One has to remember that Beethoven lived in the era of wooden harped pianos. These evolved out of the harpsichord. All had low tension brass and iron strings and were struck with small low mass hammers. High tension metal harped pianos didn't come in to being until 1826 (Babcock). Later improvements include double excapement (Erard,1828) , one piece laminated case (Steinway,1855) , and one piece felt hammer (Dolge, 1911). All these gave us the modern piano. It is truly a product of the Industrial Revolution. Ruxandra's piano looks to be a Viennese fortepiano of about 1795 or so. It has very good touch and resonance. Beethoven's last piano was a Conrad Graff of 1826 and was still of all-wood construction.
You can hear everything! All of it! So much being said. Different voices, and you can tell them apart. Listen to them talk to each other. So wonderful!
This is one of the best things on TH-cam. Music that lives and breathes. I wish there was more from this artist, and more Beethoven on fortepiano in general.
This is an outstanding performance!! Please, do not underestimate the power of Beethoven, the great! He was extreme because of his power in music, who cares if he had broke the keyboard strings many times. That was part of his personality which we can still be able to see until now & perhaps until forever through the music alone. We shall always remember who he was & never forget it, this is the reason why almost the whole Vienna stood up on foot when the news was heard about his death, about 20,000 attended his funeral, & even the army services were halted due to the respect of his art even though they all knew he was a very nasty person, but his soul was not! It is only the world against him made him become so much in this way. Please excuse him, he was able to even do so much more while still disabled, how much temper do you think that he could withstand? Think about it, a Deaf Musician!! Yet It’s unbelievable the way he would be treated because of his cruelty, could you all not give him some peace of respect for what he is able to do for humanity even though with major struggles? Only when he could of died that’s when all of a sudden the world has realized what they’d lost sadly.
These sonatas first entered my life in the 1990's. Beethoven's repretoire is SO BIG I almost forgot about these sonatas - especially Opus 31 no. 1. It seems Beethoven set the mood to open this trio of sonatas with avante garde tonality and rhythm that must of terrified first listeners. This sonata is right up there with any of Beethoven's major sonatas; and what a performance!!!!
This gives a very different feeling to Sforzando and other dynamic techniques. It seems to me Beethoven was as interested in the dynamics as he was in the color changes, what a lovely instrument the fortepiano is. This limitation is honestly a strength on its own, to have an instrument that can offer such great richness in timbre ... Thank you for sharing this delicious performance
Wow..just wow....this fortepiano sounds fantastic! An astounding performance of the Allegretto of the Tempest- passionate, fiery and deeply affecting..you can't get this effect in the same way on a modern piano- those deep bass notes boom with such resonance and raw emotion.
like Maria Joao Pires in one interview said...It is pure music,detached from struggle for intonation and tonal opulence of modern piano...It is very nice and inspiring...
Meglio dei pianoforti moderni che con Bechstein hanno concluso l'epoca romantica piena in cui gli strumenti sono stati potenziati nel volume di suono ma, non nella qualità espressiva e nella varietà timbrica, allontanandosi dal generare i suoni e dunque da un concertismo lisztiano esibizionista per platee poco colte. Ruxandra Oancea, complimenti vivissimi!
Sometimes I am really glad I am not a musician or an "expert". That way I can just enjoy the music without overthinking or over analyzing everything. ;)
@@marcussfebruary9104 I don't know. Mind you its the same as listening to the same song for 3 months on end it gets drab same with playing I suppose :) , But you can always revisit years later and enjoy it like you did the first time :)
I'm a trained musician and I enjoy listening to music and the experience of it as well as the playing with ideas and colors. I don't see the problem. I don't see why not knowing about something is preferable, unless you're not accounting for the quality (technical and human) of such education, some music education (or otherwise) lack sufficient human quality, that can be a detriment for... being human with the knowledge? Haha, I guess.
This performance of the “Tempest”. shows how modern and experimental it is. It occurs to me that it’s a development of similar ideas in the “Pathetique”. And this performance of No.18 really shows how much humor there is in Beethoven.
the fortepiano was a percussion instrumen,when you play a key the lever will let the jack be smashed by the hammerhead ,then tunes the strings in a sharp minor
One thing I find interesting about this is how much pedal she is using, and how much it would sound horrible and muddy on a modern piano, but sounds very nice here.
Beethoven used a lot of pedal funny enough. Moonlight sonata was originally intended to be played with the pedal depressed throughout the 1st movement since the pedal didn't sustain as much.
Super interpretation! Ce genre d’instrument exige une tres grande precision dans l’attaque et beaucoup de subtilité de la part du pianiste !Felicitations
Poor Mr Rossi! Beethoven's pupil Czerny tells us that the master was noticeably deaf by 1811 and profoundly deaf by 1814. That means that the Broadwood fortepiano sent to him in 1817 and the Graf lent to him in 1826 would not have been heard by him. What instrument did Beethoven hear in his imagination then? The last instrument he owned before deafness overtook him was by Streicher or Pleyel [1808]. Neither were "modern" pianos in our sense of the term, since the instrument we know didn't exist before about 1870, forty years after Beethoven's death. The instrument played here is typical of those Viennese instruments for which Beethoven wrote his piano works. Schubert, Haydn, Chopin and Mozart didn't have modern pianos either. That we play them on our instrument makes those performances, regardless of how wonderful something of an anachronism. Please get over it.
He still had days where he could hear enough even into 1820s. The late piano sonatas were clearly written for an instrument much closer to the modern piano, he probably envisioned an instrument more akin to our pianos anyways...he was very satisfied with his Broadwood
anachreon01 Ever heard of bone conduction? After Beethoven went completely deaf, he still was able to “hear” through his jawbone using a metal rod, which he attached one end to the piano, and bit down the other end. So he could hear some of his music. He didn’t just “imagine things”
anachreon01 and btw, the modern piano is developed from the fortepiano you are hearing in this video. Obviously they aren’t the same, but some elements, especially the idea of “piano” and “forte” was inherited by the modern piano.
The simple act of performing a piece written centuries ago is an anachronism. We don't know for sure how the interpreters of the time would have sounded either.
Hi Thomas. Becuse I am prevented from commenting in Wim Wintrs’ videos, I have to borrow pther people’s videos. AithenticSound: «What if. . . Chopin intended his Etude to sound like THIS???» Thomas, quote: «This is exactly what Chopin had in mind!» Simple logic tells us that your claim cannot be correct. Wim Winter’s playing time for opus 10 no 1, is 3:34, a pace he, and you, think is historically accurate. Here at TH-cam, we find kids playing the etude much faster than Wim Winters. Chopin was about 20 years old when the etude was composed. Maxim Gobulev, 12? years old: duration 2:00. Michael A. Hearinger age 13: duration 1:51. Haochen Zhang, 11 years old: duration 1:57. Chopin had 8-10 more years to reach a high level of technical play, and you think Chopin played muh slower than kids! We find several videos with kids playing Chopin’s etudes much faster than whole beat tempo, kids from 7-12 years old!
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 My rebuttal against Whole Beat Metronome Principle arguments ... Find the error(s) in my treatise. If you find none, our discussion is over because "no one can account for tastes"; however, "in science, it either is, or it is not". Be well! Dear @geiryvindeskeland7208, “Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War I allowed you to save face, and you have chosen to fight a losing battle. I am truly sorry that I must do this. This is not for you because you will not be able to grasp what I will write in my following lines; it is for those who will read after I have crushed you the truth of the issue at hand. Music has only two faces like Janus. The first, and probably the most human, is the "pathétique" or the "moving, stirring, or affecting", which enters English in the 16th century from French. Now obsolete, it is the best description what music does to our emotions. The second is the scientific, which was the fourth and final course of the Quadrivium that was required to become a Licentiate or Teacher. I suggested that "tastes are up to the individual", and you rejected that argument; therefore, science is the only face I have left to discuss, and since it is utterly objective, we shall have an epic battle on this last and now only remaining front. I need only to demonstrate how time is defined related to the pendulum and mathematical laws, which is the premise for this Chopin Etude being played as such by Wim Winters. What follows will be indisputible. In the 16th century (1581 to be exact), Galileo saw a chandelier swinging and noted that it possessed certain properties, namely, that it had a "time" aspect. This is his discovery of the pendulum. This timing was invariable if the length of remained constant. He found that the length of the pendulum was proportional to its time period. The longer the length, the longer the time period, a direct proportion. In order to form an equation from a proportion, a constant is required. To find the constant, we need to write the proportion with empirical values. In the case of the pendulum, we set up the following fomula: T = X (L/g)^0.5. "The time period in seconds is equal to the square root of the quantity of the length in metres divided by the acceleration of gravity". We replace our variables except the constant "X". 2 = X (L/g)^0.5m which give us the value of 2 PI radians. Now our equation is: T = 2 PI (L/g)^0.5. "The time period in seconds is equal to two times Pi times the square root of the quantity of the length in metres divided by the acceleration of gravity". Now I have proven the time period via Galileo's original proportion. Let's cut to the 19th century when Maelzel invents the mechanical Metronome, which he promoted via and explained to L. van Beethoven. Maelzel was an engineer, and he built several machines. This was a variable-centre physical pendulum. The centre was adjusted by means of a moveable nut at the top of the pendulum, which changed the centre of gravity allowing this physical pendulum to move faster or slower. I have built several myself. Fun really, you should try it! Maelzel took our formula, which I have empirically proved above and divded the time period into 120 to arrive at beats per minute instead of the normal revolutions per minute using the 2 PI constant. Since 120 beats per minute equals a time period of one second, the formula is still accurate to the time period regardless of the "units" used. The musicians of the day knew this, and were able to align and test their Metronomes to the pendulum clocks of the day. Most were built with an escapement that used "the seconds pendulum", which beat 30 times per minute with a time period of twon seconds each 2 PI. At this point, I hope I have not lost you because if I have, you are quite out of your lane discussing science, and you should have accepted my kind offer to leave my milennials-old saying in place, which you rejected. Sorry again ... truly. Now let's discuss Chopin and two editors who used Metronome markings for this etude in question. Kullak and Fontana both chose to say that the time period of a quarter note is equal to 176 beats per minute. One hundred seventy-six beats per minute is equal to about 0.71 seconds, which means that each measure is equal to about 2.8 seconds or exactly 21 and a quarter measures per minute. Wim's short is close to a minute, and if you will follow along with your score, you will find that Wim played very close to 21.25 measures per minute, which is exactly how both Kullak and Fontana suggested via their Metronome numbers that this piece be played. It must be stated that if ridiculous, uneducated musicians who know nothing of the science of music or of exegesis in order to "play like charlatans" (in Liszt's words) chose to play pieces twice as fast as the editors Kullak and Fontana noted, that's their - and YOUR - problem, not the objective science's. So, you have refused to accept a diplomatic solution to allow each individual to follow his sense of the musical "pathétique", which is utterly subjective and quite acceptable as each has his own opinion; however, you have now been firmly defeated in science, which is the face of music you cannot defeat and is indisputable. I had to simply prove the time period that a pendulum shows, and apply it correctly to the music as Kullak and Fontana had done, and your "beliefs" in the interpretation of the Metronome fall apart. Good luck in your future indeavours; I wish you well. Warm regards, Tom
Thomas. First, I want to apologize for my many annoying typos in my first post. But you didn’t succeed in answering my challenge: Is it logical that children, 7-12 years old play Chopin’s etudes much faster than the adult Chopin himself? We need no knowlegde of the pendulum, only the ability of elementary logical thinking.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Dear Geir, First, you are not my audience. I don't waste time writing, reviewing, learning, and researching for people who don't know the difference between science and tastes. Second, and this is for you: You do not qualify a person's musical abiity on his athleticism. I understood your point, and I indeed answered it: "There is no accounting for tastes". Put another way, I would prefer to hear music, not see a sporting event. You suggest that "virtuosity" is a matter of "velocity". Fine. Understood. Disagreed. "Tastes ..." Third, when reconstructing an historical work of art, be it visual, auditory, &c., it is of paramount importance in its interpretation to return to the source to get a better understanding of said work.To do this, a prerequisite understanding of "tempo ... changes everything" is required, and to that end, the genesis of the "tempo machine" that these ancients used to mark the tempo of the music is required. Science is elementary ("my Dear Watson") and quite logical; there is no logic or defence of "tastes". Putting it frankly, "Opinions are like a**holes, and their full of sh*t". Finally, you have done nothing but make suggestions that someone played too fast or too slow. You have based this on nothing but your own personal "opinion" (see above, which again is all that your opinion is worth). You have also suggested that anyone who plays fast - instead of musically - must be some "7-12" year-old child. I actually agree with you: Only a 7-12-year-old child would consider the idea that playing fast is more virtuosic than playing musically. We agree here for sure! These are opinions; these are tastes; they are not scientific or historical on your part. These two educative disciplines (exegesis and science) must be employed when attempting to recreate how these ancients must have played. Be well, Geir.
@@thomashughes4859 Without trying to detract from your learning, I just point out that a pendulum has a measurable half period as well as a full period, and it is beyond doubt that metronome marks refer to the half period. A metronome set to 60 ticks 60 times a minute, once for every half period of the pendulum swing. Many contemporary sources state clearly that crotchet = 60 MM means that 60 crotchets (i.e. the value of a crotchet) are played in a minute - or one a second. I'm glad, however, that you appreciated Ruxandra Oancea's playing (as I do). If she is thinking at all about the later MM marks given by Czerny, Moscheles, and others, she is certainly following the half period, single tick, interpretation.
Magnificent instrument (Graf copy?) and performance. Once again, it illustrates how Beethoven comes alive when played on a pre-iron-framed instrument. And on an early Viennese, as here, it's pretty well as Beethoven would have envisaged it. Thanks for posting. Regards, P.
In her speech (via my bad french :), she said something like "unknown maker, copy of Anton Walter 1795". I like the sound of piano-forte for classical era sonatas. On modern piano they sound okay, but a bit muddy and boomy. Just my taste, not saying it is right or wrong.
Thanks a lot for this post. I just love this set of sonatas, and I hope I can play them someday. Your music vision, where musical ideas, passion and musicality are first class values, are inspiring. How hard it was to extract beautiful sounds of this dinosaur? I mean, you did a superb job, creating contrast from such an ancient instrument.
I want to make this style of piano but as an upright piano with two harps. I think it would be nice and easy to move. It would probably also be easier to find a spot for it in a small home.
It took me a while to find this after trawling through other videos trying to find one that wasn't broken up with intrusive advertizing. Now I have arrived I am glad I came and I imagine this is how the sonatas would have sounded in the composer's day. Having said that, it would still sound better on a grand piano!
fantastico. il forte piano permette alla pianista, che non conoscevo ma è straordinaria, di far sentire perfettamente tutto il fraseggio e il senso delle parti che costruiscono i diversi momenti delle sonate. il pianoforte forse, mi viene da pensare, non è proprio adatto ad esprimere l'emotività e la sensibilità musicale della musica del 700 e dell'800,, fino ad almeno chopin se non debussy. Ruxandra eccezionale,
Wunderschön! Ich mag sehr den silbrigen, obertonreichen Klang der alten Hammerklaviere, viel lieber als die modernen Flügel, die für mein Ohr schrecklich dumpf und tot klingen.
Per favore...anyone that can take us into the Beethoven genius is to be thanked. Of course the same could be said for the Bachs, Papa Haydn and all those from music who widen our conception of aeonian travelogues. These people at best can be guides to his monumental stature amongst our giants. Have you an academic argument regarding the machine or the machinist, be gentle for the vast majority remain cliched as works in progress, a natural function of imperfection. Ah, the Maestro! Allegro con brio!
She uses the "pedals" a lot here. If the sheet music calls for this pedal or that, does that apply as well to modern piano? Is the music altered to be playable on new piano?
Bravo de jouer Beethoven sur un instrument qu'il a connu (même si celui ci est une copie). le STEINWAY D274 n'existait pas à l'époque et tout le monde joue les sonates dessus. hérésie!
***** How the modest inaccuracy in my first sentence ascends to the level of "knee-slapping joke" escapes me. Perhaps Alfred Alder can explain. In any case, Ms. Oancea clearly is controlling dampers with a right knee lever. For example, at around 3:52, she draws back her right leg suddenly to drop the dampers onto the strings.
Me da la sensación de que si la pianista tocara el fortepiano como quieren algunos aquí abajo (de manera que no suene percusivo, "que no es un piano", como si tuviera miedo de hacerle daño al instrumento...), las sonatas sonarían muy correctas, pero bastante descafeinadas y sosas. A mí me parece preferible escucharlas "aporreadas" en un piano moderno que perder tiempo en escuchar semejante plomo cuidadoso y correcto sobre un instrumento de época. Por suerte, la pianista aquí no ha tenido ese criterio y creo que le ha sabido sacar partido al instrumento (que si tiene que sonar metálico, sonará metálico ¿y qué?)
Of course. Basically fortepiano has no foot pedals. But it has knee pedals, hid under its keyboard. You must learn about fortepiano, by yourself, more and more!!
Too forceful playing for this instrument IMHO. Sound becomes too thin and sharp, and fades away too fast, doesnt sustain as it should especially in high register of the instrument.
Dear pidekarr, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The differences in sound of the earlier instrument from the modern are all part of its charm. True, it doesn't sustain very long in the upper register, and the sound becomes more percussive as the volume increases. But, that's all part of the deal. The later modern instrument is designed for greater power and sustain, but there is a trade-off. The greater variety of tonal colors in the early instrument is sacrificed. The modern instrument does not change much in tone with variation of volume. I don't have a preference in this repertoire. Both types have their good qualities. Of course, the instrument we are hearing here would not do for Scriabin or Debussy. Nor would I want to be without the wonderful interpretations of the great players of the modern piano. All styles have their good qualities, and I for one, would not like to lose any of them. I hope all this verbosity is helpful in some way. Take care, and enjoy.
It's also worth noting that Beethoven himself was noted to play the fortepiano so hard that he would actually sometimes break the strings. By that standard, Oancea is being downright gentle.
Dear Jack. I am not talking about specifics of the instrument, but about playing itself. This is a common problem for a modern pianist, who are trained on this loud and heavy steinways. Most of them lose sensibility, both in fingers and in hearing so when one approaches historical instruments, he/she needs time to "switch" , get off from bad habits and heavy modern technique.
Does this music go with this kind of piano? Because the piano evolved greatly during Beethoven's life, and a newer piano might have been required for this romantic style music. I believe this is appropriate for classical Beethoven, not romantic Beethoven. A modern grand piano is suitable, or maybe an early Erard or Pleyel.
When I say that a grand piano is suitable, I mean that it is still capable of the same attacks, dynamics, etc. Any modern styled piano after the classical piano is suitable. I'm just saying that these early modern pianos were suitable because they were the only ones available.
Yes, the music was written for the Fortepiano. This was the instrument Beethoven knew and played. The piano increased in its compass during his lifetime, and the action improved but the instruments were straight strung similar to this instrument. Opus 31 was written circa 1801/1802. In 1802 Beethoven requested a piano Viennese action from Walter (Mozart had a Walter) providing it was Mahogany and had a proper una corda stop - a device that only the English manufactures could provide at that time. Walter was unable to comply for technical reasons. Erard doesn't invent the Érard's grand piano action the predecessor to those used in modern grands until 1821 (English patent no 4,631) Beethoven did play an Erard 1803, but this was similar to the Broadwood Pianos (English action) and essentially a Fortepiano but otherwise acoustically similar. and after the composition of these pieces. Conrad Graf made Beethoven's last instrument, a wooden frame, straight strung (Forte)Piano. It isn't until 1825 that Babcock invents the Iron Frame for the Piano, cross-stringing is invented in the1820's, but these inventions weren't universally accepted until Steinway produces the first successful iron frame, 1859-1860 and patents both. Cross-stringing is criticized by some as producing a "murky" sound. According to the pianist Gwendolyn Mok, "If you look inside your own piano, you will notice that the strings are all crossing each other. With the straight strung piano you get distinct registral differences--almost like listening to a choir where you have the bass, tenor, alto, and soprano voices. It is very clear and there is no blending or homogenizing of the sound." The year 1859, Beethoven has been dead since 1827, Shubert, 1828, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, 1847, Chopin 1849, Schumann 1856. None of these composers knew the Iron Frame Cross Strung instrument.
+Black Knight Pleyel and Erards were Straight strung instrumetns. Brahms owned a Streicher made in 1873. Brahms original piano was destroyed in WW2 but Streicher Pianos built in the 1870's survive. These pianos have has leather (not felt) hammers, a rather light metal frame (with just two tension bars), a range of just seven octaves (four notes short of the modern range), (emphasis) straight (rather than cross-) stringing, anda rather light Viennese action, a more robust version of the kind created a century earlier by Stein (which Beethoven knew). Good observes in his book, A Technological History from Cristofori to the Modern Grand "the tone, especially in the bass, is open, has relatively strong higher partials than a Steinway would have, and gives a somewhat distinct, though not hard, sound." He goes on to note the implications of these differences for the performance of Brahms's music:"to hear Brahms's music on an instrument like the Streicher is to realize that the thick textures we associate with his work, the sometimes muddy chords in the bass and the occasionally woolly sonorities, come cleaner and clearer on a lighter, straight-strung piano. Those textures, then, are not a fault of Brahms's piano composition. To be sure, any sensitive pianist can avoid making Brahms sound murky on a modern piano. The point is that the modern pianist must strive to avoid that effect, must work at lightening the dark colors, where Brahms himself, playing his Streicher, did not have to work at it." So the modern piano wasn't immediately accepted after Steinway's introduction mid 19th century, and isn't even ideally suitable for Brahm's Compositions. The the descendants of the early pianos were still available and known to composers and players after the modern piano first comes on the scene 1860's and two decades later not preferred by one of the Three B's. The majority of Liszt's works were written for the earlier forms. His later period begins 1860 and is perfectly appropriate for the modern piano.
Opus 31: (No's 16-18)
No.1 (G major) - 2:55
No.2 (D minor) - 28:00
No.3 (Eb major) - 51:18
Thank you for your kindness.
One has to remember that Beethoven lived in the era of wooden harped pianos. These evolved out of the harpsichord. All had low tension brass and iron strings and were struck with small low mass hammers. High tension metal harped pianos didn't come in to being until 1826 (Babcock). Later improvements include double excapement (Erard,1828) , one piece laminated case (Steinway,1855) , and one piece felt hammer (Dolge, 1911). All these gave us the modern piano. It is truly a product of the Industrial Revolution. Ruxandra's piano looks to be a Viennese fortepiano of about 1795 or so. It has very good touch and resonance. Beethoven's last piano was a Conrad Graff of 1826 and was still of all-wood construction.
fnersch q
No pedals? Huh? Lovely sound and great performance.
Thank you. Very interesting. (I was under the impression that Beethoven's last instrument was a Broadwood. )
The pedal is pushed upward with the knee. If you tap your toes when playing it is easy to adapt.
HANKS SIR FOR THE INFORMATION!!!
You can hear everything! All of it! So much being said. Different voices, and you can tell them apart. Listen to them talk to each other. So wonderful!
This is one of the best things on TH-cam. Music that lives and breathes.
I wish there was more from this artist, and more Beethoven on fortepiano in general.
This is an outstanding performance!! Please, do not underestimate the power of Beethoven, the great! He was extreme because of his power in music, who cares if he had broke the keyboard strings many times. That was part of his personality which we can still be able to see until now & perhaps until forever through the music alone. We shall always remember who he was & never forget it, this is the reason why almost the whole Vienna stood up on foot when the news was heard about his death, about 20,000 attended his funeral, & even the army services were halted due to the respect of his art even though they all knew he was a very nasty person, but his soul was not! It is only the world against him made him become so much in this way. Please excuse him, he was able to even do so much more while still disabled, how much temper do you think that he could withstand? Think about it, a Deaf Musician!! Yet It’s unbelievable the way he would be treated because of his cruelty, could you all not give him some peace of respect for what he is able to do for humanity even though with major struggles? Only when he could of died that’s when all of a sudden the world has realized what they’d lost sadly.
These sonatas first entered my life in the 1990's. Beethoven's repretoire is SO BIG I almost forgot about these sonatas - especially Opus 31 no. 1. It seems Beethoven set the mood to open this trio of sonatas with avante garde tonality and rhythm that must of terrified first listeners. This sonata is right up there with any of Beethoven's major sonatas; and what a performance!!!!
This gives a very different feeling to Sforzando and other dynamic techniques. It seems to me Beethoven was as interested in the dynamics as he was in the color changes, what a lovely instrument the fortepiano is. This limitation is honestly a strength on its own, to have an instrument that can offer such great richness in timbre ... Thank you for sharing this delicious performance
Outstanding performance!
Bach and Beethoven never get dated - their music is always fresh!
Wow..just wow....this fortepiano sounds fantastic! An astounding performance of the Allegretto of the Tempest- passionate, fiery and deeply affecting..you can't get this effect in the same way on a modern piano- those deep bass notes boom with such resonance and raw emotion.
Her phrasing is confident and flawless!! Amazing performance.
Dear Ruxandra Oancea, Please upload more of your music making. I think you are marvelous! I love your husband's playing as well.
11:45 these dissonances are incredible!
oui
like Maria Joao Pires in one interview said...It is pure music,detached from struggle for intonation and tonal opulence of modern piano...It is very nice and inspiring...
Meglio dei pianoforti moderni che con Bechstein hanno concluso l'epoca romantica piena in cui gli strumenti sono stati potenziati nel volume di suono ma, non nella qualità espressiva e nella varietà timbrica, allontanandosi dal generare i suoni e dunque da un concertismo lisztiano esibizionista per platee poco colte. Ruxandra Oancea, complimenti vivissimi!
thats how i like my beethoven
I liked the experience of hearing the fortepiano. Thank you.
Sometimes I am really glad I am not a musician or an "expert". That way I can just enjoy the music without overthinking or over analyzing everything. ;)
Sometimes we musicians truly forget to simply just enjoy the music and be completely taken up by it.
@@marcussfebruary9104 I don't know. Mind you its the same as listening to the same song for 3 months on end it gets drab same with playing I suppose :) , But you can always revisit years later and enjoy it like you did the first time :)
I'm a trained musician and I enjoy listening to music and the experience of it as well as the playing with ideas and colors. I don't see the problem. I don't see why not knowing about something is preferable, unless you're not accounting for the quality (technical and human) of such education, some music education (or otherwise) lack sufficient human quality, that can be a detriment for... being human with the knowledge? Haha, I guess.
Most professors and professional performers I know act as if they hate music. Their attitudes are pathetic.
Very nice, Ruxandra! Your technique and musicality are perfect.
素晴らしい！ ピアノフォルテで聞くテンペストは、初めてであるが、何とも素晴らしい。
A supreme artist. Magnificent and humbling to witness this wonderful performance.
J'ai redécouvert avec un immense plaisir la sonate Op.31 numéro 1...superbe interprètation .
J'adore les nuances de ce pianoforte !
This performance of the “Tempest”. shows how modern and experimental it is. It occurs to me that it’s a development of similar ideas in the “Pathetique”. And this performance of No.18 really shows how much humor there is in Beethoven.
the fortepiano was a percussion instrumen,when you play a key the lever will let the jack be smashed by the hammerhead ,then tunes the strings in a sharp minor
what a beautiful piano
Superbe performance sur toute la ligne!! Merci de nous la partager!
One thing I find interesting about this is how much pedal she is using, and how much it would sound horrible and muddy on a modern piano, but sounds very nice here.
Beethoven used a lot of pedal funny enough. Moonlight sonata was originally intended to be played with the pedal depressed throughout the 1st movement since the pedal didn't sustain as much.
Yes, but where are the pedals (tho)?
@@OscarGeronimo it's a pedal activated by the knee
Found them. Totally forgot about the mechanism in the knee for a moment -__-'
@@OscarGeronimo No pedals, but levers instead.
MAGNIFIQUE!!!!!THANKS for posting RUXANDRA. BEST WISHES!!!!
Bravo, felicitari!
Fantastic performance.
Thank you so much for posting !
Wonderful music. I hope this gal has continued.
muy buena interprete y grandes sonatas de beethoven
quelle belle interpretation! vous avez fait un tres bon travail. Bravo. Beethoven est un des mes compositeurs favoris. Sa musique me parle.
Me too
We have to love, her love of Beethoven...
Super interpretation! Ce genre d’instrument exige une tres grande precision dans l’attaque et beaucoup de subtilité de la part du pianiste !Felicitations
Poor Mr Rossi! Beethoven's pupil Czerny tells us that the master was noticeably deaf by 1811 and profoundly deaf by 1814. That means that the Broadwood fortepiano sent to him in 1817 and the Graf lent to him in 1826 would not have been heard by him. What instrument did Beethoven hear in his imagination then? The last instrument he owned before deafness overtook him was by Streicher or Pleyel [1808]. Neither were "modern" pianos in our sense of the term, since the instrument we know didn't exist before about 1870, forty years after Beethoven's death. The instrument played here is typical of those Viennese instruments for which Beethoven wrote his piano works. Schubert, Haydn, Chopin and Mozart didn't have modern pianos either. That we play them on our instrument makes those performances, regardless of how wonderful something of an anachronism. Please get over it.
A
He still had days where he could hear enough even into 1820s. The late piano sonatas were clearly written for an instrument much closer to the modern piano, he probably envisioned an instrument more akin to our pianos anyways...he was very satisfied with his Broadwood
anachreon01 Ever heard of bone conduction? After Beethoven went completely deaf, he still was able to “hear” through his jawbone using a metal rod, which he attached one end to the piano, and bit down the other end. So he could hear some of his music. He didn’t just “imagine things”
anachreon01 and btw, the modern piano is developed from the fortepiano you are hearing in this video. Obviously they aren’t the same, but some elements, especially the idea of “piano” and “forte” was inherited by the modern piano.
The simple act of performing a piece written centuries ago is an anachronism. We don't know for sure how the interpreters of the time would have sounded either.
So precious. Thank you so much. I had a wonderful time.
Impressive and audacious
Amazing!
Amazing!!
Wonderful...Thank you !!
Brava! Ruxandra! Thank you for sharing!
Hi Thomas. Becuse I am prevented from commenting in Wim Wintrs’ videos, I have to borrow pther people’s videos. AithenticSound: «What if. . . Chopin intended his Etude to sound like THIS???» Thomas, quote: «This is exactly what Chopin had in mind!»
Simple logic tells us that your claim cannot be correct. Wim Winter’s playing time for opus 10 no 1, is 3:34, a pace he, and you, think is historically accurate. Here at TH-cam, we find kids playing the etude much faster than Wim Winters. Chopin was about 20 years old when the etude was composed. Maxim Gobulev, 12? years old: duration 2:00. Michael A. Hearinger age 13: duration 1:51. Haochen Zhang, 11 years old: duration 1:57. Chopin had 8-10 more years to reach a high level of technical play, and you think Chopin played muh slower than kids!
We find several videos with kids playing Chopin’s etudes much faster than whole beat tempo, kids from 7-12 years old!
@@geiryvindeskeland7208
My rebuttal against Whole Beat Metronome Principle arguments ...
Find the error(s) in my treatise. If you find none, our discussion is over because "no one can account for tastes"; however, "in science, it either is, or it is not". Be well!
Dear @geiryvindeskeland7208,
“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I allowed you to save face, and you have chosen to fight a losing battle. I am truly sorry that I must do this. This is not for you because you will not be able to grasp what I will write in my following lines; it is for those who will read after I have crushed you the truth of the issue at hand.
Music has only two faces like Janus. The first, and probably the most human, is the "pathétique" or the "moving, stirring, or affecting", which enters English in the 16th century from French. Now obsolete, it is the best description what music does to our emotions. The second is the scientific, which was the fourth and final course of the Quadrivium that was required to become a Licentiate or Teacher.
I suggested that "tastes are up to the individual", and you rejected that argument; therefore, science is the only face I have left to discuss, and since it is utterly objective, we shall have an epic battle on this last and now only remaining front.
I need only to demonstrate how time is defined related to the pendulum and mathematical laws, which is the premise for this Chopin Etude being played as such by Wim Winters. What follows will be indisputible.
In the 16th century (1581 to be exact), Galileo saw a chandelier swinging and noted that it possessed certain properties, namely, that it had a "time" aspect. This is his discovery of the pendulum. This timing was invariable if the length of remained constant. He found that the length of the pendulum was proportional to its time period. The longer the length, the longer the time period, a direct proportion.
In order to form an equation from a proportion, a constant is required. To find the constant, we need to write the proportion with empirical values. In the case of the pendulum, we set up the following fomula:
T = X (L/g)^0.5. "The time period in seconds is equal to the square root of the quantity of the length in metres divided by the acceleration of gravity".
We replace our variables except the constant "X".
2 = X (L/g)^0.5m which give us the value of 2 PI radians.
Now our equation is: T = 2 PI (L/g)^0.5. "The time period in seconds is equal to two times Pi times the square root of the quantity of the length in metres divided by the acceleration of gravity".
Now I have proven the time period via Galileo's original proportion.
Let's cut to the 19th century when Maelzel invents the mechanical Metronome, which he promoted via and explained to L. van Beethoven. Maelzel was an engineer, and he built several machines. This was a variable-centre physical pendulum. The centre was adjusted by means of a moveable nut at the top of the pendulum, which changed the centre of gravity allowing this physical pendulum to move faster or slower. I have built several myself. Fun really, you should try it! Maelzel took our formula, which I have empirically proved above and divded the time period into 120 to arrive at beats per minute instead of the normal revolutions per minute using the 2 PI constant. Since 120 beats per minute equals a time period of one second, the formula is still accurate to the time period regardless of the "units" used.
The musicians of the day knew this, and were able to align and test their Metronomes to the pendulum clocks of the day. Most were built with an escapement that used "the seconds pendulum", which beat 30 times per minute with a time period of twon seconds each 2 PI.
At this point, I hope I have not lost you because if I have, you are quite out of your lane discussing science, and you should have accepted my kind offer to leave my milennials-old saying in place, which you rejected. Sorry again ... truly.
Now let's discuss Chopin and two editors who used Metronome markings for this etude in question. Kullak and Fontana both chose to say that the time period of a quarter note is equal to 176 beats per minute. One hundred seventy-six beats per minute is equal to about 0.71 seconds, which means that each measure is equal to about 2.8 seconds or exactly 21 and a quarter measures per minute. Wim's short is close to a minute, and if you will follow along with your score, you will find that Wim played very close to 21.25 measures per minute, which is exactly how both Kullak and Fontana suggested via their Metronome numbers that this piece be played.
It must be stated that if ridiculous, uneducated musicians who know nothing of the science of music or of exegesis in order to "play like charlatans" (in Liszt's words) chose to play pieces twice as fast as the editors Kullak and Fontana noted, that's their - and YOUR - problem, not the objective science's.
So, you have refused to accept a diplomatic solution to allow each individual to follow his sense of the musical "pathétique", which is utterly subjective and quite acceptable as each has his own opinion; however, you have now been firmly defeated in science, which is the face of music you cannot defeat and is indisputable. I had to simply prove the time period that a pendulum shows, and apply it correctly to the music as Kullak and Fontana had done, and your "beliefs" in the interpretation of the Metronome fall apart.
Good luck in your future indeavours; I wish you well.
Warm regards,
Tom
Thomas. First, I want to apologize for my many annoying typos in my first post.
But you didn’t succeed in answering my challenge: Is it logical that children, 7-12 years old play Chopin’s etudes much faster than the adult Chopin himself? We need no knowlegde of the pendulum, only the ability of elementary logical thinking.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208
Dear Geir,
First, you are not my audience. I don't waste time writing, reviewing, learning, and researching for people who don't know the difference between science and tastes.
Second, and this is for you: You do not qualify a person's musical abiity on his athleticism. I understood your point, and I indeed answered it: "There is no accounting for tastes". Put another way, I would prefer to hear music, not see a sporting event. You suggest that "virtuosity" is a matter of "velocity". Fine. Understood. Disagreed. "Tastes ..."
Third, when reconstructing an historical work of art, be it visual, auditory, &c., it is of paramount importance in its interpretation to return to the source to get a better understanding of said work.To do this, a prerequisite understanding of "tempo ... changes everything" is required, and to that end, the genesis of the "tempo machine" that these ancients used to mark the tempo of the music is required. Science is elementary ("my Dear Watson") and quite logical; there is no logic or defence of "tastes". Putting it frankly, "Opinions are like a**holes, and their full of sh*t".
Finally, you have done nothing but make suggestions that someone played too fast or too slow. You have based this on nothing but your own personal "opinion" (see above, which again is all that your opinion is worth). You have also suggested that anyone who plays fast - instead of musically - must be some "7-12" year-old child. I actually agree with you: Only a 7-12-year-old child would consider the idea that playing fast is more virtuosic than playing musically. We agree here for sure! These are opinions; these are tastes; they are not scientific or historical on your part. These two educative disciplines (exegesis and science) must be employed when attempting to recreate how these ancients must have played.
Be well, Geir.
@@thomashughes4859 Without trying to detract from your learning, I just point out that a pendulum has a measurable half period as well as a full period, and it is beyond doubt that metronome marks refer to the half period. A metronome set to 60 ticks 60 times a minute, once for every half period of the pendulum swing. Many contemporary sources state clearly that crotchet = 60 MM means that 60 crotchets (i.e. the value of a crotchet) are played in a minute - or one a second.
I'm glad, however, that you appreciated Ruxandra Oancea's playing (as I do). If she is thinking at all about the later MM marks given by Czerny, Moscheles, and others, she is certainly following the half period, single tick, interpretation.
Je trouve cette version remarquablement belle . . . Bravo !
excellent performance. Brava.
This is great. Love the sound and interpretations. Perhaps you could do some more- Sonatas 5,6,7. perhaps?
6:13 is my favorite part. Sounds like a sequence Mozart would use. (perhaps in a fantasy or sonata)
Well, this is classical Beethoven, not romantic.
It is a baroque chord progression, circle of 5ths
Magnificent instrument (Graf copy?) and performance. Once again, it illustrates how Beethoven comes alive when played on a pre-iron-framed instrument. And on an early Viennese, as here, it's pretty well as Beethoven would have envisaged it. Thanks for posting. Regards, P.
In her speech (via my bad french :), she said something like "unknown maker, copy of Anton Walter 1795". I like the sound of piano-forte for classical era sonatas. On modern piano they sound okay, but a bit muddy and boomy. Just my taste, not saying it is right or wrong.
Pedja Pant
U
Ji
J
Thanks a lot for this post. I just love this set of sonatas, and I hope I can play them someday. Your music vision, where musical ideas, passion and musicality are first class values, are inspiring. How hard it was to extract beautiful sounds of this dinosaur? I mean, you did a superb job, creating contrast from such an ancient instrument.
I want to make this style of piano but as an upright piano with two harps. I think it would be nice and easy to move. It would probably also be easier to find a spot for it in a small home.
Felicitari! In sfarsit un muzician roman la pianoforte in acest repertoriu!
superb
What an amazing sound even without a steel harp.
❤️ beautiful
Très bien !!!!
sei bravissima. Ti seguo.
Wow, what a great sound! So that is what early Beethoven would have sounded like. Very interesting. Chimes like a harpsichord! Very 18th century!
It took me a while to find this after trawling through other videos trying to find one that wasn't broken up with intrusive advertizing. Now I have arrived I am glad I came and I imagine this is how the sonatas would have sounded in the composer's day. Having said that, it would still sound better on a grand piano!
Very well played. Very dramatic readings.
fantastico. il forte piano permette alla pianista, che non conoscevo ma è straordinaria, di far sentire perfettamente tutto il fraseggio e il senso delle parti che costruiscono i diversi momenti delle sonate. il pianoforte forse, mi viene da pensare, non è proprio adatto ad esprimere l'emotività e la sensibilità musicale della musica del 700 e dell'800,, fino ad almeno chopin se non debussy.
Ruxandra eccezionale,
+stoalbar
questi antichi pianoforti erano strumenti straordinari perché consentivano una grande varietà timbrica.
Excellente pianiste! Beethoven tel qu'en lui-même... Bravo!
Great performance!! I'm very impressed!
Bravo Ruxandra
is beethoven actually playing it?! whoa.
Yes. He was prettier then.
que hermoso escuchar esto! pero que instrumentos es? (de que fabricante)
Wunderschön! Ich mag sehr den silbrigen, obertonreichen Klang der alten Hammerklaviere, viel lieber als die modernen Flügel, die für mein Ohr schrecklich dumpf und tot klingen.
Are there recordings of all the sonatas on fortepiano somewhere? I'd be very interested to hear some of the late ones.
Ronald Brautigam: th-cam.com/play/PLxXjllvtBC_pLIj0j3xkT5_zeiNucFA93.html
Per favore...anyone that can take us into the Beethoven genius is to be thanked. Of course the same could be said for the Bachs, Papa Haydn and all those from music who widen our conception of aeonian travelogues. These people at best can be guides to his monumental stature amongst our giants. Have you an academic argument regarding the machine or the machinist, be gentle for the vast majority remain cliched as works in progress, a natural function of imperfection. Ah, the Maestro! Allegro con brio!
2:55 start
She must be very inteligent to play more than one hour!!
Congratulations! Wonderful performance! I supposed You're "Romancà"! :)
What fortepiano is?
She uses the "pedals" a lot here. If the sheet music calls for this pedal or that, does that apply as well to modern piano? Is the music altered to be playable on new piano?
No Steinway for me, never, no way!
Se trata de una copia de un WALTER & SOHN de 1804 (vienés), realizada por Paul McNulty.
Bravo de jouer Beethoven sur un instrument qu'il a connu (même si celui ci est une copie). le STEINWAY D274 n'existait pas à l'époque et tout le monde joue les sonates dessus. hérésie!
Are the damper pedal and the una corda controlled by the knee? I thought that, by Beethoven's day, those controls finally made it to the floor.
Ken Busch I was already wondering where they were.
***** How the modest inaccuracy in my first sentence ascends to the level of "knee-slapping joke" escapes me. Perhaps Alfred Alder can explain.
In any case, Ms. Oancea clearly is controlling dampers with a right knee lever. For example, at around 3:52, she draws back her right leg suddenly to drop the dampers onto the strings.
To what temperament is the piano tuned?
equal
Muy bien ligado....parece como si gustará el sustain...
One question: where is the paddle??
+Valen Volk wow.. Thank you so much! That explains a lot!
I there is more information about these period instruments in these period instrument guides by the channel, Baroque band.
How is the sustain pedal used on this piano? If there is one
You push up with your right knee
Number 16 mvt 2 was totally improvised ...
44:20
tempest 28:00
15:45?
vous jouez très bien (mais je ne pense pas qu'il ait du comique dans cette musique, comme vous dites dans la présentation!)
1:11:12
Personal timestamp only HAHHA
Presto con fuoco op31 no 3 4th mvt
Me da la sensación de que si la pianista tocara el fortepiano como quieren algunos aquí abajo (de manera que no suene percusivo, "que no es un piano", como si tuviera miedo de hacerle daño al instrumento...), las sonatas sonarían muy correctas, pero bastante descafeinadas y sosas. A mí me parece preferible escucharlas "aporreadas" en un piano moderno que perder tiempo en escuchar semejante plomo cuidadoso y correcto sobre un instrumento de época. Por suerte, la pianista aquí no ha tenido ese criterio y creo que le ha sabido sacar partido al instrumento (que si tiene que sonar metálico, sonará metálico ¿y qué?)
Hot French lass.
Começa logo porra!
I don't like the sudden changes of tempo in some places in the Tempest. That's not how you use rubato in Beethoven
Stick to your violin and let musicians and audience feel and enjoy the music themselves.
No pedal??
Of course. Basically fortepiano has no foot pedals.
But it has knee pedals, hid under its keyboard.
You must learn about fortepiano, by yourself, more and more!!
3:58 the manierism on this bar is really a shame..really don't think this is a correct interpretation. I enjoyed watching the video overall, though.
Too forceful playing for this instrument IMHO. Sound becomes too thin and sharp, and fades away too fast, doesnt sustain as it should especially in high register of the instrument.
Dear pidekarr, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The differences in sound of the earlier instrument from the modern are all part of its charm. True, it doesn't sustain very long in the upper register, and the sound becomes more percussive as the volume increases. But, that's all part of the deal. The later modern instrument is designed for greater power and sustain, but there is a trade-off. The greater variety of tonal colors in the early instrument is sacrificed. The modern instrument does not change much in tone with variation of volume. I don't have a preference in this repertoire. Both types have their good qualities. Of course, the instrument we are hearing here would not do for Scriabin or Debussy. Nor would I want to be without the wonderful interpretations of the great players of the modern piano. All styles have their good qualities, and I for one, would not like to lose any of them. I hope all this verbosity is helpful in some way. Take care, and enjoy.
It's also worth noting that Beethoven himself was noted to play the fortepiano so hard that he would actually sometimes break the strings. By that standard, Oancea is being downright gentle.
Dear Jack. I am not talking about specifics of the instrument, but about playing itself. This is a common problem for a modern pianist, who are trained on this loud and heavy steinways. Most of them lose sensibility, both in fingers and in hearing so when one approaches historical instruments, he/she needs time to "switch" , get off from bad habits and heavy modern technique.
This piano doesn't sound like it doesn't have a Pedal
Does she really enjoy
playing it on that piano?
If harps haven’t existed, neither would have the piano
Molto affascinante. Peccato un po' sporchina.
I think when Beethoven was composing some of his pieces, he must have been imagining a much bigger instrument.
Yes and no. He didn't want a modern piano, but the larger wooden fortepianos from later in his career.
It is quite strange to play Beethoven's keyboard pieces by a fortepiano instead of a piano!
Does this music go with this kind of piano? Because the piano evolved greatly during Beethoven's life, and a newer piano might have been required for this romantic style music. I believe this is appropriate for classical Beethoven, not romantic Beethoven. A modern grand piano is suitable, or maybe an early Erard or Pleyel.
When I say that a grand piano is suitable, I mean that it is still capable of the same attacks, dynamics, etc. Any modern styled piano after the classical piano is suitable. I'm just saying that these early modern pianos were suitable because they were the only ones available.
Yes, the music was written for the Fortepiano. This was the instrument Beethoven knew and played. The piano increased in its compass during his lifetime, and the action improved but the instruments were straight strung similar to this instrument. Opus 31 was written circa 1801/1802.
In 1802 Beethoven requested a piano Viennese action from Walter (Mozart had a Walter) providing it was Mahogany and had a proper una corda stop - a device that only the English manufactures could provide at that time. Walter was unable to comply for technical reasons.
Erard doesn't invent the Érard's grand piano action the predecessor to those used in modern grands until 1821 (English patent no 4,631) Beethoven did play an Erard 1803, but this was similar to the Broadwood Pianos (English action) and essentially a Fortepiano but otherwise acoustically similar. and after the composition of these pieces.
Conrad Graf made Beethoven's last instrument, a wooden frame, straight strung (Forte)Piano.
It isn't until 1825 that Babcock invents the Iron Frame for the Piano, cross-stringing is invented in the1820's, but these inventions weren't universally accepted until Steinway produces the first successful iron frame, 1859-1860 and patents both.
Cross-stringing is criticized by some as producing a "murky" sound. According to the pianist Gwendolyn Mok, "If you look inside your own piano, you will notice that the strings are all crossing each other. With the straight strung piano you get distinct registral differences--almost like listening to a choir where you have the bass, tenor, alto, and soprano voices. It is very clear and there is no blending or homogenizing of the sound."
The year 1859, Beethoven has been dead since 1827, Shubert, 1828, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, 1847, Chopin 1849, Schumann 1856. None of these composers knew the Iron Frame Cross Strung instrument.
+Black Knight
Pleyel and Erards were Straight strung instrumetns.
Brahms owned a Streicher made in 1873. Brahms original piano was destroyed in WW2 but Streicher Pianos built in the 1870's survive. These pianos have has leather (not felt) hammers, a rather light metal frame (with just two tension bars), a range of just seven octaves (four notes short of the modern range), (emphasis) straight (rather than cross-) stringing, anda rather light Viennese action, a more robust version of the kind created a century earlier by Stein (which Beethoven knew).
Good observes in his book, A Technological History from Cristofori to the Modern Grand "the tone, especially in the bass, is open, has relatively strong higher partials than a Steinway would have, and gives a somewhat distinct, though not hard, sound." He goes on to note the implications of these differences for the performance of Brahms's
music:"to hear Brahms's music on an instrument like the Streicher is to realize that the thick textures we associate with his work, the sometimes muddy chords in the bass and the occasionally woolly sonorities, come cleaner and clearer on a lighter, straight-strung piano.
Those textures, then, are not a fault of Brahms's piano composition. To be sure, any sensitive pianist can avoid making Brahms sound murky on a modern piano. The point is that the modern pianist must strive to avoid that effect, must work at lightening the dark colors, where Brahms himself, playing his Streicher, did not have to work at
it."
So the modern piano wasn't immediately accepted after Steinway's introduction mid 19th century, and isn't even ideally suitable for Brahm's Compositions.
The the descendants of the early pianos were still available and known to composers and players after the modern piano first comes on the scene 1860's and two decades later not preferred by one of the Three B's.
The majority of Liszt's works were written for the earlier forms. His later period begins 1860 and is perfectly appropriate for the modern piano.
Black Knight g
Do u like green slime goo
ERATO !!!