Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner avoiding use of sustaining pedal when playing Mozart

A piano teacher that I know told me that Mozart's piano music should be played entirely without pedal (i.e. sustaining pedal). This applies to actual performances of the piece for an audience, not just for practicing the piece.

This seems like a radically extreme position to me. I understand why one would want to be careful to not use too much pedal in playing Mozart. In addition, it is often helpful to practice sections without using any pedal. However, it does not seem right to play complete works of Mozart in a polished performance for an audience without using any pedal. FWIW, historical accounts indicate that Mozart used pedaling when playing his works, although the pedaling mechanism and sound produced on the pianos of Mozart's time are different from those on modern pianos.

How common is it to avoid the use of all pedal when performing Mozart? I surmise that the vast majority of pianists would want to use at least some pedal. How would you feel about a teacher who strongly insisted that students play Mozart entirely without using any pedaling?

I'd disregard this idea, exactly because it's extremely radical.

Then again I sometimes don't mind using a tiny bit of pedal in Bach works (but when playing for my own pleasure)

I don't think even you believe in any of what you have asked.
But just for the sake of answering, yes you can use sustain pedal when performing Mozart.

Try playing the beautiful slow movement of K330 with, and then without pedal, and draw your own conclusions......

As I stated in my OP, I surmise that the vast majority of pianists would be in favor of using at least some pedal when playing Mozart. Your response is consistent with this. What is surprising to me is that a well respected teacher and pianist with good credentials would cling very strongly to the notion that sustain pedal should be avoided when playing Mozart. Is this just a special quirk of this one teacher, or is there a noticeable contingent of respected pianists that subscribes to this extreme view?

Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe that Glenn Gould is the only well-known pianist who refuses to use the sustain pedal in Mozart. And we all know what he thought of that composer....

Pages 24 - 33 of the excellent book Interpreting Mozart by Eva & Paul Badura-Skoda are devoted to an argument for the use of the pedal in specific instances - of which they give roughly 11-12 "obvious" (their chose of word) examples.

Get thee to a library if you can't afford the cover price.......

I would ask myself what I think my teacher would want me to gain by playing Mozart without the use of the pedal, before I questioned the advice. (Help! Grammar police.....Help!)

That was a strategy I used to use whenever I disagreed with a teacher.

I rarely use pedal while playing Mozart if any, the only reason being it sounds like mush. I would say using sustain in Mozart is acceptable, but it is still very important to be able to play legato without any use of the pedal.

All dead pianists refuse to use the sustain pedal in Mozart, and all other music.

(Most live pianists use way too much sustain pedal!)

i believe mozart played fortepianos with a damper pedal (deployed with the knee), so it should be okay.

Mozart requires special pedaling. You can rarely use whole pedal and even more rarely use it for whole phrases/passages (at least according to my experience).

My teacher has told me to use the pedal to accent single notes. In these cases I use the pedal just enough to give the notes a different tone.

In a nutshell: you use the pedal frequently for special effecet and sometimes (especially in slow movements) for legato.

Well it does make sense for a couple of reasons but it doesn't make sense for other reasons...

First of all Mozart's keyboard technique and phrasing, as well as the entire conception of playing keyboard music was BASED on the harpsichord, since apart from the clavichord which was a solitary practice instrument, the bulk of technique was based on the centuries before (harpsichord)

the harpsichord has no damper pedal and it has no dynamics.. this means that when you interpret a piece you give accents or bring-out voices by ALTERING the written rhythm

the harpsichord, had a very light damping mechanism, meaning that the notes faded away gradually, unlike a modern piano which aims to cut the sound off sharply.

pianos of mozart's time had dampers which were quite inefficient by today's standards, but because the tradition was based on harpsichord music and technique the damper (right) pedal was almost NEVER used...

Mozart's piano didn't even have pedals, it had knee levers which were seldom used.

Dussek I think was the one that really began to use the pedal in the modern way, changing on chords etc. but constant use of the pedal was frowned upon and unnecessary at the time because of the pianos they had which had small dampers and also because of the style of phrasing which created legato with rhythm. If the phrasing is rhythmically very strong and together you can get a legato effect.

the different tradition considered written music only an indication of the rhythm. You can read-up on this by downloading Saint-Saens article on interpreting ancient music on your iPhone for free.. he talks about how ancient music was much different than even the music of the late 1800's and radically different from today's conceptions


so you cannot fully reproduce Mozart's music as it was conceived with a modern piano and drawn-out, slurred phrasing. His phrasing, as was the tradition of the time, was more choppy and conversational as opposed to legato and full-voiced singing

by not using the pedal and playing lightly and not too hard, not relying on power and dynamic accents but on an articulated phrasing approach then you can get closer

but if you really want to understand any old composer you cannot rely JUST on your teacher IMO.. you need to look-up as many books written in the past which describe the musical approach of the time

Unless, of course, that teacher is a recognized "specialist" in the interpretation of 17/18 century music on modern instruments and has done all the reading and research that such a designation would require.

Regards,

I can see him using it here ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkhwK5YEksI

Knee levers were an option in Mozart's time, one which Mozart wanted. Standard was a hand operated lever that raised the dampers, so you could not change the dampers while using both hands to play. However, those pianos did not have much sustain to begin with.

I use my ears to determine whether or not to use a sustain pedal ... and different pianos will respond differently. Some pianos are very much alive and others are on life support.

As with most discussions in music, you ears should be the final arbitrator.

Is that right? Interesting.

One should avoid the use of pedal with Mozart when possible. There will, of course, be occasions when a bit of pedal here and there are necessary, but it should be used sparingly. The pedal does not, by the way, create legato. Your teacher's position is not a radical one at all.

I am taught that the ear is the dictator of everything physical that the pianist does... and keeping Mozart pure will require pedaling that is quite slight and deliberate in only the most selective of moments...and can emphasize dissonance or promote some excitement here and there!

+1 Excellent

Not only that, I have read that Mozart played his music on the harpsichord throughout his life, as well as on the piano. I'm assuming that was because a harpsichord may have been the best or only choice of keyboard on which to perform in a given situation. So, FWIW, Mozart himself did at least sometimes play his music completely without pedal, when he played it on the harpsichord.

Not to be avoided entirely (one of Mozart's letters raves about the precision of the sustain/damper mechanism of Stein's pianos), but certainly kept within bounds (half-pedal, etc). The sustain of pianos of the time was slight compared to modern pianos. Even in the pianos of Beethoven's time, it was possible to keep the sustain pedal down through changes of harmony without the blurring of modern pianos (Beethoven took advatage of this in Op. 33 and Op. 53).

But back to Mozart. Period instrument Mozart recordings by Brautigam, Lubimov, and Staier all use the sustain mechanism effectively and tastefully. One should aim to at least suggest that sound world when playing a modern instrument.

BTW, I love the magical timbre of period soft pedals -- impossible to simulate on modern instruments.

I don't recall seeing any professional pianist perform Mozart sans pedal on a modern piano, though some certainly do perform Bach in that manner, at least for some pieces. Anyone?

The first chapter of "Interpreting Mozart" by Badura-Skoda deals with the pedal. I will try to write more later or tomorrow (I am just going out right now...) It is pretty interesting!

yes, and in an edition of chopin preludes that i have the editor notes chopin's sustain pedal markings (very long) and then his own, much more frequent, markings. one must be careful when comparing apples to oranges wrt the capabilities of the instruments of the times.

btw, some years ago i was at an alfred brendel concert at chicago orchestra hall, and he played mozart's fantasia in d minor, and i was quite surprised at the extent of sustain pedal that he used. i would go so far as to say that it's quite impossible to play this piece tastefully on a modern piano without using it.

for example, with sustain:



primarily without sustain:



although the latter may well be more in keeping with the period of the piece, i find it to be too choppy & disjointed (lacking in the necessary flow) for my (modern) ear. others may surely disagree...

Ideally yes, but in my opinion it is more fruitful to go and research the matter yourself, as well as talking to experts.

Often experts have learned from other experts who have learned from other experts but they are far-removed from what actually was performance practice of the day because they haven't dug-up the old books etc.

This applies to any field IMO. If you are serious about your work you need to be responsible and check things for yourself IMO

Thank you for all of the responses to this topic received so far. The consensus seems to be that judicious use of pedaling in Mozart is appropriate. Strongly advocating that no sustain pedal should be used when playing Mozart is an extreme position that most other pianists would not agree with. Indeed, we are hard pressed to come up with a famous pianist known for playing Mozart who adheres to this position.

While it is useful to study performance practices used at the time of Mozart, such information is insufficient for providing definitive guidelines for use of the sustain pedal on modern pianos. Historical accounts indicate that Mozart used mechanisms for producing sustain when he played keyboard instruments of his time with such mechanisms. However, we don't know for sure how Mozart would use the sustain pedal when playing his pieces on modern pianos as no such instruments existed in his lifetime.

I think Gould's eccentric articulation and crazy pauses(like at .42)are at least as respnsible for the strange sound of that performance.

agreed. i quite fancy his brahms, but his mozart...

Disagree. Consult the many recordings by early music specialists on fortepianos. They have done the research and usually offer the most accurate interpretation. The literature would seem to indicate that 1) Mozart's pianos had much less sustain than the modern grand to begin with, so pedaling the modern grand is overkill, and 2) Mozart indicated pedaling where necessary, and 3) according to Beethoven, Mozart's playing was more detache than he would have expected, much like the standard harpsichord practice, thus Mozart was probably not one who liked a lot of sustain.

Listening to Badura-Skoda, who recorded all the Mozart sonatas on both the modern grand and a period piano, is very revealing.

Well, if he does something stupid like pedaling Mozart, maybe you need to find a new specialist.

"i believe mozart played fortepianos with a damper pedal (deployed with the knee), so it should be okay"

A guy in the 30`s I rthink, used a knee pedal on a piano. He was famous for his "Dancing Duck", tethered to the top of the piano, so paople thought. It was tethered to a hotplate on top of the piano; the knee lever determined the amount iof heat, which determined the velocity of the bird`s movements . . . I don`know if Mozart was part of his repertoire. But k331 would give it an easy time. Until Rondo a la turca came up on page 21. . .

Fortepianos of Mozart's time (Walter etc) and grand pianos of the early 19th century (Erard, Pleyel) have less sustain but also less efficient damping, which means notes carry over even when the key is released. I've played on fortepianos c1780 and Erards and Pleyels c1845, and can attest to that.

BTW, I've got CD recordings of Paul Badura-Skoda and Jörg Demus playing Mozart Sonatas for piano duet and K448 for two pianos on Bösendorfer Imperial 290, and someone is definitely pedalling in the slow movements.....

It's usually unnecessary to pedal in the fast movements of Mozart (though most concert pianists do it, even in passagework and especially in concertos), but in the slow movements, the sound can be too dry on modern pianos, with their super-efficient damping mechanism.

No-one yet has pointed out another factor: early pianos did not indeed have the sustaining power of modern pianos, for long held notes for instance and they did indeed have relatively light damping mechanisms, but a) the sound was richer in higher harmonics and/but (another but, this sentence is out of control) b)the treble register was relatively weak. These two factors work against each other to a degree. So there are quite a number of factors which differentiate the sounds that Mozart heard and that we hear on our instruments.

I have played a number of early pianos and a friend makes very good copies of Stein instruments - used by professionals - which I have played quite a bit. This leads to an inevitable conclusion for me: we realise Mozart's music on the modern piano, as we do for Bach etc. We cannot make a modern piano sound like a Stein, Walther etc. If we want to play Mozart truly in the way we believe Mozart wanted, from his instruments, then we need to use his instruments.

Re legato and also the harpsichord. I played the harpsichord for many years. Yes, the sound decays quickly, but is even richer in the higher harmonics. On the harpsichord, early piano and modern piano it is perfectly possible to play legato without any pedalling. In fact, one harpsichord technique, applicable on other keyboard instruments, is overlapping legato. As long as the next note can be reached whilst holding down the previous one there will be no gap at all, and a fullness of sound different from pedalling. Many in this forum will be very familiar with this.

The piano came in to provide dynamics, especially to play softly. If composer/performers had not wanted the ability to sustain via knee lever (tricky to operate btw) or pedal, they would not have developed. (Pedals,for different purposes, had already been introduced to the harpsichord)

I cannot believe Mozart eschewed the use of the pedal. Composers tend to experiment/enjoy novel ways of using instruments.

On the general subject of legato/detache/staccato etc. We generally acknowledge that instrumental music grew up imitating the human voice and early keyboards were played alongside stringed instruments which can sustain and sing wonderfully. Whilst there is a place for short phrases, sharply detached notes etc, my belief is that the default position for music is legato, punctuated by non-legato notes for specific musical effects. IMHO

So, if we realise Mozart on the modern piano, we come back, as has already been said, to our ears and musical sensibilities. On pedalling, articulation, dynamics, speed etc etc. Are we not supposed to be creative musicians, discerning, from a particular instrument, how to create a sound world which we believe respects the composer's intentions, as far as we ascertain them, and which satisfies us musically?

Mozart in one of his letters wanted his music to 'flow like oil'. That doesn't sound like non-legato, or détaché, let alone staccato. Though of course his phrase might have become lost in translation.... (with a doff to Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray).

This is news to me.

WR: it's so long since I was taught these sorts of things I looked up some sources:

"As Hans-Jakob Billinger states in the booklet the cornett was one of the most beloved instruments of the late 16th and early 17th century. Players of the instrument were in high esteem. In the prima prattica the cornett was often used in sacred music, to play either colla parte with one of the voices or to replace it. One of the reasons it was so much valued was its ability to imitate the human voice. When the seconda prattica arrived, and instrumental music started to develop into a genre of its own, the human voice was still seen as the top of the musical pyramid, and the cornett was still highly valued for the same reason as in the time of the prima prattica."
http://www.musica-dei-donum.org/cd_reviews/SwissPan_SP51-721.html

'“They [the German composers of instrumental music in the 17th century] thought more highly of difficult pieces than of easy ones, and sought to excite admiration rather than to please. They were more intent upon recreating the songs of birds, for example, those of the cuckoo, the nightingale, the hen, the quail, etc., than upon imitating the human voice.”

Johann Joachim QUANTZ
Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (Berlin 1752) (On Playing the Flute, trans. by Edward Reilly)



This rather negative opinion voiced by Quantz at the threshold of the Classical era underlines two fundamental aspects of 17th-century musical aesthetics: the effect as a means of stunning and “touching” the listener, and the partial neglect of the ideal that had been cultivated since the Renaissance, the ideal of the human voice as that which is most worthy of imitation in instrumental music.'

http://www.ilgiardinoarmonico.com/biber-battalia-locke-the-tempest/

Are 2 citations enough?

I would base my opinion on what the greatest pianists did during the last 75 years or so. I think the huge majority used at least some pedal in Mozart.

Brilliance of technique should not be equated with knowledge of a musical style. Those you idolize played Mozart brilliantly, but incorrectly.

I just love reading pronouncements from silent profiles.

They not only had brilliance of technique but brilliance of musical mind. And I am including present day great Mozart players who I think rarely play Mozart with no pedal.

When playing the modern piano it is not necessarily correct that one should try to make it sound like a forte piano, and in fact, some would say it is inappropriate to play that way. The huge majority of great pianists do not approach it that way even when playing works originally written for a keyboard instrument other than the modern piano. Just like most modern pianists do not do a huge number of other things that pianists in the 19th century did(besides pedaling)which could be argued as more historically correct.

I don't think there is anything wrong with historically informed performance, but to say it is the only correct way is IMO close minded and at odds with how the huge majority of great pianists play the piano.

Read it now. I can claim no professional competence: I'm not a professional musician, nor a musicologist. I have, however, read many books about early performance practice and listened to many many early music recordings. I don't understand those who point to the great pianists of the modern Romantic repertoire and suggest that they have something of value to say about Mozart's performance practice, simply by virtue of being a great pianist. That's all.

There're quite a few historically informed performers (HIP) who also play modern instruments - Ronald Brautigam, Melvyn Tan, Robert Levin among them. They adapt their playing (of the same music) - which includes whether or not to use pedal - to the instrument they play, not to some idealized preconception of what they should or shouldn't do based on what some musicologist has said about performing practices of the period (which is of course presuming that one uses period instruments).

Would any of them, when playing the first movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on a Steinway D, follow the composer's explicit instructions to keep the sustain pedal down throughout? Beethoven's Broadwood sounds great played like this but not a modern grand, which would turn the whole movement into impressionist mush which even Debussy wouldn't have contemplated....

The pianists I referred to were those who were considered to be great Mozart pianists although they usually were also in other repertoire. Perahia, Uchida, Anda, Brendel, De Larrocha, Schiff, etc. I think the most (and perhaps all) of those pianists did not play Mozart with zero pedal.

You would consider, then, Paul Badura-Skoda's careful recommendations as doing "something stupid," that he is not a recognized specialist, and to ignore his advice. I'll choose his advice over yours, thank you.

Regards,

actually, that was my point in an earlier reply regarding "an edition of chopin preludes that i have (in which) the editor notes chopin's sustain pedal markings (very long) and then his own, much more frequent, markings. one must be careful when comparing apples to oranges wrt the capabilities of the instruments of the times."

500 citations would not be enough, for the simple reason that "we" is too inclusive. If you want to believe that theory about vocal music, you can. I don't.

One obvious reason not to: a great deal of music is based on dance, even within the narrow confines of Western art music, and any link between instrumental music and vocal music in that genre is too weak to be construed as vocal music being the source of instrumental. If you go back far enough, you could probably make the case that the source is beating drums and stamping feet.

But I'm not all that interested in that sort of thing as applied to Mozart, anyway - there's no intrinsic reason to be imitating anything in his music, IMO. If a pianist gets the results they want by thinking in vocal terms, fine, but that doesn't make it mandatory for all.

I only play a handful of pieces by Mozart anyway, but I honestly couldn't care less if I play Mozart in the authentic style of his day. I use my instincts when it comes to pedalling. The thought that I had to observe some dainty tradition of the day would take away my already tenuous relationship with Mozart. I just let rip in whatever way I please. In the absence of pedal markings, there's no real definitive way to do it anyway. I think the decisions people make in this regard probably relate strongly to their level of passion and connection with the composer. For me, I'm a little indifferent to Mozart, but I might observe the traditions of a composer I really love a little more carefully.

There is a reason those indications are missing. I have to wonder, if you don't care for Mozart, why bother, if you're going to just do it any way you choose?

Well, clearly I enjoy the particular Mozart pieces I do play. That's why I bother. I just don't care to go too far into the original playing style of Mozart as it would be heard on his piano. In the modern age, that is a valid decision to make - especially given the large changes to the instrument in the meantime. As far as the indications being missing, I was just acknowledging that they aren't there, not making any statement as to why. This thread has already discussed the why.

I consider the sustain pedal to be part of the performer's coloristic tools - the performer is free to apply it wherever he sees fit. It's up to the listener to decide if it has been applied effectively.

The pianists mentioned by pianoloverus obviously have a deep knowledge of Mozart's musical style in addition to having great technique. Furthermore, it is quite presumptuous of you to accuse all of them of playing Mozart incorrectly; these are some of the greatest interpreters of Mozart's piano music since the advent of modern recordings.

It is inaccurate to say that a historical study of Mozart and performance practices of his time inevitably leads to the conclusion that pedal should be totally avoided when playing Mozart's piano music. Many experts have commented on the fact that Mozart used pedaling. For example, the following quote is from the beginning of Chapter 6 of "The Pianist's Guide to Pedaling" by Joseph Banowetz:

"some of their [i.e. Haydn and Mozart] earliest keyboard works were also intended to played on the harpsichord or clavichord, but as the early fortepiano rapidly gained acceptance, both composers soon began to write with this instrument in mind ... the omission of the damper pedal in performing Haydn or Mozart is not historically accurate. Virtually all the fortepianos of the last three decades of the eighteenth century [i.e. from the time Mozart turned 14] were equipped with a knee lever to raise and lower the dampers in much the same way as the modern piano's damper pedal does. ... he [i.e. Mozart] was enthusiastic about the pedaling mechanism of the Stein fortepianos."

Of course, we cannot definitively know what Mozart would recommend for pedaling on a modern piano (not to mention the fact that there is considerable variation in pianos) since these instruments did not exist during Mozart's lifetime. However, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that historical evidence strongly suggests that sustain pedaling should be completely avoided when playing Mozart.

My belief is that the sustain pedal should be avoided in all piano music, not just Mozart. It should be used only when there is a purpose for it. There is a school of thought that the opposite is true. Ernst Bacon even wrote that piano should normally be played with the damper pedal. However, we have lost many nuances of articulation in piano playing due to excessive pedaling, and music is worse for that.

I'm not sure we've ever replied to each other, but this post is enough. You've landed yourself a solid spot on my list.

What an excellent quote! Thank you for finding it. Now I have a great excuse for the amount of pedal I add when playing Mozart.

I play and teach a ton of Mozart, and my Henle scores are filled with pedal markings I added. To me, it is inconceivable to play Mozart dry, maybe except for the dance-like movements of the sonatas or variations, and even within those movements I can find places where pedal is necessary. I don't just tap the pedal for chords. I use it to enrich the tone, to change colors of harmonies, and to alter the projection of the melody. Pedal infuses music with life.

I'm not talking about being historically informed. I'm playing Mozart on a modern grand, so I make my own judgment calls based on what I hear and how I feel about the music. Who knows what Mozart would have done on the modern grand piano??? I take his music and make it sound as good as I (think I) can.

I don't care if Banowetz or Jesus said it. The fact that the fortepiano is equipped with dampers (of any kind) has nothing to do with the OMISSION of pedal indication(s) in the score. There ARE indications to be found (and famously so), but it speaks volumes that in so few places ARE these indications to be found. Mozart, can be as enthusiastic as he wants to be about the pedaling mechanism! Interesting that he still doesn't tell me to use the thing, however. Apparently Haydn and Mozart weren't being historically accurate within their own compositions! The nerve!

...so I make my own judgment calls based on what I hear ...

Yes, in music it would seem to be the deciding factor.

well, the problem with reading books by modern scholars or experts is that their personal opinion is always mixed-in with the facts which are available

From the period writings I have read the viennese piano school was NOT a legato school like the british and subsequently the french

Kalkbrenner writes that this was partly due to the (substantial) differences between Viennese pianos and English pianos. French pianos were a refinement of the English pianos.

the viennese piano has a short sustain and because of the thinner soundboard and weaker tensions is not suitable for a legato style

English pianos which had higher tensions and thicker soundboards, as well as a deeper and stronger touch. Field was known for a more legato cantabile style.

Dussek was the first pianist to noteably use the pedal almost all the time, changing on chords, when playing concerts

Chopin hated constant and incorrect use of the pedal which is why his music (first editions) have all the pedal markings

Saint-Saens mentiones that Chopin intended for his music to be played as written in regards to pedal, but that publishers added pedal because it was too difficult to play

in the pianos made before 1860 or so the dampers were quite light, especially British pianos made before 1840.. they can be played comfortably with no pedal

I have no idea what that means.

Rachmaninoff, speaking about Anton Rubinstein: "One of Rubinstein's greatest secrets was his use of the pedal. He himself very happily expressed his ideas on the subject when he said, 'The pedal is the soul of the piano.' No pianist should ever forget this."



from Karstein Djupdals' website: "Pedalling was very important in the playing of Debussy. Debussy marked however almost never any pedalling in the score. According to Dumesnil, he gave a reason for this: 'Pedalling cannot be written down,' he explained. 'It varies from one instrument to another, from one room, or one hall, to another.' [Nichols p. 162]

I certainly would imagine that Mozart would use a sustaining pedal. That said, I try not to pedal during or through consecutive notes.

I am not convinced by what you are stating in this post, Stores. The lack of pedal indications in Mozart's piano works should not be interpreted as a reason for avoiding all pedal in playing Mozart. Mozart may have left out pedal indications due to the fact that while he valued the use of damper pedals, he did not feel it necessary (or proper, see Entheo's post above regarding Debussy) to include specific directions for using them in his scores. Since the damper mechanism was relatively new in Mozart's time, there was not the precedent of previous masters such as Beethoven and Chopin having pedal markings throughout their piano pieces.

In David Rowland's book A History of Pianoforte Pedalling, he notes that pedal markings occur consistently in piano music only from the early 1790's. Mozart's last piano sonata (k. 576) was written in 1789. Mozart died in 1791. Therefore, the lack of pedal markings in Mozart's scores is not unexpected.

I think it means his "not to be taken seriously" list, which seems to be for people who can't fathom the truth as it's been pronounced. I would have a "people who take themselves too seriously" list but is one name really a list?

Isn't this kind of saying I usually care only what I say?

And isn't it apparent that most people would think of you as you think of Banowetz or Jesus.
I mean who do you think cares you?

Why not instead say all the things that you say after this first sentence, without this first sentence?

Is it so important for you to make that remark, and the "nerve" remark at the very end?

... Only if his first name is Eugene!

Cheers!

True, but even for Beethoven and Chopin you should always take their pedal markings with a grain of salt. If you do the first movement of Moonlight Sonata the way Beethoven wanted, it is not going to sound good on the modern grand.

At our MTAC Convention a few years ago, Seymour Bernstein basically said all the pedal indications in Chopin (he pointed to the Paderewski edition) are misleading and, if followed blindly, will result in unwanted blurriness. I couldn't agree more.

The pedal indications for Chopin were put there by Chopin with a lot of thought.

Sometimes he consistently puts the pedal between notes, like on the first prelude

you need to look at the first edition, which is not difficult to do these days because you can easily find them on the net

Mr. Bernstein did not consider that Chopin put the pedal markings there for a reason and that they are a clue on how he intended the phrases to be played, the intention etc.

usually Chopin's pedal markings are quite sparse, so I can't see how they could blur any of the music

the Grands of Chopin's time could be quite blurry-sounding if you wanted them to

I say that if you really want to know about these things look up the things that were written by people who were closer to the time of the composer or directly involved in some way.. try to find some pianos like the ones used by the composer to make sense of the written comments and then when you have formed your OWN opinion do what you think is correct on a modern piano, which behaves differently and therefore needs to be played differently

According to Artur Schnabel, surface or shallow pedaling should be used in Mozart and early Beethoven only on descending scales, and never on ascending scales. I came across the Eunice Norton archived videos where she talks about the teachings of Schnabel. Here she plays the 1st movement of K576.

Oh, that list!

The truth is Stores and I have tangled about half a dozen times in the past. The fact that he doesn't recall it or feigns no recall of it, flatters him in neither case. After observing his posting over a long period, I'm quite delighted to be on his not to be taken seriously/ignore list, or whatever it is. Never has there been a poster who chimes in so often but says so little. It's mostly negative griping about members with no contribution to the actual topic. Or countless "+1" posts to the small number of members he approves of. In fact, his comments here about Mozart pedalling is the most he's said about music for some time. I guess taking liberties with Mozart has struck a nerve.

Back on topic:

For some reason, devotees on Mozart are probably the most uncompromising types of all. It attracts this purist/hyper-correct mentality more than any other composer. Honestly, I couldn't give a rat's patooti for this hyper-correct stance. I see no need to be so hyper-correct with Mozart - no more so than with other composers anyway. Yes, there are certain features of the music which require certain treatment from the instrument. I certainly don't use much pedal when I play Mozart - because the style texture of Mozart doesn't demand it. The character of Mozart can be achieved without pedal - controlling articulation with the fingers preserves the clarity of Mozart very well. But putting a blanket ban on pedalling is absurd in my opinion. As I stated, it's up to the performer to use the pedal judiciously and that's what I do. I never actually stated that I use the pedal heavily with Mozart - which is the conclusion to which Stores immediately leapt. I merely think it's a useful device to employ at times - historically pure thoughts on Mozart notwithstanding.

I am well aware of the history you spell out for me, but thank you. Now, think about what you just wrote.

You write as if this were relatively easy to do.

Honestly, I don't remember being at odds with you. I don't actually have a physical list that I keep track of. I don't usually have the time to elaborate with most of my posts and honestly I've all but gotten to the point of discontinuing my visits here, because I've become so disgusted by so much of what gets written as fact and the ignorance (blissful or not) and the fact that so many don't seem to even care that they're ignorant to some things...and some very important things at that. Mozart, didn't strike a nerve. What struck a nerve is when someone says "the composer be damned, I'll do it however I like". If that's the case then I'll take a little extra time (if I can). I can only wonder why people with that attitude even bother. It makes me want to say "go listen to your Lang Lang records and slop away to your hearts content, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

It's interpretation, Stores. There is very little in the way of dynamic markings in Bach's scores, yet people make their own decisions on what to do with dynamics. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to meticulously craft your sound, but in the absence of strict instructions from a composer (and there are no instructions regarding pedalling on Mozart, for the reasons that have been discussed), those decisions of whether it could be utilised effectively are left to the performer. I make my own decisions based on what I want to hear or bring out, and judicious use of the sustain pedal is not incompatible with playing some decent Mozart. You should be careful about applying your own assumptions about what people do. Just because I make use of the pedal at certain times, doesn't mean I'm any less of a musician than you are. It also doesn't mean that my interpretation isn't more in the spirit of Mozart's music. It all comes down to phrasing and execution. A good performance with judicious pedalling will beat a sloppy, ill-conceived interpretation that avoids the pedal. It's not either/or, you know.

Judicious use of the pedal is not what you were stating earlier, I believe. That is a completely different thing. I have no problem, whatsoever, with that.

I'm always judicious with my pedalling. I'm as careful with my pedal as I am with my fingers. I don't feel the need to follow every composer's pedal markings, nor am I shy to use it if there are no markings. I have studied music at an advanced level and feel I have earned the right to make these decisions based on my own ear and interpretation. I don't rely on instructions as far as pedalling goes. I find pedal instructions also a bit vague anyway. There is more to pedalling than on/off, so in a sense everybody has to learn how to pedal to achieve sound, rather than by instruction. Different pianos respond differently too. You have to be monitoring your sound all the time to use the pedal properly.

Well, I was coming around to you, but then you had to say you've earned the right to make a decision based on your ear and interpretation. None of us have EARNED a thing. We are ALWAYS learning and ALWAYS indebted to the score and the composer first and foremost. There is NEVER a point where any of us have earned something. You may say that what you're doing is what you THINK it ought to be, etc., but it is not because you've earned the right to present it as such. Most of us believe interpretation to mean something completely different than what it is, but I won't get into that subject. You are, of course, correct that you must learn to rely on your ear ultimately in regard to pedaling, but it is more of an exact thing than most would have you believe... just ask Stephen Hough.

WR: perhaps logical deduction may be more convincing. I agree that percussion instruments to accompany dancing were probably first. When we come to melodic instruments we have 2 choices. Did people sing and then find out that blowing into a hollow reed produced a sound like the human voice singing, or did people develop a melodic instrument and then found out they could make similar sounds by singing?

The former deduction leads logically into the countless exhortations over the centuries of composers/teachers for people to play instruments after the manner of singing. I suspect that we have to get quite late on - 19thC at least? - before any composer wanted a singer to make sounds like, say, a violin, although no doubt this has happened.

I prefer K545 without pedal, also the slow part. Here's my take at it

http://recitals.pianoworld.com/recital_files/Recital_24/01.%20wouter79%20-%20Mozart%20KV545.mp3

I'm not convinced...to me, that all sounds like speculation based on some received wisdom that I just can't make myself believe is grounded in reality.

I have some ideas of why that "vocal" trope exists, but since I can't prove those ideas, and since they are tedious to try to explain, I won't go into them other than to say that they involve how we can perceive music as communicating something (often something difficult to describe) and how we are probably hardwired that way. But I don't think that ability is derived from singing.

Geez, you're a hard guy to get along with. I've earned the right to interpret things the way I like because I've devoted much of my life to understanding music. I have two degrees in music - analysis/composition and performance. I'm well aware of the history and development of Western music (and yes, Mozart). Your concept of being indebted to the composer, as though he's looking over our shoulders, is needlessly hyperbolic. This isn't life or death here. I'm respectful of what composers have added to the musical world, but I don't think the world starts and stops with them. There are countless interpretations of every piano work on the planet. Everybody is making decisions based on their own research, understanding and personality. Yourself included. If you think you are somehow more true to every composer than everybody else, you are sadly deluded.

One thing the great composers were was adventurous. Back in their time there was lots of extemporising. Cadenzas were different every time. Beethoven was famous for inserting improvisation in his recitals. Classical music isn't an archeological artefact - it's a interpretative art. It's different every time and subject to change and experimentation. The interpretations that don't hold internal logic and don't appeal to listeners fall by the wayside. The interpretations that do appeal are added to the repertoire of valid musical thought. Experimentation should be encouraged, not roundly rebuked like you do. Most people would suffocate under the rules and regulations of your musical regime.

It's not like I'm advocating ripping pieces to shreds anyway. I'm talking about fine and subtle effects. Not total game-changers. I don't think there have ever been two players who used the sustain pedal in exactly the same way. Have a look at the video posted above by PianogrlNW. It shows a perfectly justifiable example of pedal use in Mozart. Subtle, not overused, but effective. If you can dismiss that as outrageous and sacrilegious to the composer, I'd be deeply amazed.

And finally, I am not interested in whether I have gained your approval. I can respect that you have your own thoughts on music, but I don't have to agree with them all. You show no respect to anything outside your strict limits. I suspect that's why you have done battle with a large number of members on this forum - and why you probably argue with a lot of people in your life. You have to let people have their own views. Disagree? Fine - but leave the moral outrage out of it.