Author: Mihály Duffek
DOI: 10.5434/9789634902263/11
Abstract
The study describes the three-hundred years’ long development of the piano from the unusual point of view of the parallels between the piano itself and the performing arts, piano pedagogy and scores editing. Each of these components has its own power to induce changes and influence development, which also gives rise to the possibility of individual development in the examined period. The topic becomes complicated when we begin to take into account the effects of these elements. We can see a complete system, where the parallels really do meet, and finally produce a high level of the art of piano music in Europe.
Keywords: piano, edition of scores, piano pedagogy, piano art
The basic unit of music is the note, which conveys the musical content, relates to almost all mportant aspects of both the performers’ and listeners’ personalities, arouses the emotions, and represents the surrounding reality directly or indirectly. The history of human music has been defined by the expressible content and the possible methods of playing. The most natural possibility has been the use of our “built-in instrument”, that is, our voice. Using other tools (musical instruments) was made possible by the repurposing of organic and inorganic material from nature. The fact that so many different instruments have been created, from simple wind instruments to highly complex instruments, is due to sometimes simple, other times clever inventions. The use of objects and tools, which are independent from one’s body, has been indispensable in labour (which was a milestone in the evolution into humans) and has made it possible to express intellectual content, including music, with an astounding variety. Instruments are inanimate constructs which make use of the laws of physics, but they are brought alive by human use and could even become an artist’s closest friend. The variety of instruments is large; many of them were in use in the antiquity or even earlier. The piano (which is called “zongora” in Hungarian; the term was coined by Dávid Barczafalvi Szabó during the language reform period) has been around for three centuries, during which the design and use of the instrument have gone through great transformations. Now the piano is one of the most basic and versatile instruments. It can be considered as a keyboard instrument (other members of the family: organ, harpsichord, clavichord, accordion, as well as modern, electronic keyboard instruments), a string instrument (the family includes all instruments with a string whether plucked or bowed), or a percussion instrument, which produces a sound by striking an object, which is the string in this case, and causing it to vibrate. We explore the close unity between the technical development of the instrument, the practice of how it is used, the information content of sheet music, the expansion of knowledge and needs, as well as the transformation of piano pedagogy. The listed fields interact with undeniability, often quite visibly.
On Piano Construction
The need for the invention of the fortepiano (Hammerklavier) is easy to see once we analyse the characteristics of its precursors (Gát, 1964). The clavichord, which was presented and known in 13th-century Europe already, was a keyboard instrument without the hammer mechanism, which took up little space and did not produce a loud sound. Due to the special playing technique, the player was connected to the sound while the string was in vibration. The unique effect, which is called sound vibration, was possible as with bowed string instruments. Reportedly, the clavichord was also favoured by Mozart (Gát, 1964). Furthermore, the strikes of varying strength enabled fine distinctions in the melody. The low volume, however, did not permit the simultaneous use with other instruments, so it was used instead for practice at home. It was this shortcoming which was the catalyst for the invention of the harpsichord, which was able to produce greater volume due to its strings being plucked. It was possible for the harpsichord to play basso continuo in chamber orchestras, accompany Baroque recitatives, and become a solo instrument for concertos. There was a major disadvantage, however: the dynamics of the melody could be controlled only by including additional strings, and distinctions of specific separate notes were not possible.
Other Baroque instruments, both wind and bowed string instruments, were technically capable to alter volume and tone constantly, unlike the harpsichord for the listed reasons. The so-called stepwise dynamic possibilities of the harpsichord were accepted by players and were considered as special style characteristics. Although the invention of the piano was motivated by the differences in capabilities between the instruments, the immediate precursor was neither of the mentioned instruments but the cimbalom, equipped with hammer mechanism. The idea is attributed to Pantaleon Hebenstreit, famous cimbalom player of his time. He presented the cimbalom with hammer mechanism to Louis XIV, who jokingly called it “pantalon”, and the term stuck (Gát, 1964). With the keyboard, the cimbalom beaters became obsolete, but the new instrument could not be considered a piano yet due to its build, which clearly resembled the cimbalom.
The next step was the piano, the “gravicembalo col piano e forte”, which was created by Bartolomeo Cristofori (1655–1731). He constructed the first piano action in 1703 and updated it in 1709. The new instrument, which was undoubtedly similar to the present-day piano, spread slowly in Italy but quickly became popular in Germany. Around the same time, the German Christoph Gottlieb Schröter and the French Jean Marius both constructed pianos, with slightly different hammer mechanisms.
The hammer mechanism enabled nuanced musical performance. After the invention, the instrument went through various technical transformations. The hammer mechanism provided adjustable and increased volume and the possibility to change the tone of the sound, which were the main reasons for the innovation. Around that time, another interesting change occurred: the equal temperament tuning system was introduced, which is attributed to Andreas Werckmeister (1645–1706) and Gottfried Silberman (1683–1753). In the usual tuning systems of the Baroque period, certain tonalities had a unique sound and character but other tonalities, especially those with several key signatures, were dissonant. As a result, many composers avoided specific tonalities in their modulation in fear of dissonance. The limitation was lifted by the equal temperament division of the octave, which enabled modulations towards any tonality. At the same time, the new technique came at a price: the tone and character of certain tonalities were not produced by the instrument as clearly as before. This deficiency could be remedied in proportion to the artist’s abilities; in other words, it is the performer who must portray the characteristics of a tonality. The best example of the liberation of tonal imagination through the new tuning technique can be found in Bach’s art, as the transitions in tonality and harmony reveal a breathtakingly colourful world. (We add in parenthesis that the new system cannot be put into practice with complete accuracy. For the high and low keys of the piano, the subjective needs and perceptions of the human ear require a slight modification in the tuning system so that we do not hear dissonance... The statement can be easily proven if one listens to the piano which has been tuned entirely with a tuning device, whereby one perceives the two ends of the spectrum as being off-key, despite the equal distance between frequencies.)
However widespread this tuning is, it still poses problems in playing early music pieces. (Here, there is no opportunity to discuss the definition of “off” or “on” key; merely the problem is stated.)
The contributions to keyboard instrument education by François Couperin, Ph. E. Bach, and Daniel Gottlob Türk must be mentioned (Kálmán, 1926). Although they established a harpsichord school, their methods of teaching contained several principles which are still considered evident and valid by piano pedagogy. The principles regarded the physical contact with the instrument (e.g., sitting posture, agility of fingers, hand posture). Theoretical requirements included the knowledge about certain intervals, harmonies, ornaments, and the characteristics of melodic structure. According to the Baroque style, figured bass and the ability to improvise were clear requirements. This is evidenced by composers’ practice of not denoting with figurations the basso continuo, which the performer had to create.
Sheet music from the musical Baroque era did not contain, besides embellishments, graphical notation and instructions by the composer with respect to the performance. The reason for this was the belief that musicians had undoubtable talent and taste as well as reliable musical literacy (Czövek, 1979). Another reason for the lack of information was that harpsichords did not permit nuanced melodic play, so the sound was given. The composer could only specify the harpsichord keyboard on which the voice should be played (e.g., Bach: Italian Concerto). As the piano mechanisms began to differ from harpsichords, there was reason for composers to include instructions about sound differences. Indeed, the musical language of the Viennese Classical period reflected the presence and use of the new abilities of the piano: Italian musical words were present in scores, albeit in limited proportion with Mozart. His sheet music included time signatures, dynamic notations, “fp” notation for accented notes, and the fermata, while crescendos, diminuendos, rallentandos, and accelerandos were not present. Sheet music from the period denoted the pace, volume, tone, and musical character. Moreover, Beethoven even wrote lengthy sentences in two languages to his late sonatas to explain how he wanted them to be performed. The words and graphical notations in Beethoven’s scores presuppose a piano with varied possibilities of sound production, which is capable of portraying music in orchestral detail and with increasing volume due to the constant improvement of the instrument.
When investigating the information content of scores, we encounter an interesting question, namely the authenticity of printed sheet music editions. The less information was denoted in the composer’s manuscript, the larger became the possibility for representatives of the publisher to make recommendations and performance instructions to help the artist based on their own sense of style, musical talent, and approach. Some editions were published with the composer’s consent even though the original manuscript contained less information. However, many editions of the same piece with the above-mentioned publisher approach differed substantially in the notation related to the performance and, occasionally, even in the notes themselves. This fact alone is sufficient to justify urtext editions, that is to say, sheet music aimed at the reproduction of the manuscript with utmost precision. The complexity of the task is evidenced by the fact that even urtext editions of the same piece by separate publishers can be different. How is it possible to have the same goal but different results? The reason can be traced back to the ambiguity of the manuscript: usually, hand-written musical notation is not precise, leaving the publisher with the task of interpretation. The graphical imprecision of manuscripts might affect more than just the uncertainty of notation since they could be incomplete and in need of reconstruction. The issue is important because the meaning of the musical performance might change based on the content of the score. Hungarian “non-urtext” editions (e.g., Bartók’s, Mozart, and Bach editions or Leó Weiner’s Beethoven editions) can be considered neither inauthentic nor misguided due to the lack of musical competencies and sense of style; instead, they reflect how the performance approach of the early 20th century viewed earlier genres. We may contradict these versions based on the present-day musical approach and the findings of musicology research. There are frequent discussions among teachers as to which edition should be accepted, which makes the interpretation of the musical message ambiguous.
In the 19th century, the piano, which has a special wing-like body (Flügel in German) corresponding to the strings, went through multiple transformations in shape. Multi-functional upright versions were also created, which served as much as an instrument as a piece of furniture (e.g., the so-called giraffe piano). One of the most important innovations related to the wooden frame, which held the tightened strings of the harpsichord, could not serve its purpose anymore as the thick strings of the piano exerted a greater pulling force, which the material could not support without bending. Therefore, the structure which should hold its shape and size to keep the tuning was reinforced with a cast iron shell, a sturdy and solid but inflexible and breakable material.
The early piano mechanism by Cristofori was improved in two directions: one version was simpler and became known as the Viennese mechanism, while the other was named the English mechanism (Gát, 1964). The latter is more complex, with the ingenious mechanism which allows the modification of the let-off point in relation to the string. By contrast, the Viennese striking mechanism has the advantage that the action and the hammer are connected to the key, unlike the English solution, whereby they are separate. Other important versions included the tangent piano and the Stein mechanism, which introduced three strings for each key, one tuned an octave lower. The innovator was Andreas Streicher. The newly created and still popular Viennese mechanism is a reliable and simple structure, which does not permit such a subtle performance as the English mechanism. Since the hammer head was covered with deerskin, which needed to be replaced frequently, and the mechanism was more difficult to use, the English action gradually took over the instrument market. Due to an invention by William Adam Stodart (adjustability of the let-off point), the mechanism became able to produce faster repetitions, follow the player’s hand movements in a more delicate way, and produce a subtler sound. As a result, the English mechanism is more widespread now. The development of the mechanism lasted long, and the Viennese action seemed more competitive initially. Hans Hummel (1778–1837) characterised and documented the pianos of his time as follows:
“It cannot be denied but that each of these mechanisms has its peculiar advantages. The German [Viennese] piano may be played upon with ease by the weakest hand [...], speaks clearly and promptly, has a round fluty tone [...]. These instruments are likewise durable, and cost but half the price of the English piano-forte.”
“To the English construction, however, we must not refuse the praises due on the score of its durability and fullness of tone. Nevertheless, this instrument does not admit of the same facility of execution as the German; the touch is much heavier, the keys sink much deeper, and, consequently, the return of the hammer upon the repetition of a note cannot take place so quickly. [...] As a counterpoise to this, however, through the fullness of tone of the English piano-forte, the melody receives a peculiar charm and harmonious sweetness.”
Naturally, both mechanisms have been made capable of quick play and better repetition since Hummel’s remarks, but the Viennese mechanism has remained cheaper. In the 19th century, the detailed mechanisms have gone through sizable transformations, resulting in the availability of present-day technology by the late 19th century.
On Performance Art
Almost all great composers of the 19th century found the piano one of the best instruments to express artistic thoughts, thus the piano literature expanded significantly in the century, with an increasing variety of genres. Piano works which were able to portray the entire musical spectrum of a symphonic orchestra were composed, while the sound of the piano grew to incorporate even more tones. The musical style of the Romantic period made use of the piano, which, by that time, was able to express even extreme emotions and moods. This is evidenced by various composers’ works, most notably Franz Schubert, Franz Liszt, Fryderyk Chopin, Johannes Brahms, and Robert Schumann. Their piano scores contain several graphical notations and German/Italian words to specify the musical character, sound, and pace, which clearly demonstrates the differentiated sound possibilities of the piano. One of the key requirements, also reflected in the sheet music, is for players to “sing” using the piano, which was constructed as a percussion instrument, and to produce illusions of effects which other instruments can generate properly (playing legato melodies, the illusion of altering intonation, the imitation of sounds which are not related to the piano, the imitation of sounds in nature, etc.). Simultaneously, the technical possibilities of piano play expanded, which also influenced sheet music. Composers demanded increasingly that the exact sound they had envisaged should be produced by pianists. The phenomenon raises questions as to artists’ freedom or boundedness in relation to the musical message at concerts. One thing is certain: even the most precise notation is not able to reveal exactly the composer’s inner feelings because words and symbols cannot express subjective and perceived emotions; they do not describe specifically the volume of forte notation in decibels, the musical content, the tone of dolce notation, and the composer’s emotional background. Based on 19th century music notation, the transformation of the piano is undoubtable, however. The changes did not end with the 19th century: Debussy’s scores reveal further refinement and differentiation in sound-related notation. The evolution of pedal notations, which were often added by publishers, is also interesting to investigate. The pedal notations in question do not concern suggestions by the publisher but the symbols in the manuscripts. Sometimes there seem to be discrepancies between the composer’s pedal notations and their execution on present-day pianos. Franz Liszt’s scores provide a great example. His works include a rich system of pedal notations, which, if executed on contemporary pianos, results in inexplicable aural overcomplication. It is difficult to believe that Franz Liszt, who composed his pieces with a liberal use of the pedal, could have played the piano in a nonsensical way. Instead, the phenomenon is explained by the fact that the abundance of pedal notations was aimed to enrich the sound intensity on the pianos of the period. This “help” is not needed anymore due to the superior sound qualities of modern-day pianos. Furthermore, the correct manner and extent in the use of pedals are also determined by the style. It is clear, however, that performers must address the issue because the culture of pedal use is an indicator of musical sense and talent.
On Piano Pedagogy
Naturally, 19th-century piano pedagogy followed the innovations in the quality of the piano by developing skills of piano play. The first to design a pedagogical concept of piano instruction was Muzio Clementi (1752–1832), a composer, who spoke the language of Classical music but composed a series of etudes which pushed the limits of piano play of the period slightly. Other composers and piano pedagogists, including Johann Nepomuk Hummel (1778–1837), Carl Czerny (1791–1857), and Friedrich Kalkbrenner (1785–1849), highlighted the novel problem of sound production in piano instruction. They described the various ways of hitting a piano key, provided guidance on the instruction of pedal use, and firmly believed that anybody could be taught to play the piano to a certain extent. The first genuine finger exercises were composed at the time as the qualitative aspects of piano play became more pronounced. The etude literature offered solutions to a wide variety of technical problems (etudes by Czerny, Clementi, Cramer, Hummel). Several technical devices were devised to train the hand for exceptional performance (Logier’s Chiroplast, Herz’s dactylion). Improvisation was taught less frequently because Classical music valued precision and transparent symmetry, and the continuo play of the Baroque period was not common anymore. Unlike previous experts, Louis Köhler (1820–1886) and Adolf Bernhard Marx (1799–1866), renowned piano pedagogists of the century, posed requirements to students which corresponded to Romantic piano performance. They propagated the harmony of fingers, hands, and arms in sound production through exercises, analysed how keys could be hit, highlighted the connections between melody and dynamics, taught movement forms for different tones, and believed that piano technique ought to be lyrical. The piano pedagogy of the period emphasised the need for highly trained fingers, the difference between tempo rubato and tempo giusto, and the basic requirement of the cantabile handling the instrument. In the period, the close relationship between spirit and technique was underlined, which is why so much attention was devoted to understanding anatomic characteristics and using the body in an efficient way (Kálmán, 1926).
Franz Liszt revolutionised piano performance with his characteristic toolbox of piano techniques, which included a constantly changing hand position and the use of the entire body during piano play. Instead of considerations of comfort, fingering was subjugated to the needs of musical expression. The weight-balancing role of the arms and upper body in support of sound production became more pronounced. The understanding of piano action also changed: the focal point is not the hitting of the key but the movement of the hammer towards the strings. This perspective allowed the pianist’s body and the piano action to merge into one system of physical perception. The quality of executing piano techniques became decisive requirements. Simultaneously, the importance of differentiated aural development in piano pedagogy also grew. In the 19th century, composers created an exceptionally rich (and rather difficult) etude literature with pieces which were not intended to make the lone practising pianist suffer but constituted valuable standalone works. Naturally, etudes often contain several technical problems but are worthy of performance at concerts either individually or in a series. Difficulties lie in the particularly well-crafted technical exercises and the refined musical sound. Etude composers from the Romantic period include Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Scriabin; in later periods, the list continues with Debussy, Bartók, and Dohnányi.
By the 20th century, the English mechanical pianos with the Erard mechanism were so refined in their build that they enabled subtle musical expression with the highest precision. The most important goal was to transfer the movement of the hand, driven by feelings and passion, onto the strings accurately. By that time, the level of technical development with respect to piano construction and material use was similar to present-day conditions. The now standard piano size, string girth, and mechanical proportions became final. Contemporary pianos contain a stable and sturdy shield frame and a hardwood pin block. The precise execution of the material and the technological quality of production resulted in an advanced instrument, which is easy to see by anyone who visits a contemporary piano manufacturer. It goes without saying that the manufacturer’s experience is essential even today, especially the hands-on experience with the selected wooden material. Furthermore, manual labour is also inevitable, even though the level of technological advancement with respect to material manufacturing is quite high, especially with computer-based precision machines.
The turn of the 19th and 20th centuries brought about another change in the language of music. Although the Romantic and late Romantic periods still exerted an effect, impressionism brought a new perspective into musical expression. Accordingly, even more differentiated and subtle sound effects could be produced on the piano. The role of effects rose, while the increased colouring need of harmonies was widely considered to be a general characteristic of impressionism. An example for the mixture of styles can be found in Liszt’s late piano pieces, which have a stark and barren world with only the necessary musical expressions and require a non-traditional use of the piano. It is as if Béla Bartók’s piano compositions were reflected in those pieces. The piano was also used as a percussion instrument, for example in Bartók’s Allegro barbaro. Folklore effects in piano pieces also altered the usual technique of playing the instrument. The 20th century, with its great societal transformations, gave way to a clearly heterogeneous set of styles, mostly because avantgarde genres also appeared, requiring wildly different sound production from pianists.
In the 20th century, the field of piano pedagogy was expanded with another significant aspect: research began with respect to psychological processes which determine the artists’ and performers’ musical interpretation, preparation, and practice. In the early 20th century, research efforts were also intensive in Hungary, with apparent success, as evidenced by Margit Varró’s and Sándor Kovács’s studies. Liszt’s idea of using the entire body for piano performance resulted in a sort of dead end, namely the weight technique. The method was based on the increased use of the weight of the upper arm and upper body in piano play, which was accompanied by rather fixed and not overly refined fingers. However, virtuoso piano performance is quite difficult to achieve with this technique as it is intended for playing loud chords and harmonies in blocks instead. Fortunately, piano pedagogy “recovered” from this direction. It must be added that Liszt’s statement was completely correct; it was only its interpretations which were misleading. The piano technique book by German piano pedagogist Rudolf M. Breithaupt (1873–1945) describes the weight technique and offers valuable remarks. The author argues that the production of a beautiful sound can be taught. Here, we do not attempt to go into detail as regards the mundane and aesthetic definitions of a beautiful sound and accept the view of music aesthetics that a beautiful sound expresses the composer’s artistic ideas, feelings, and emotions authentically. Therefore, a sound can be beautiful even if the content itself is not.
In the 20th century, piano pedagogy also strived to analyse virtuosos’ play and studied the physical functioning of the piano action as well as relationship between the nervous system and the psychological requirements of piano performance. Both psychological and physical training were considered important, which has remained a guiding principle of piano pedagogy to this day. By investigating the physical possibilities of manual dexterity, it was found that the determining factor in the pace of piano play was not the agility of the fingers but the speed of the brain and motor control (Neuhaus, 1961). If brain functions are slow and motions are not controlled quickly, there is no hope to develop fast-paced piano play. However, this seems so evident that it is perplexing why this fact was discovered so late...
A great innovation of the period was the concentrated formulation of the psychological and physical requirements of piano practice (Kovács, 1976; Chang, 2014). The approach presents practising as a goal-oriented and organised learning process, which is serious and coordinated, affects every important element of the personality, and makes use of one’s technical abilities completely. Further research was conducted with respect to musicians’ recreating activity. According to pianist, musicologist, and conductor Ferruccio Benvenuto Busoni (1966–1924), the artist should recreate the inspiration which is lost when a piece of music is written down as sheet music. The development of musical thinking, the refinement of aural skills, and the consideration of age-specific traits came into the focus of piano instruction. It is clear from the above that the thinking of musical pedagogy became abstract enough to provide students with the necessary abilities for modern piano use and performance. The question arises as to why it was inevitable for psychological research to receive emphasis. The answer can be found in the expanding capabilities of the instrument: the performer became able to express psychological phenomena and emotional experiences on stage using the quality of sound. Naturally, a better understanding of the human psyche from a theoretical or practical perspective leads to enrichment and self-knowledge. An important contribution of research activities is health promotion: as part of the technical toolbox, piano instructors teach body positions which correspond to anatomic characteristics, that is, which do not force the body into postures which could lead to diseases or permanent damage. This pedagogical process requires a great deal of knowledge on the teacher’s part and highlights potential disorders resulting from excessive burdens, which teachers should notice as early as possible to treat them with medical help.
The Parallels and Their Meeting Point
Following the above, it is time to consider the independent transformations of piano manufacturing, performance art, and piano pedagogy and assess their effect on each other; in other words, we investigate whether parallels meet indeed. As previously discussed, the construction and manufacturing of instruments require highly precise manual labour on the material (often complemented by machines). Instrument manufacturer professionals attempt to select materials and organise the technology of production to the best of their knowledge, relying on several centuries of experience. Instrument manufacturing is not intended for just talented artists; technical improvements are also among the goals. Masters, who create an object from material, are hardly ever satisfied with their creation. They always strive to create something better and more beautiful and seek lasting manufacturing methods because only instruments of good quality are purchased. The technical developments of the piano have resulted in an instrument which lasts longer, is less sensitive to the climate, keeps its tuning for a long time, has hammers made of durable material despite the large number of hits, and enables nuances of sound as well as changes in dynamics and tone. Importantly, the instrument should be portable, with wheels which do not damage the floor of the room or the stage, etc. Consequently, instrument manufacturer professionals intend to produce “engineering” masterpieces even without direct feedback from artists who use them.
Musical styles change; the subject of musical expression is often altered; and even the harmonic culture, the increasingly abstract harmonic associations, and the variety of genres are part of an ever-evolving process. As society is transformed, the language, content, message, and function of music also expand and become more differentiated. In printed sheet music, the composer’s instructions are increasingly precise and detailed. The number of graphical symbols, which provide instructions about the musical character and the execution of the score, is also on the rise. The transformations in the 20th century became even more apparent with the introduction of graphical notation with its own legend... The vast improvement in the technical conditions of musical recording throughout the 20th century is an integral part of the relationship between musical notation and performance.
The most important change of piano pedagogy occurred due the training of those who were enrolled into piano instruction by their parents but had little talent, which was often the case with the bourgeoisie (corresponding to the conditions of aristocracy) (Czövek, 1979). A 19th-century piano instructor had no choice but to train untalented children in a way that satisfied the family, since private instructors received their salary directly from the family. If the desired results were not achieved, additional benefits (accommodation, clothing, food) were often denied. As a result, piano instructors were keen on discovering the process of learning to play instruments through various methods and employed novel techniques in the training of less talented children. Paradoxically, this resulted in the significant development of piano pedagogy. Curiosity was part of the process because the desire to learn more about the psychological background of piano play was induced in musicians’ personality by measures which enabled fruitful practice and successful performance in front of others. Now, several concepts of music pedagogy perceive and advertise music instruction as a tool for comprehensive personality development. In addition, music therapy has also become popular.
The internal triggers of the above changes are demonstrable and easy to see. Furthermore, the interactions which generate development are also demonstrable. This is where we can witness parallels meeting. The evolution of the piano as an instrument was affected by the listed factors substantially. Performers’ critiques, praises, and needs have meant vital feedback for instrument manufacturers with respect to the strengths and deficiencies of the created pianos. Thus, the increasingly modern piano and performers’ growing demands have contributed to the development of the instrument and the expansion of its capabilities, revealing a close interaction of effects. Examples include mechanical models, which aid the harmony between hand motions and the piano action, enabling a refined execution of sound through body movements. The need for larger and louder pianos has been the direct consequence of more spacious concert halls. Of similar importance is the musical and technical requirement that the resonator should amplify the vibration of short strings and metre-long strings equally well. This is crucial for an equalised sound, for refined sound production in intimate pieces, and for the varied and cantabile use of the piano. The noiseless motion of pedals is another important requirement, which is justified by the need for precise musical articulation and the possibility of enriching or altering the tone. This is why the felt-covered hammer was invented: to enable quality performance through its physical characteristics. The innovations were then incorporated in the training of young pianists. After the early 20th century, the material to be taught is even greater because by then the piano had improved largely in its possibilities, challenging instructors to train children on the more advanced instrument with better and more goal-oriented methods. In the 19th century, the competition to become the best pianist began (see the classical example of the duel between Franz Liszt and Thalberg in Paris). The discussed phenomena indicate the dynamic interaction between the piano, the artistic world surrounding it, piano instruction, the expansion of the methodological repertoire, and the information content of musical notation. National schools of piano instruction were formed (e.g., French, Russian, or Hungarian piano pedagogy). In conclusion, the evolution of the piano has been successful and intensive through constant interactions; in other words, parallels do meet and reinforce each other. This is not a paradox of geometry but a description of the processes in art.
The previous discussion might give the impression that the piano has reached its perfect stage where no further significant improvement is possible. It must be added, however, that there is in fact room for improvement in materials, corresponding better to musical and operational requirements, even if the build remains fundamentally unchanged. It must also be kept in mind that the language of music is in constant change, which is why the traditional acoustic piano might not correspond to the artistic expression of the new world entirely (see for example the use of prepared pianos). The introduction of electronics, the technical development of electric pianos and synthesisers, and the previously unheard mixing of tones allow wildly different associations, which express new aspects in the society of the atomic age, space exploration, and computers, and enable the discovery of the deepest layers of the modern human soul. Furthermore, electric pianos are usually easier to maintain than traditional ones. In a sense, the future is exciting because we might not even grasp the possibilities of instrument development. Nevertheless, we perceive and experience the innovation attempts in relation to the piano both in Hungary and abroad, which have the potential to enhance technical possibilities, but the traditional culture of technical and musical portrayal and performance on the piano will remain an organic part of the human heritage of music for good.
References
- Balassa Péter (1976): Kovács Sándor válogatott írásai [Selected Studies of Sándor Kovács]. Zeneműkiadó Vállalat, Budapest.
- Chang, Chuan C. (2014): Fundamentals of Piano Practice
http://fundmentals-of-piano-practice.readtheodocs.io/en/latest/index.html - Czövek Erna (1979): Emberközpontú zenetanítás [People-centered Music Teaching]. Zenemű Kiadó, Budapest.
- Duffek Mihály (2015): Zongora szakmódszertan személyes hangolásban [Piano Teaching Methodology in Personal Tuning]. Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó, Debrecen.
- Gát József (1964): A zongora története [The History of The Piano]. Zeneműkiadó Vállalat, Budapest.
- Gát József (1978): Zongorametodika [Piano Methodology]. Zeneműkiadó Vállalat, Budapest.
- Kálmán György (1926): A zongoratanítás feladatai és azok megoldásai [The Tasks of Piano Pedagogy and Their Solutions]. Rozsnyai Károly Kiadása, Budapest.
- Neuhaus, G. G. (1961): A zongorajáték művészete [The Art of Piano Playing]. Zeneműkiadó Vállalat, Budapest.
- Varró Margit (1989): Zongoratanítás és zenei nevelés [Piano Teaching and Music Education]. Editio Musica, Budapest.