modern piano. The correlation or reciprocity between the touch used and the tones produced using 19th century techniques were beyond our usual control on how we navigate a modern piano.36

1.3.5 Phrasing

 

The 19th century techniques, apart from guiding us to the suitable effort and dynamic range of the instrument, also indirectly affects the phrasing through a different hand movement. A different approach in shaping a phrase and the sense of direction in a phrase was evidently demonstrated in the video recording that I took during my practice on the Dereck Adlam fortepiano (see below, video 6) and also when I performed on a modern grand piano (see below, video 5). I noted in my reflection log(29th March 2023):

 

After two days of using the fortepiano, I think I discovered something more in-depth—the relationship between the performer and the performance when using 19th century techniques. Through my experience, I think these techniques provide a different approach for phrasing music and offers an alternative to creating soft dynamics that we are not used to. While I remember using the elbows and wrists to phrase the first movement of the sonata especially at the end of the phrase (on a modern piano), when I was using 19th century techniques and tried to phrase them the same way, I realized that I am only phrasing the music with my fingers at the end of a phrase, instead of using a scooping action of the arm to phrase it, resulting in a different direction of phrasing the music as well. Modern techniques would present a forward pushing effort in showing the direction of the phrase, while the 19th century techniques were rather lifted and straight forward, without too much push.37

 

My usual way of shaping the phrases of the first movement of Mozart’s Sonata in D, K.576 involves extending the elbows and lifting the wrists, especially at the first few phrases (see video 5, 00:04-00:05, 00:07-00:08, 00:26-00:27, etc). As a result of using my own techniques, the phrase endings were slightly stretched due to the hand movements where the elbows extend outwards. These movements resulted in a rather circuitous approach that gives an illusion that the phrase endings were slightly extended and emphasised. However, due to the emphasis of the fingers and finger joints, and the omission of large movements such as the extension of the elbow and lifting the wrist and arm when applying 19th century techniques, I resorted to relying on mostly the fingers for phrasing (refer to video 6, 00:06-00:07, 00:12-00:13, 00:24-00:25, etc). While my old habit of stretching the phrase endings can still be vaguely felt, the historical techniques that did not include extraneous movements, little by little, guided me back to the more direct approach of the 19th century. I believe it helps us eliminate superfluous aspects of our playing that we gained in the later period, and regain the rudimentary, simplistic, and natural playing style. Historical techniques with direct movements did not dwell on these notes, but rather propel forward to the next phrase of the music.

In another example, my technique on modern pianos that enabled the expression of the direction of the phrase, the notes from upbeat to bar 28 to 29 (see Figure 838 ) were executed through a slight crescendo within the phrase towards the highest note E6 (see Video 5, 00:44-00:48). When applying the same intention on a fortepiano, it was affected by the application of 19th century techniques where the direction of the phrase shows lesser of a push but presented a more straightforward approach without much crescendo built within the phrase as well (see Video 6, 00:43- 00:47).

In playing semiquavers (see Figure 939) in a moderate or quick tempo, I always incorporate minute finger movements without much use of wrist or arm to avoid bumps or stuck notes. I also noticed that when focusing on historical techniques that mainly uses light fingers, the accentuation of notes, especially on the strong beats were lesser on the fortepiano. In video 5 (at 4:08-4:11), I accentuate on the stronger beats where a heavier tone can be heard on the first note of every group of the semiquavers (circled in blue). The fortepiano on the other hand (video 6 at 4:03-4:07), creates a smoother line. In the case of the right-hand part of bars 97 and 98, the descending contour of the right-hand part was more apparent.

From bars 138 to 143 where the texture of the music was more contrapuntal (see Figure 1040), I performed forte at the upbeat to bar 138 on both modern and historical piano, without surprise, while both were forte, the timbre was different. However, in bar 139 where the right hand has descending semiquaver patterns, these semiquavers were organized and played quite mechanically where the strong beats can be clearly felt on the first note of each set of semiquavers, with each individual note more clearly executed with my own techniques (refer to Video 5 at 5:14- 5:24). When using historical techniques, these quavers rolled downwards as if they were surging waves, especially with the help of the left hand where it starts with an ascending skip before moving downwards, which also happened in the second half of the bar. It gave an impression of one wave followed immediately by another before merging as the descending semiquavers happened twice in a bar (refer to Video 6 at 5:08- 5:17). Historical technique of the minute finger actions would help group the first six semiquavers into one movement, and the next six as another, as opposed to how I played it on a modern piano with my own techniques where each semiquaver was treated individually, ensuring even tones. When one considers the broader perspective, I performed on the modern piano with a very long phrasing from the upbeat to bar 138 all the way to bar 143. While this long phrase can be divided into three parts of 2 bars per section, it was not clearly executed especially in the last four bars of the section as they sounded as if they were one section. As I prepared this on a modern piano before trying these pieces on a historical piano, I phrased this section similarly on a historical instrument. However, the three parts of the larger phrase can be more clearly heard due to the texture of the composition, and the difference in techniques applied on these different textures, as well as the tone colours of the fortepiano. When playing the quaver sections, the techniques used were similar to those on a modern piano, but in playing the semiquavers, the smaller movements of the fingers used created the effect mentioned above, separating the quavers from the semiquavers, and in a way, helped clarify the three smaller sections of the long phrase. (Refer to video 6 at 05:08 and video 5 at 05:14)

 

Moving forward to bar 144 where the same musical idea was presented twice, with the second time played an octave higher in bar 146, they were also performed differently on modern and historical piano. As I focused on presenting this section by highlighting the timbre from different octaves, there was only a small difference in dynamics on a modern piano. On the other hand, apart from the already strikingly different timbre between the registers of the fortepiano, I also used more finger action for the former on lower register, and much lesser finger action on higher register as I hoped that it may lead to an extra delicate sound especially with the distinctive timbre of each register (Refer to video 6 at 05:17 and video 5 at 05:23).

 

Despite my scarce experience on historical instruments, the response to the micro level touches of the fingers was the contrasting change in tone and dynamics from a powerful tone to a thin and delicate character that was absent in modern piano. These experiences not only helped me navigate the capacity of the instruments or provide a different approach to performing, it also showed possible reasons behind composing the same musical idea an octave higher, offering insights beyond dynamics and phrasing.

 

1.4 Discussion and Reflection

 

1.4.1 Restrictions Reversed

 

Due to the lack of appropriate historical instruments, I would apply and practice the period techniques on a modern piano before my historical piano visits, and the difference created by these techniques were usually less significant, and the process would be more of a struggle at times because of the heavy keys. However, when I played on the Pleyel piano using Deppe’s techniques during my visit, I felt that using period techniques on period instrument was much easier than using them on a modern grand piano. This is because I did not need to exert that much force onto the keyboard as too heavy a touch would then create stiff sound. Therefore, period techniques that were quite restrictive on modern grand piano are in fact more useable on period instruments. The lighter keys of a period instruments also helped in that regard. After attempting the Pleyel piano for the second time, where I used mostly Deppe’s techniques especially on right-hand melody (see Video 7), I noted in my reflection log on 17th February 2023:

 

I played using Ludwig Deppe’s feather-light hand technique and tried to keep the touch lighter. I tried to hang the hand from the wrist and carry the hand and forearm from the upper arm, and play without a blow from the finger(mostly). It was actually sufficient, but I feel the piano could take a little more than that if it was in good condition but that would be pushing the piano’s limit. I can understand why Chopin41 said that one can mould or shape the tone on the Pleyel while the Erard has a ready tone, and that he would play on the Erard when he was tired.42

Also, in an occasion where I put in too much force on an Erard, then reverting to period techniques, I felt something different from what I usually experience on a modern grand piano. I noted in my reflection log after my visit:

 

I find (at some sections) it was easier for me to creep into using period techniques or adopting some concepts of period techniques than using my own techniques, which was the opposite of playing the same piece on a modern piano. I believe this has something to do with the keys on the Erard, there was less resistance than the modern piano, and this was especially felt after witnessing the tone produced with excessive force. I do not need to go to the lengths of the vigorous movements or forceful attacks that are used on a modern piano.

 

On the last day of my visit to try out the Dereck Adlam fortepiano(29th March 2023), I wrote:

 

One of the most important observations would be that these techniques that I consider restrictive and weak on a modern grand piano were not at all restrictive on a fortepiano as I was able to practice hours using these techniques. They are, on the other hand, vital to these instruments and much suited to the light keys.43

 

Therefore, the restrictive, and sometimes weak sensation from attempts of 19th century techniques on modern piano are in fact, reasonable and more applicable on a historical instrument. Not only that, when paired together, the relevance, relationships, and logic behind these techniques became self-explanatory.

1.4.2 Technique as a Guide

 

An important detail uncovered from this artistic research was how technique in this case became the ‘measuring stick’, providing the frame of reference for the appropriate effort and dynamic range for the instrument. This impression was also observed after my attempt on Erard and Pleyel piano, where I noted down some points regarding the relationship between techniques and instrument that I acquired.

 

After this experience, while I thought using these period techniques on modern piano were restrictive, using modern techniques on period instruments would also make one feel confined or restrained. For example, having practiced all this while on a modern piano, I would want to play a loud section with all the energy that I reserved for that section, but it would end up feeling anticlimactic as I only applied, say, ¼ of the force onto the Erard.

 

Through this study it is obvious that techniques provide a rough concept of the potential of the instrument and help the performer explore the possibilities of it. For example, the early 19th century techniques lead one to perform without extraneous body and hand movements to enable the use of micro control efforts, which suits the light and responsive touch of the instrument. From the perspective of a modern pianist, it helps one forgo unnecessary movements of the hand and arms, and to recalibrate and adjust the focus towards the fingers and finger joints, which would be a better match to the optimal range of an early 19th century fortepiano. The advancement of techniques which explores the use of wrists and hand in the late 19th century, although is still far from what we know today, showed how the development of techniques go hand in hand with the advancement of the instrument as well.

 

At times, the role of techniques as a guide happens more than we know. Ishimura, through her personal experience on the historical pianos in search of new knowledge that can inform her approaches in performing on the modern piano, noticed a change in her hand position and movements from a more rounded shape of the palm with perpendicular finger and a higher wrist, to flatter fingers (not as perpendicular) and a lower positioned wrist due to her urge of holding the notes longer and maintaining a stronger legato to mitigate the shorter decay of tones on the fortepiano.44 The change in hand position enabled her to hold the notes with the finger for slightly longer, overlapping the second note with the first, producing a smoother legato. While it was the faster decay of tone in the fortepiano that instinctively led her to position the wrist lower, this specific hand position was also coincidentally one of the late-19th century techniques taught by Theodore Leschetizky, where he emphasized placing the wrist low and explored the use of wrist by lowering and raising it.45 While the low wrist hand position can also be used on the modern piano today, it hardly provides such insights obtained by Ishimura as it has a much better ability in sustaining notes. The link between the instrument and the techniques taught are very tightly intertwined, and these relationships emerge through the experience on a historical instrument.

1.4.3 Overlapping Set of Techniques

Techniques for modern piano and techniques from 19th century were considered an overlapping set with an intersection of common techniques (refer to Figure 11). When one looks at the seating position and techniques from the late 18th or early 19th century, it feels familiar to what we have. However, certain playing techniques from the 19th century have progressively been discontinued with the advancement of instruments, while modern techniques were slowly developed. The 19th century techniques that were not carried forward onto modern piano were typically techniques that were more restrictive and catered towards very delicate touch and light keys that are no longer realistic on the modern piano. On the other hand, the developed modern techniques were only played on modern pianos which are much heavier compared to 19th century historical pianos as they are far too powerful for the older instrument. It is more common to see fortepianists perform on both historical instruments and modern instruments than modern pianists on a historical instrument. Ishimura mentioned that when a concert pianist performs on a historical instrument, they tend to perform as one would on a modern piano, which then leads to an ineffective way of drawing out of the distinctive timbre of period instruments.46 This again showed the roles of different techniques needed on different instruments. One can only assume that the same phenomena would occur if the roles were reversed. Fortepianists who were only trained on historical instruments may face difficulty playing a modern concert grand piano equipped with heavy keys. Therefore, when reimagining the use of 19th century techniques on historical instruments from the perspective of a modern pianist, it is not what was similar that helped one approach the fortepiano, but rather what needs to be eliminated or reduced.

1.5 Conclusion

 

While these researched historical techniques provided a starting point to this paper, they have led to discoveries of other aspects involved in a performance. The revelations discussed above, especially in terms of phrasing and dynamics could not have revealed themselves to a modern pianist if not for the first-hand experience of historical techniques on historical instruments. Learning historical techniques and applying them on appropriate historical instruments placed us in the shoes of these pedagogues, or as the students of these pedagogues, as though we are having lessons on how to approach the instruments by studying the instructions they passed down, although the approach tends to be rather one-sided without having feedback or communication from them. It is hoped that this study could help modern pianists enhance their impression and perception of playing techniques by offering a perspective into the playing techniques of 19th century, and some of the possible notions behind them. While the 19th century techniques may not be transferred directly onto a modern piano, this study recorded the initial learning experiences of applying historical techniques on historical piano as a modern pianist and attempts to clarify the role and function of these techniques and at the same time share the experiences of interacting with these instruments. The impact of these techniques on other elements such as dynamics and phrasing, as well as the presented approaches to performing on historical instruments also provided new perspectives on the relationship between instruments, techniques, and the performer. This paper includes not only different approaches but also an idea of the response of the instruments that may be valuable to modern pianists who would like to attempt historical piano. At the same time, it also contributes somewhat towards historically informed piano performance.

 

A historically informed performance in general takes into consideration all useful information of faithfulness to historical accuracies such as historical background, musical treatises, reviving performance practices, historical instrumentation, and many more. For such an endeavour, using a historical instrument offers the basic components such as the tones, timbre, and tuning of the instrument alongside the thought of using a replica of the composer’s instrument, supported by additional elements such as performance practices, techniques and interpretation that relied upon the performer to construct a multifaceted historically informed performance. The historical techniques covered in this paper cultivate the latter to help support the former, especially for modern pianists.

 

These historical techniques taught me to not just scale down the techniques that I am currently using but offer another way of playing to embrace the instruments at hand and an alternative solution to us modern pianists for their music. These exploratory actions have allowed me as a modern pianist to delve into the subtle nuances, shadings, and touches that were offered by historical instruments with the help of historical techniques. While my own techniques would easily let me play in the louder extreme on a historical piano, historical techniques helped in showing the other end of this extreme by detailing more subtle nuances, and gentler approaches that produce different effort-dynamic relationships.

 

It also develops the artistic ability of a pianist, offering a way to expand one’s range of dynamics and different solutions of playing approaches to the music we encounter, and most importantly, it develops the versatility of tone colours and touches that grow with each experience. Furthermore, the historical techniques that were considered ‘restricting’ and ‘limiting’ at first also facilitate improvements in the precision of action, preventing unneeded or incorrect notes from excessive movements in piano playing, which not only applies to historical piano playing but also to modern piano.

 

Historical techniques help a modern pianist adapt to using historical instruments, allowing one to enjoy and embrace the different tone colours offered by each register, the array of dynamic levels, and various ways of grouping notes that would lead to alternative phrasings. While this study only offers insights into the very initial stage of applying historical techniques on historical instruments, it only revealed the tip of the iceberg. However, the embodiment process and one’s experience on these instruments if continued over a longer timeframe, may lead to new discoveries and insights.

Bibliography

 

Brée, Malwine, The Groundwork of the Leschetizky Method, trans. by TH. Baker (New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1905) <https://s9.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/5/56/IMSLP392739-PMLP635599-Bree,_Malwine_-_The_Groundwork_of_the_Leschetizky_Method.pdf>

 

Breitman, David, Piano-Playing Revisited: What Modern Players Can Learn from Period Instruments (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2021)

 

Caland, Elizabeth, Artistic Piano Playing as Taught by Ludwig Deppe Together with Practical Advice on Questions of Technique, trans. by Evelyn Sutherland Stevenson (New York: G. Schirmer, 1903) <https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100340903> [accessed 4 April 2023]

 

Chai, Shuann, ‘Documenting Replication, Replicating Sound?’, Music & Practice, 1 <https://www.musicandpractice.org/volume-1/documenting-replicating-sound/> [accessed 2 May 2023]

 

Chopin, Frederic, Album Des Pianistes de Premiere Force No.34 Grande Polonaise Brillante, Precedee d’un Andante Spianato, Pour Le Pianoforte (London: Wessel & Co) <https://vmirror.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/0/09/IMSLP535492-PMLP3809-Chopin_op._22.pdf>

 

Czerny, Carl, Complete Theoretical and Practical Pianoforte School, Op500, trans. by J. A Hamilton (London: R. Cocks, 1839), i

 

Doğantan-Dack, Mine, ‘The Piano as Artistic Collaborator’, in Rethinking the Musical Instrument (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2022), pp. 1–14 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358369084_The_Piano_as_Artistic_Collaborator> [accessed 14 April 2023]

 

Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques, Chopin: Pianist and Teacher: As Seen by His Pupils, ed. by Roy Howat, trans. by Naomi Shohet, Krysia Osostowicz, and Roy Howat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)

 

Frederick, Edmund M., ‘The “Romantic” Sound in Four Pianos of Chopin’s Era’, 19th-Century Music, 3.2 (1979), 150–53 <https://doi.org/10.2307/746286>

 

Gunn, Donna Louise, Discoveries from the Fortepiano: A Manual for Beginning and Seasoned Performers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016)

 

Hummel, Johann Nepomuk, A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instructions on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte (London: T. Boosey, 1828), i <https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemId=28625> [accessed 2 March 2021]

 

Ishimura, Jun, ‘Creating a New Interpretation of Chopin’s Piano Music Using a Comparison of Modern and Historical Instruments through the Performance of the Second Piano Sonata’ (unpublished doctoral, Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance, 2020) <https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/25198/> [accessed 20 March 2023]

 

Kobb, Christina, ‘Viennese Piano Technique of the 1820s and Implications for Today’s Pianists’, Music and Practice, 2019 <https://www.musicandpractice.org/volume-4/viennese-piano-technique-of-the-1820s-and-implications-for-todays-pianists/> [accessed 19 October 2020]

 

Lui, Hui Han, Reflection Log (unpublished), 2022

 

Lui, Hui Han, Reflection Log (unpublished), 2023

 

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, Mozarts Werke Serie XX: Sonaten Und Phantasien Für Das Pianoforte, ed. by Otto Goldschmidt, Joseph Joachim, Carl Reinecke, Ernst Rudorff, and Paul Waldersee (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1878) <https://vmirror.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e8/IMSLP56445-PMLP01859-Mozart_Werke_Breitkopf_Serie_20_KV576.pdf>

 

Taruskin, Richard, ‘The Authenticity Movement Can Become a Positivistic Purgatory, Literalistic and Dehumanizing’’, Early Music, 12.1 (1984), 3–12

 

Weyman, Wesley, ‘The Science of Pianoforte Technique’, The Musical Quarterly, 4.2 (1918), 168–73

 

Willis, Andrew, ‘Jouez Le Fortepiano!: An Interview with Malcolm Bilson’, 2006 <https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/listing.aspx?id=17563> [accessed 14 April 2023]