I just can't follow people who think they, or any other contempories could equal Chopin's or Liszt's technique, it's blasphemy, or is it just the ignoble who think they own the world, to even doubt Chopin's ability to play his own etudes, the arrogance to compare that to Brahms not being able to executie his violinconcerto, of course he couldn't, it's like doubting Shakespeare ever existed, I can think of even worse denials, but, there are (written) examples, Schumann wrote about it, Chopin wrote about it, and the geniuses that made us happy with those masterpieces must have played them themselves, one cannot just invent only on paper that what changes the world, am I being overzealous? YES, sorry...

I can't even imagine why it's so important...what difference does it make?

At any rate, the point that some of us are trying to make is NOT whether Chopin could or couldn't play his etudes, but the simple rational fact that the existence of a piece of music doesn't automatically mean the composer can perform it. It just doesn't. And therefore, the existence of Chopin's etudes doesn't automatically mean that he could play them. I think the chances are probably close to 100% that he could, at least when he wrote them, but so what? They have been, and continue to be, incredibly valuable to legions of pianists and listeners and composers, regardless of what one knows about Chopin's playing, or thinks they know.

I don't think you are. For me -at least- it is well established that Chopin could play any of his piano works.

If he left no recordings, I don't think that is important. Elsner (his one time teacher), and Mendelssohn and Schumann (no fools there) all praised his playing.

Moscheles was reportedly mystified by Chopin's compositions until he heard Chopin play.

Then of course you get Hallé -who knew Chopin personally- and his remark 'but with such wonderful nuances'.

Case closed.

I was with you till that last thing.

Me too.

You're not being overzealous, dolce. I'm with you. There is no doubt that Chopin could play his own works and I said so earlier in another post. I'm not sure anyone is doubting that he was able to (of course there will always be some idiot that wants to be noticed). But in regard to your first sentence, "I just can't follow people who think they, or any other contempories could equal Chopin's or Liszt's technique...", I disagree, unless of course I'm misunderstanding you in overall context. Liszt and Chopin's technique wouldn't stand up to today's instruments and conservatory kids (and many before conservatory age) now possess technique that would run circles around not only Liszt and Chopin, but anyone they'd have been familiar with. This is not a knock against Franz, or Fred, nor is it blasphemy... it's just a simple fact.

On what evidence are you basing this? Especially in the case of Liszt-- given access to a modern piano and some time to adapt, I'd bet he would be there and with a musicality these "conservatory kids" couldn't touch.

Absolutely. Rather silly to ask.



Probably not, because today's instruments are not comparable to the instruments he used to play.

I agree that given time Liszt, would adapt (were he to come back during his prime). I'm not saying all conservatory kids, but a LOT of them (more than ever before) possess technique the likes of which simply wasn't to be found during Liszt's time. No one mentioned musicality (which SHOULD be included)...the question was about technique.

I once possessed a fine 1848 Broadwood grand of the model played by Chopin in London that same year. Its key-resistance was comparable to that of a modern grand, but (like most pianos manufactured before that date) its key-depth was very considerably shallower. It had the typical "English" action (patented by Broadwood decades earlier) which, for all its astonishing simplicity, I found well adequate for playing the fast repeated-note "frissu" passage in Liszt's 13th Rhapsody and other such passages. Chopin's own (and favourite make of) piano was a Pleyel, with an action essentially of the "English" type.

The "Viennese" action, familiar to Mozart, Beethoven, Hummel, Czerny and others (and much liked by Schumann and Brahms), had less key-resistance, but its capacity for repetition fell far short of the "English" type, largely due to its being mounted on the key rather than the piano-frame. (It would be interesting to know the tempo at which Czerny himself could actually manage his numerous repeated-note exercises on such actions!)

The "state-of-the-art" action in Chopin's day was the double-escapement type, patented by Erard in 1821, from which the modern grand-piano action evolved. Favoured by Liszt, Alkan and others, it was invented specifically with the aim of maximizing the capacity for fast repetition.

(For further info on the history of piano-actions, I'd heartily recommend the "Pianoforte" entry in New Grove.)

As regards whether Chopin would have been able to play his Etudes on a modern grand, I've no doubt whatsoever that he would have, after a certain degree of acclimatization. Although his playing was founded on the light, small-muscle powered finger-touch that served ideally for the harpsichord and early pianos, the same applied for other leading pianists of that period (and would continue to be the accepted norm until the 1860s) who successfully managed to adjust this touch to the increasingly heavy and deep piano-actions that appeared over the course of their lifetimes. (NB: the notion that this touch-form was no longer applicable for playing these newer piano-actions was perpetrated by German piano-teachers, initially Lebert and Stark, and subsequently others like Deppe and Breithaupt - not by the virtuosi! In Russia and France, technical training remained based upon small-muscle powered finger-touch (cf videos of Horowitz & Cortot, for example), and, thanks to the work of Ortmann and Schultz in the 1920s and 30s, its well-suitedness to the modern piano has been re-discovered more generally. That re-discovery, I'm quite convinced, accounts more than any other factor for the astonishing number of pyro-technicians around today.)

That's a stupid remark -- Beethoven could almost certainly not have played his Violin Concerto, Mozart his Clarinet Concerto, Brahms his String Quartets (any instruments). Beethoven could not have played any of the wind parts in his symphonies. A good composer learns to write for instruments which he cannot play. This is quite common knowledge.

Moreover, even if Chopin was bending the accepted capabilities of the instrument, that is not unusual for composers writing for instruments which they cannot play. That's probably more likely to happen. Beethoven's friend, who was to debut one of his later string quartets, complained that it was unplayable. He remarked "you think I care about your stupid fiddle when the muse strikes me?"

But, and here it gets into somewhat different territory, questions arise about how idiomatic instrumental writing may be, and whether a composer is deliberately expanding the technical capabilities of an instrument, or if that occurs as a by-product of the kind of music they want to write.

I think it is generally true that the more intimate a composer's knowledge of an instrument is (i.e., how experienced they are at playing it), the better equipped they are to write music that will explore and exploit subtle aspects of technique. Which of course, doesn't mean that they must be able to play what they write. And many composers routinely consult with instrumentalists about technical matters to help make their music more playable and idiomatic, especially when composing a virtuosic work like a concerto.

I am pretty sure Stravinsky couldn't give an adequate performance of his 3 Scenes from Petrushka, which broke some new technical ground, but he was a good enough pianist to perform his piano concerto. His knowledge of how to write for the instrument was thoroughly grounded in practical experience, which enabled him to write for it in ways in the 3 Scenes that I am guessing he wouldn't have done if he didn't play it at a reasonably advanced level.

Indeed, and then of course Hindemith, if he did not know how to play a particular instrument, would take a few weeks off to learn it!

What an incredible musician he must have been.

For all that, I do enjoy a lot of Hindemith's music, but after a while it all feels a bit neutral and pale in its appeal. All those busy inner voices, then he decides 'that's enough', and comes to an abrupt cadence.

Richard Strauss famously told Hindemith: 'you have talent, why do you write like this?'

And there is a point. After one piece of Hindemith, I don't particularly feel any burning desire to listen to another one. The thought of a whole concert of Hindemith -as opposed to Strauss- might be a rather chilly affair.

, there is also the story of a woodwind instrumentalist confronting Richard Strauss about the difficulties in one of his tone poems.

'Well, sir, this may be possible to play on the piano, but not on my instrument'.

Strauss: 'Don't worry, it's not possible on the piano either'.

Wow! What an answer!

It feels like that Woody Allen movie where a guy is saying this-and-that about "Marshall McLuhan," and Woody Allen says, well, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here....

You are our Marshall McLuhan for that question about repeated notes.

Some years ago I stayed for a week and a half in an apartment that had a well-maintained vintage Erard -- exactly how vintage, I didn't know, but I think it was said to be from around 1880. But I just punted on the repeated-note question because I don't remember exactly how that was on the Erard. I do remember that I didn't notice any issue about it (and I did notice other things that were issues!) so I'd guess this aspect was quite comparable to modern grands. Besides not being sure about that, I realize that anyway there may have been advances in the Erard's mechanics from the earlier part of the century.

Well, Liszt's technique wasn't to be found during Liszt's time-- until Liszt. I find it hard to believe that the Liszt who wrote and played the earlier (much more difficult) versions of the TE's would not be able to handle the demands of anything the "conservatory kids" are doing-- and wipe the floor with them musically. (and yes, we're talking about technique, but if one can't execute it musically, who cares? )

The earlier versions of the Paganini etudes were also more difficult so I tend to agree that maybe Liszt was one of the first that became committed to technique in way that almost all of his contemporaries weren't. On the other hand, haven't the physical feats of previous generations always been bested? We run faster, jump higher, etc. etc., than ever before. Why would piano be different? I sometimes find it amusing to think that if we could travel back in time, we might be profoundly disappointed. Maybe Liszt or Thalberg couldn't win an amateur competition today.

I agree.

Warning: Baseball analogy coming up.

The discussion reminds me of some baseball arguments, where people wonder how (for example) Babe Ruth would have done in today's game. The doubters talk about what a different game it is today, with the overall level much higher (which it is). Someone like Babe Ruth soared above his contemporaries to an extent that he probably couldn't have done today, but I have to believe he would still be a standout. And I have to believe it is likewise with any such historic over-the-top talent, absolutely including Liszt and Chopin. Liszt, because he was more than just someone who played great -- he was (from anything that we know about him) a pianistic genius with over-the-top physical pianistic skills and instincts; and Chopin because he was essentially creating an approach and sound that hadn't existed and doing it in a way that nobody else could -- and I believe he still would, in any era -- and (again, from anything we know) he had a mechanism fully adequate for those highly demanding ends.

A good point.

I have heard recordings of the earlier versions of the TE's, and they are hardly convincing. One looks at those scores with a longing: if Liszt could indeed play them as written (big IF), then I don't think his technique has been exceeded.

Look at those HUGE rolled chords at the 'Grandioso' in the 11th etude. No doubt Liszt was wise to subsequently simplify, but if he really pulled off the original as written -and he may have- then his technique fully matches the legend.

Have you heard anyone but Leslie Howard try?

Yes, actually. Cannot remember her name (Joyce something... not Hatto) but long OOP. Doesn't come up on Amazon or Archiv, but I think it came out in the early '90's. I'm sure I heard it as a student, that was enough.

I recall that Arrau also claimed that the Douze Grandes Etudes were impossible on a modern instrument. He probably attempted a few of them, considering how huge his musical appetite was.

Speaking of Hatto, it might be interesting to dump Howard's recording into audacity and "fix" it, record it onto a wax cylinder and claim it was Liszt.

Does Audacity have a "fix boring" function though? Sorry, I couldn't resist!

People in general are larger than 200 years ago-- better nutrition, fewer diseases and other factors contribute. But size and muscle mass are not as crucial to the piano as they are to track and field or basketball and would likely not make as much difference as they have to sports. Human physiology as applied to the piano has not changed all that much (if any) since Liszt.

(emphasis added)

Can't tell what percent wry you are being.


In case it's zero percent:

(Liszt's Douze Grandes Etudes), 'cause Argerichfan brought up how they're still a testament to how Liszt's technique remains at a level beyond today's piano virtuosos..

Looking on youtube for the s.137 versions, I found someone already took it upon themselves to speed up Howard's efforts.

Might it have been Eileen Joyce? She was, according to Jeremy Siepmann, "... a Lisztian of both poetry and bravura." See Wikipedia for more details about her renown.

Regards,