fusillo

We are susceptible, huh... Anyway, I wasn't mocking you, I was just joking; it seemed clear from the tone I used, but to avoid misunderstandings, I even added an emoticon. I also placed the emoticon where I told you that you tend to overthink things. Obviously, wherever there isn't an emoticon, for God's sake, I expressed concepts that are damn serious. @cabernet: totally agree. Hello to both of you.

Ah, so Benedetti Michelangeli happened to stumble into a RAI studio and those bastards recorded his performance. Mmhhh, you're right, they played a nasty trick on him. :-) Come on, someone like him would have sounded good even in front of the last usher at the RAI headquarters. Anyway, excuse me, where did I say that the harpsichord and the piano are the same thing? The Silbermann fortepiano is the instrument that Mozart played and it's something like what you see and hear in the video I linked in comment No. 8. Do you like it? I'm not so keen on it. You keep talking about the sound of an instrument, yes, but with that you're taking a partial view of the performance of a musical piece. To me, the Piano Vs fortepiano debate still seems of little importance. Bye.

Thank you, too kind. That page intrigued me; I even commented on it... The rest was done by that marvelous machine, the deb search engine. Nonsense, really... Let's get to the point: variations were not only appreciated by Rachmaninov and Debussy, but also by Mozart and the composers who came before him. So much so that in piano concertos, there is a solo part where the performer is free to improvise. Those few notes by Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli cannot be considered "variations," at most they are a tail or better yet a little coda. I can’t remember if the reviewer called them "scurreggina" or "puzzetta," but I see you yourself refer to them as "erroneous additions." It doesn't matter that Benedetti Michelangeli opposed their publication. He was in front of an audience, so he made a mistake. And I, having perfectly understood what you have meant so far, quoted this and other things to say that respect for the composer is not only shown by using the instrument that he had available at the time, there are much more important issues. And I’ll tell you, seeing as a Steinway piano is between two hundred and three hundred times more expressive than a Silbermann fortepiano (it also has a more beautiful sound, since you care about the sound), it would be wrong for me not to use it, given the close kinship between the two instruments. Clear?

Oh, Panapp, I remembered an old page from Deb (http://www.debaser.it/recensionidb/ID_29386/Arturo_Benedetti_Michelangeli_Debussy__Images_Pr_c3_a8ludes_Childrens_corner.htm) where a very angry reviewer lashed out at Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli for adding a coda to the final movement of a Debussy sonata. You intervened in his (A.B.M.’s) defense. So, in Debussy’s sonatas you can add a few notes, but for Mozart's concertos, you want the period instrument? :-P

Look, Panapp, I wasn't talking about the choice to set the work in this or that historical period... That Don Giovanni makes no sense. There, Don Giovanni (Thomas Hampson, the gray-haired guy) sings the first aria of the opera, an aria that Leporello (Ildebrando D'arcangelo) should sing. When Leporello jumps out and, pulling up his pants, starts to sing, Don Giovanni leaves the stage pointing to his wrist as if to say, "It's about time...". This is a STUPID gag whose meaning is more or less the following: "Uh, Uh, while the opera was starting, Ildebrando D'arcangelo was in the bathroom and Thomas Hampson had to fill in for him, AH, AH...". A gag that's not funny and adds nothing, indeed, it detracts a lot from the characters and the opera. A gag that, if you wanted, could be applied to any drama. A load of nonsense passed off as "Regietheater". And besides the directorial issue, there's a singing problem. Those two are not exactly powerhouses of talent... As for the period instrument, I think I've already answered you... And when it comes to playing piano and orchestra concertos with the xylophone or with the bontempi organ, we're still in the realm of mental masturbation. :-)

But then excuse me, are we here on Debaser to have these mental gymnastics about fidelity to the original, when in 2006, at the Salzburg Festival (not at the fried dumpling fair, huh) to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth, that thing I linked in comment n° 4 was staged... Come on now. :-)

No, Panapp, I don't agree. Or rather, I agree, but it's just mental gymnastics. :-) The philologist studies manuscripts; the use of period instruments doesn't help much since we know very little about the performance practice of Mozart's time. However, we know that all important composers were interested in improving the mechanics of instruments, so interpretations by great musicians on modern instruments are welcome. Moreover, if you pick up a score, for instance, of Mozart's piano sonatas, you'll notice that every note, every embellishment, the colors, etc., have been rethought by the editor or curator, who will have approached this task with the respect of a philologist, but who can say if they managed to interpret the spirit and intentions of Mozart perfectly? And then look, do we want to take your argument to the extreme? Mozart didn't compose solely for a particular instrument; he also composed for a specific performer, who in the case of the piano concertos was himself. Now take Pollini, give him a fortepiano and the various period instruments to the Wieners. Pollini, with all his extraordinary skill, is not Mozart, so he will play differently and inevitably betray it. Yes, sure, of course, why not... But what do we care?:-)

Well, it's basically what I said. The first pianos are from the nineteenth century. And the FP had a smaller range, only five octaves, if I remember correctly.

Well, Panapp, yes, the piano is the evolution of the fortepiano... And such instruments are undoubtedly different... Moreover, if they weren’t different, there would be no reason for performances with period instruments, (which, in my opinion, have little meaning anyway) and the poor Trevor Pinnock would have to change profession...