Recent Approaches in Understanding Cristofori's Fortepiano

Recent Approaches in Understanding Cristofori's Fortepiano
Author(s): Denzil Wraight

Source: Early Music, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Nov., 2006), pp. 635-644
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137311
Accessed: 23-05-2017 16:21 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137311?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early
Music
This content downloaded from 134.139.46.24 on Tue, 23 May 2017 16:21:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Denzil Wraight
Recent approaches in understanding

Cristofori's fortepiano
IT is perhaps surprising, considering the success of Cristofori made.6 The complicated yet effective
the pianoforte over the last 300 years, that we double-bentside case construction provides a stable
should still know so little about the musical charac- structure for the strings, where deformations in the
ter of the instrument invented by Cristofori, case do not affect the soundboard as much as in a
whose birthday was 350 years ago on 4 May 2005. normal design. The action of the surviving instru-
For sure, Cristofori's name is familiar and most ments is relatively well known, although detailed
publications on the history of the piano include an study continues, and we have also seen a working
illustration of one of his fortepianos, yet the sound model by Alexander Langer of the pre-172o action,7
of these is largely unknown and their musical which was described in Scipione Maffei's 1711
potential is only now being explored again by musi- publication Nuova invenzione d'un gravecembalo
cians. Since only three complete instruments have col piano e forte; aggiunte alcune considerazioni sopra
survived, the information available is relatively gli strumenti musicali.8
limited.' One of these, dated 1722, from the The gaps in our understanding of the tonal
Collezione degli Strumenti Musicali, Rome, which resources of Cristofori's fortepiano cannot be
probably belonged to Alessandro Marcello, is now bridged by restoring one of the surviving instru-
not playable on account of its worm-damaged ments to playing condition, since we lack detailed
structure.2 The youngest fortepiano, made in 1726 information about original voicing and stringing,
(Musikinstrumenten-Museum, Leipzig), is inten- but recently experience has been gained from a
number of reproduction instruments. Stewart
tionally not kept in a playable condition in order
to conserve the instrument, but some recordings Pollens made an instrument after the 1720 forte-
of it became available recently.3 piano back in the 1970s, and in the last decade we
Ironically, the instrument which is better known have seen reproductions of Cristofori's 1726
fortepiano, principally the five made by Reiner
through two full CDs,4 the 1720 fortepiano (Metro-
politan Museum of Art, New York), is the least Thiemann, David Sutherland (2), and Kerstin
original. Only those who know the specialist publi- Schwarz (2). Keith Hill has made some pianos based
cations by Stewart Pollens will realize that the on Cristofori models and I joined this enterprise in
instrument had its compass altered from the origi- 2002 with the reconstruction of a late instrument
nal F', G', A'-c"' into C-f"', the bridge was moved, from Cristofori's workshop, the 56-note piano
and the original soundboard was replaced in a which was signed by his assistant Giovanni Ferrini
restoration of 1938.5 It is probable that listeners to in 1730. Recently Thomas and Barbara Wolf have
the CDs made on the instrument will imagine they completed a replica of the 1722 fortepiano.
are hearing it in something like its original condi- The collective experience of different makers has
tion, which has been irretrievably lost. not only defined the range of tone which is pro-
What is not in doubt, thanks to the basic research duced by a poplar case with a cypress soundboard,
of Stewart Pollens, is what sort of an instrument but also indicated the fairly large extent to which
Early Music, Vol. xxxiv, No. 4 @ The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1093/em/ca1050 Advance Access Published on August 24, 2006 635
the maker's choices in voicing and stringing deter- fortepiano action, the technical term for the effect
mine the character of the early Florentine piano. of one part (the keyhead) moving only a small
Thus, a central question remains as to what amount yet producing a much larger movement in
Cristofori's aim was in the design of parts of the the hammerhead. Out of these sparse notes Maffei
instrument which influence the tone and affect the is supposed to have produced his 2,ooo-word article
action's performance. It is a difficult undertaking describing the piano action in considerable detail:
to argue backwards from a surviving object to the this is inherently improbable.
underlying intention that brought it into being, There is a remark where Maffei disclaims
often because much interpretation is required. (perhaps somewhat testily) responsibility for
However, in the case of Cristofori's fortepiano I supposed lack of clarity of the description, and s
believe there is a document already at hand which cifically implies that Cristofori had provided
reveals some of the maker's thinking. explanation of the function of the action. A n
Maffei's publication of 1711 presented the results translation by Riccardo Pergolis makes this clear
of contact with Bartolomeo Cristofori in which the
But turning now to the particular structure of this instrume
reception of the nuova invenzione by Cristofori's if the craftsman who invented it had been able to describe it as
contemporaries, its function as an instrument, he had been able to build it with such perfection, it would not
and a detailed description of the action including a be difficult to explain the artifice to the reader. However, since
drawing were given.9 The standard reading of he has not only failed in that, but has deemed it impossible to
represent it so as to enable one to construe an idea of it, some-
this article and the circumstances leading to its pub-
body else must needs perform the task, although with the instru-
lication has been that Maffei visited Cristofori,
ment no longer close at hand and with no aid but a few notes
examined the instrument, collected the informa- taken when the instrument was examined, and a rough drawing
tion, even to the extent of consulting contempor- sketched by the maker himself.'3
aries, and then wrote the description. In 1986
Although Maffei, on his own admission, could
Laura Och published an article in which Maffei's
not comprehend the action from Cristofori's
notes from the interview with Cristofori were repro-
description, the details given are substantially com-
duced in facsimile and in transcription.'" Och's plete and can be understood by someone with
inference was that the description of the instrument
the necessary experience of piano actions, hence
largely came from Cristofori, and that Maffei
Langer's working model. The third and second to
had attempted to conceal that he was not the author
last paragraphs respectively of Maffei's notes con-
of these observations. The import of Och's publica-
tain significant remarks, which have been crossed
tion appears to have gone largely unnoticed.1
out, but are still legible:
It would require a substantial detour to relate in
full Och's hypothesis as to the chain of events, partly When I return I will have Cavalier Albisi, relative of Buonarroti,
based as it was upon another document, described describe the cembalo [i.e. the fortepiano] and note all the
terminology.
by Mario Fabbri, the veracity of which has since
been called into question.'2 Instead we can concen- To have the instrument maker [i.e. Cristofori] write a report
noting the substance of the invention, wherein lies its strength
trate on the essentials, which from my analysis are
and wherein its greatest difficulties.14
as follows: Maffei's notes are nearly i,ooo words,
titled Istromenti da suonare, and contain generalThus, given the paucity of Maffei's own notes
comments on the making of plucked-string key- and his intention to have Cristofori describe the
board instruments, together with some remarks instrument, it appears that exactly this must have
on tuning. Apart from the briefest indication taken place; that all the detailed information
that Cristofori should be called the inventor of the about the fortepiano, including its reception by
fortepiano, the only technical description of the contemporaries, are actually Cristofori's descrip-
instrument is contained in the last paragraph of tions and observations which were submitted to
a mere 44 words. Here Maffei was evidently told Maffei in writing. Maffei could hardly have written
about the mechanical advantage involved in the a lucid description of something, which on his
636 EARLY MUSIC NOVEMBER 2006
own admission, he did not understand, and the fine ottusa]; an impression produced on first placing
detail reported implies an intimate acquaintance the hand on the instrument, given that we are accus-
with the instrument. Maffei did not completely tomed to the silvery sound of other gravicembali'.17
disguise Cristofori's contribution, but he also did This is one of the most significant statements
not make it clear to the reader. The crossing out of concerning the tone of the new fortepiano, since it
the remarks in his notes quoted above need not tells us that the harpsichordists regarded it as readily
indicate an intention to pass off the description of distinguishable from the harpsichord. Cristofori
the fortepiano as his own work, as Och inferred, was evidently not aiming to add dynamics to a
but that he had undertaken those steps and harpsichord, but to produce an entirely different
removed them from his list. instrument. Since we learn that the hammer heads
To judge from the title of his notes, Istromenti are covered with buckskin [dante], it is clear to
da suonare, and its subject matter, Maffei's essay any practising instrument maker that the sound of
appears to have started as a general one on such an instrument must be at least somewhat
instrument making. It is certainly strange, as Och more muted than that of a harpsichord. However,
observed, that Maffei should apparently have asked even this indication does not answer the more
Cristofori so little about the fortepiano at their detailed questions about voicing which the
meeting if it had been his intention from the reproductions have posed. When we incorporate
beginning to write about the instrument. We have, Cristofori's other comments about the instrument
therefore, to ask what Maffei's aim was in describ- with our recently acquired experience of building
ing Cristofori's nuova invenzione. It appears as if reproductions I believe we can restrict the range of
he conveniently came by some useful copy, with- possibility of what he sought to achieve.
out having to do much himself except perhaps This procedure brings three sources of evidence
incorporate Cristofori's notes into his own style, as into contact with each other: the Maffei report of
Och has suggested."' 1711, the surviving Cristofori fortepianos of 1720-6,
and our modern reproductions. Each source has
If we accept that the description of the fortepiano
its own evidential weight, and when combined
and observations about it are Cristofori's, what
has now changed in our view of the instrument?with another source may yield further insights.
I believe what we have is an essentially unfiltered Detailed examination of what Cristofori did
view from the maker himself as to the nature and assists us, when guided by practical experience
purpose of the newly invented instrument, a view instrument making, in understanding the choices
which could obviously only have been gained by he faced when designing his instruments.
one with considerable experience of the fortepiano. Here we must also be aware of the small number
In addition, it seems that, instead of Maffei cham- of fortepianos that we can now study and the fact
pioning the invention, we have a somewhat dis- that Cristofori's output as an instrument maker
appointed inventor with something of a complaint appears to show a high degree of experimentation.
about a lack of recognition of his ingenuity and Although the 1726 fortepiano is the youngest of
skill: 'Some professors [professori] have not given his known to have survived, it may not have been
to the invention all the applause that it merits, his last endeavour in this field, and should not be
firstly because they have not understood how regarded as a definitive, final statement.
much ingenuity was required to overcome the diffi- As far as I am aware, we cannot currently prove
culty and what marvellous delicacy of touch was that the fortepianos built in the 1720S originally
required to carry out the work correctly.'16 had leathered hammerheads, as indicated in
The second reason given by Cristofori for the lack the 1711 publication, yet I think this likely. That
of recognition of this instrument is that 'it has Cristofori changed his guiding principle after 1711,
appeared to them [i.e. the professori] that the voice and aimed for a brighter, louder, harpsichord-
of the instrument being different from the ordinary like sound, is a possible hypothesis, but is unlikely
[cembalo] is too soft and dull [troppo molle e in my judgement, given that the 1746 combination
EARLY MUSIC NOVEMBER 2006 637
fortepiano and harpsichord made by Cristofori's louder and clearer is the tone, which particularly
assistant and successor, Giovanni Ferrini, only has affects the treble of the instrument from c" upwards.
a logic in a contrast between the sound of strings The lighter the tension the easier it is to detune a
plucked in the harpsichord part and the timbre pro- choir of treble strings in playing, and this defines
duced by leathered hammers on the same strings.'" the limit of the force the player may use.
A modern reproduction of the 1726 fortepiano Cristofori would undoubtedly have discovered
made by Nobuo Yamamoto shows us the effect this at an early stage and found that heavier strings
when there is no leather on the hammerheads: the were necessary in order that leather-covered
sound is accordingly bright, almost indistinguish- hammers produce a tone of reasonable volume.
able from a harpsichord. Where he stopped increasing tension in his search
A central issue is the volume of the fortepiano, for a satisfactory tone is harder to say, but in my
since the timbre and the dynamic range is view the immediate limitation would have been
determined by this. If we now return to studyingthe structure of the case. Thus, I see the ingenious
Cristofori's view of the fortepiano in 1711, he coun-double-bentside construction as essentially a
ters the suggestion that his instrument was tooanswer to the practical problem of producing
soft by informing us that it was capable of makingstructure which would withstand the increased
a louder sound, if only one were to strike the keys tension required with fortepiano strings.2'
with enough force, and he states that a particular The three fortepiano cases which have survived
study of the instrument is necessary in order to are not identical, and show an increase in strength
understand how to play it. It hardly requires statingfrom 1720 to 1726, which I take to be an indicatio
now that the novelty of this invention consisted in of the search for increased stability and possib
the relative changes from loud to soft which werealso the result of an increase of tension in
possible. In terms of its absolute loudness, in the later instruments. This is not to say th
Cristofori's view: structure is perfect, but David Sutherland's r
of the 1726 fortepiano for the Schubert C
This is properly a chamber instrument, and it is not adaptable for
in St Paul, Minnesota, has demonstrated that
church music or a large orchestra ... It is certain that to accom-
pany a singer, and to support an instrument or even for a smallish Cristofori's structure is capable of withstanding
ensemble, it succeeds perfectly; though this is not its principal string tensions of about 6 kg per string in the
intention, but, that is, rather to be heard alone, like the lute, the treble, and double this value in the bass.22 My
harp, the six-stringed viol, and other most sweet instruments
experience with a Cristofori fortepiano shows that
[altri strumenti de' piu soavi]."
such tension values in the treble are required in
It may be that the name arpicimbalo, which appears order to produce a workable instrument when one
in the Medici inventory of 1700, was coined by aims to select and voice the leather so that a recog-
Cristofori, as suggested by Edwin Good, and nizably piano-like tone results, such as a harpsi-
intended to convey by association with the name chordist might have called 'troppo molle e ottusa'.
of the harp, arpa (also de' piji soavi), some of this Even with this tension in the treble, the player
character of sound which the new fortepiano was must still carefully control the amount of force
capable of producing.2o used in playing. If the leather is prepared so as to
A factor of great practical significance for the produce a more harpsichord-like tone, then it is
tone production, and also for how the instrument possible to use lighter strings, but the tonal differ-
can be played, is the weight of stringing used on ence comes from the voicing of the leather, not the
such an instrument. Although we find the clear thickness of the strings.
information in Maffei's article that the fortepiano How heavily Cristofori strung his instruments
uses heavier strings than ordinary harpsichords, has not been determined, but an astute observation
we do not learn how much heavier these strings made by Thomas Wolf of the 1722 fortepiano per-
should be. In practice one finds with Cristofori's mits us to give clear upper limits to the string size
late fortepiano that the heavier the strings are, the that could have been used, since the strings are led
through slots cut in the wrestplank nut.23 These respectively.30 Examination of the old wire found
would have permitted no more than 0.53 mm in on the 1749 Gottfried Silbermann fortepiano, the
the bass, or 0.46 mm in the treble, and would have action of which follows a Cristofori or Ferrini
yielded maximum tensions of 11.6 and 9.4 kg res- instrument, shows that similar tensions were
pectively.24 Although at present I do not suppose involved.31
that Cristofori aimed for such a heavy treble Although I have inferred a conjectural original
stringing, this would certainly greatly reduce the Cristofori stringing scheme derived from the
delicacy with harder playing. Antunes gauge numbers,32 what is sure is that the
The minimum tension which would have been work of Antunes and Silbermann, as far as we are
able to interpret it, concurs in the weight of
used is, I suggest, likely given by the 1746 Ferrini
combination harpsichord and fortepiano, the
stringing required on such early pianos. These
were the immediate successors to Cristofori and
stringing of which may represent a compromise:
their
too heavy for a harpsichord and too light for a evidence is at least significant for contem
fortepiano.25 Although the gauge numbers fromporary i taste, if not for Cristofori's practice.
to 8 marked on the wrestplank require interpreta-After this somewhat technical excursion we
tion in order to establish their absolute sizes, can return to the theme of the tonal concept tha
we can record that this was two gauges heavier in Cristofori was aiming at. Although we cannot
the treble than Cristofori or Ferrini used on a harp-sure how Cristofori's earlier hammerheads were
sichord.26 On my interpretation of these gaugemade, by 1726 he had developed a version using
numbers, the tensions would have been 11.6 kg at cylinders which were made in sizes from 14.5 mm
C and 3.1 kg at C1".27 (outside diameter) at C to 11.5 mm at c"'.33 With a
diameter of 13 mm the c' hammer head is only
Some further insight into early stringing practice
is given by the gauge markings on the 1767 Antunesslightly larger than in the extreme treble, yet the
fortepiano, which have been known for some effect of using the smaller c"' hammer at c' is dis-
time.2 However, it was only recently that I realizedtinctly different: the sound is noticeably brighter
that this stringing scheme exhibits the characteris-and more easily produces a 'jangling', edgy
tics of Cristofori's harpsichord stringing practice sound with harder playing.34 As I have determined
to which I have given the name of 'numerical experimentally, the use of hollow cylinders also
progression'."9 In Cristofori's harpsichords, andtends to delay the onset of the edgy sound with
those he repaired or rebuilt, it is the numbershard playing, compared with solid hammer heads.
which give the guidance as to the place at which (See illus.1-3.)
the gauge should change. Thus, gauge to is used
for ten notes, gauge 9 for nine notes, gauge 8 for
eight notes, etc. Since this system of numerical pro- T~ti~?
"~rci-B: ~C~~
gression occurs only in Cristofori's instruments, $k.r I~
and in makers' instruments who were trained in
his tradition (Giovanni Ferrini and Vincenzo
Sodi), it is initially surprising to find a version of
it appear in a Portuguese fortepiano. However,
since Antunes's design is clearly based on a close
knowledge of Cristofori's invention, the obvious
inference is that Antunes may have seen gauge
numbers written on one of Cristofori's fortepianos.
If we interpret Antunes's gauge numbers with
Nuremberg wire, which was widely traded in
Europe, then we have tensions of 13 kg at C and
6.3 kg at c"' using wires of 0.63 mm and 0.38 mm i The type of wedge damper invented by Cristofori
describe as soave. This term seems appropriate,
derived from the group of strumenti de' piui soavi,
'0000 as a positive description of the harpsichordists'
criticism of the sound as 'troppo molle e ottusa'.
Enough of the basic details of Cristofori's late for-
tepianos have been described to permit a detailed
description of the tonal range. If we string the
instrument lightly in the treble (say 0.27 mm, as
ii indicated by the gauge 8 marked on Ferrini's 1746
combination fortepiano and harpsichord), then we
have a relatively quiet instrument, if it is voiced to
give the soave sound character I infer. Alternatively,
this relatively light stringing can be made to yield
more volume of sound if the hammerhead leather
2 The hammerheads
is chosen to be a little harder, with the result
check (from a reprod
that the timbre becomes brighter and a little more
like a clavichord. This latter approach is demon-
strated by a reproduction made by Kerstin Schwarz,
whereas those made by David Sutherland and
myself use a heavier stringing and provide a stron-
o
ger contrast to the timbre of the harpsichord.

Cristofori tells us (as described above) that he
expected the performer to have to play harder on
his fortepiano than one would on a harpsichord.
vl
A small detail of his fortepiano keyboard reveals
how he avoided a difficulty which occurs when
playing harder. At the balance pin in Italian harpsi-
chords the keylever has a hole on the underside
cD
and a slot at the top to guide the pin. This arrange-

ment produces a noticeable amount of noise in
Cristofori's fortepiano when played with some
3 The relative sizes of hammerheads for C, c', and c"' in
force, even with a very precise guide slot, but he
the 1726 Cristofori action (from a reproduction action
simply inverted the position of hole and slot. In
by Denzil Wraight) this way the rattle at the balance slot is damped
out by the cloth under the keylever and the action
Although the grading of hammerhead sizes isisfor quiet.
us elementary theory after 300 years of piano his- When one plays with more force then some
strings yield an edgy, hard tone. One way in which
tory, at the beginning these effects had to be investi-
gated, and Cristofori had to make a choice as to
Cristofori brought this effect under better control
what he wished to achieve. The Portuguese piano, was with a chamfered section of the wrestplank at
although based on Cristofori's action and largely
the tuning pins, as can be seen in the 1722 and 1726
instruments. Both of these have the strings led
on his design, typically used rather narrow ham-
over a nut on the underside of the wrestplank and
merheads of the same size throughout the compass.
then at an angle upwards to the tuning pins, also
This leads to a distinctly bright sound, not so distant
on he
from the harpsichord.35 Adopting the choice the underside, thereby creating more string
did, Cristofori shows us, in my estimation, where
pressure on the nut. Although one reads in the lit-
erature that this design gives a more secure tone
his preference lay, which is with the timbre I would
because the string is driven against the nut and not his harpsichords. The tendency is for strings of brass
away from it, in practice this effect is less significant to produce a 'warm' sound, which is less brilliant
than the amount of bearing pressure the brass than those of iron normally used in pianos. In his
strings have on the nut. From this I infer that choice of soundboard material Cristofori remained
Cristofori aimed to avoid an irregular onset of the true to his Venetian instrument-making tradition,
bright, hard sound. for he came from Padua in the Veneto and used
Cristofori's information that the fortepiano may only cypress wood. This material is somewhat
be used to accompany a singer or an instrument is heavier than the spruce or fir normally used for
interesting, and gives us the minimum standard of pianos, and thus a smaller volume of sound results.
volume which the instrument should achieve. It
It also has more internal friction than spruce, so
that the higher frequencies are more quickly
seems, therefore, that we should expect a sound
damped. This contributes to a sound which is
larger than one would be obtained from a clavi-
chord. I do not mean to imply that Cristofori was
clearer and less brilliant than from the spruce (or
fir) soundboards normally used in pianos, and is
seeking to make as loud an instrument as was pro-
duced in 18oo, but it is clear to me that with the
in keeping with the character of the timbre which
increase of the pressure of the strings bearing Ion describe with the word soave.
the nut, the choice of hammer dimensions and A great surprise has come from what may
hammer type, he was aiming to control the tonal have started life as a tuning aid, the una corda
performance at the louder end of the range. stop, where only one string is played, the other
We have reached a point where we can relate the being undamped: the timbre acquires an ethereal
timbre of the instrument and the dynamic range: quality from the interaction of the played and
a timbre cannot be chosen for the ppp end of the sympathetic string.36
range without having effects at the f end. If such One of the first reactions of the player to my
an instrument is voiced so that it is relatively bright newly made action based on the 1726 Cristofori is
at normal playing force, then it is too easy to pro- surprise that the touch is a little heavier than the
duce the harder sound, and the player has a rela- average Viennese Prellmechanik. It requires about
tively large 'forbidden zone' into which he may 35-40g to cause an escapement of the Cristofori
not stray, if he wishes to avoid the ugly tonal result. action in the treble, and a few grams more in the
Of course, overplaying can be used for dramatic bass. This is to be compared with an average
effect, providing it can be applied in a controlled of about 3og for Viennese actions measured by
manner. This forbidden zone is, to a first approxi- Kenneth Mobbs.37 Nevertheless, players have found
mation, determined by the tension of the strings, Cristofori's action to be comfortable and to give a
but thereafter by the mechanical performance of secure feeling. This is surely partly due to the effi-
the soundboard. The construction of the 1726 forte- ciency of Cristofori's check, which one might see
piano shows me that Cristofori had acquired the as the most original part of his invention of the
insight that a more heavily strung instrument action. Strictly speaking, the escapement principle
requires a stiffer soundboard for good performance was already developed in the 15th century, with the
as a fortepiano. In this respect, Cristofori's instru- jack design described by Arnaut de Zwolle, where
ments demonstrate that he had solved all the essen- a plectrum carried in a tongue escapes past a string
tial problems of producing a sophisticated in plucking and is enabled to slide back under the
fortepiano, within the limitations of the materials string on the return stroke.38
to hand. Of course, the successful application of this prin-
The character of sound of any string keyboard ciple to the fortepiano action was Cristofori's
instrument is partly predetermined by theundoubted achievement. The additional weight of
mechanical properties of the soundboard and the Cristofori's action comes partly from the balance
strings used. As mentioned above, brass strings point which he chose for the keylever. However,
were used, the type Cristofori normally chose fortogether with its relatively short length, this choice
produces a lever which is 'inherently quick' in its tonal conception of his invention, from which we
movement. Since the keylever is the slowest part, learn that the timbre of his fortepiano was intended
the whole action is designed for speed. to be distinctly different from the harpsichord.
What one could not learn from perusing books From my experience and details of the construction
or viewing static displays in museums is that of the surviving instruments I infer that this was
Cristofori's fortepiano is, if carefully made, intended to be a sweet-sounding instrument built
a perfectly reliable instrument. Reproduction for elegance of tone, not for bright, piercing
instruments can be transported upside down for volume. Since it was constructed with materials
1,000 km, subjected to temperature and humidity (brass wire and cypress soundboard) which we do
changes, yet, contrary to my initial expectations, not find in later fortepianos, Cristofori's instrument
the Cristofori fortepiano has shown itself to be is still largely unknown to us and many expectations
completely dependable. Viewed as a hygrometer of it are based on later 18th-century, largely
(to which 112 strings just happen to be attached) Viennese, instruments. Cristofori had found solu-
it has also shown that the let-off point of the tions to the technical problems of making a working
escapement can be depended on to move slightly, piano with a stable case which were to remain
but predictably, as the small leather pads against unsurpassed until the introduction of separate
which the hoppers rest change their dimensions by iron frames in the 19th century. The instrument
a minuscule amount with variations in humidity. with its dependable and fully developed action,
Let us review the position these investigations which was then the prerogative of the noble and
have reached. Maffei's article of 1711 is in my estima- wealthy, is now becoming better known to a wider
tion a remarkable record of Cristofori's view of the audience.
Denzil Wraight is both a researcher of historical keyboard instruments and an instrument maker, thus
combining historical and practical insights. His 1997 PhD thesis (Queen's University, Belfast) addressed
problems of pitch and stringing in Italian keyboard instruments. www.denzilwraight.com/contact
I would like to thank David Sutherland (2002), pp.269-78. According to my the University of Leipzig (VKJK 9501)
for his generous exchange of ideas duringanalysis, the case of the 1726 Cristoforiand tracks 17-20 from the CD Johann
my work on the Cristofori fortepiano andharpsichord (Musikinstrumenten- Sebastian Bach, Entwurff einer
his comments on this article, Riccardo Museum, Leipzig, no.85) was originally wohlbestallten Music (Raumklang RK
Pergolis for his translation, and the built for a fortepiano. lo11). I have published a list of CD
colleagues who have shared information recordings with some soundclips on
2 Information on the condition of the
and experience from which this study original and reproduction Cristofori
instrument was kindly supplied by
proceeds: Tony Chinnery, Dr Eszter instruments at www.denzilwraight.
David Sutherland. For the attribution
Fontana, Edwin Good, Kerstin Schwarz, com/crisdisc.htm which illustrate
Stewart Pollens, and Thomas and to Marcello see E. Selfridge-Field, instruments discussed in this article.
'The invention of the fortepiano as
Barbara Wolf I am particularly grateful
intellectual history', Early music, xxxiii
to Linda Nicholson, Ella Sevskaya and 4 Martin Souter, Keyboard classics:
(2005), pp.81-94. Further details on the
Aline Zylberajch, players of my period music played on the world's oldest
instrument with drawings are found in
instrument from whom I have learned piano [Scarlatti, Soler, Seixas] (Classical
so much. E. Good, 'Reflections on a year with
Communications CCL CDo05), and
Cristofori', Piano technicians journal,
Susan Alexander-Max, Domenico Zipoli
xlv/12 (2002), pp.22-30; xlvi/1 (2003), (1688-1726): Sonate d'Intavolatura per
1 There is a solitary fortepiano action,
pp.26-30; and xlvi/2 (2003), pp.18-22.
which, according to Pollens, contains Organo e Cembalo, Book II (Albany
some parts at least consistent with 3 Tracks 4-6, Historische Records TROY 669).
original Cristofori actions. See Tasteninstrumente aus dem
S. Pollens, 'The Gatti-Kraus piano Musikinstrumenten-Museum der 5 S. Pollens, 'The pianos of Bartolomeo
action ascribed to Bartolomeo Universitit Leipzig, issued in 1995 by Cristofori', Journal of the American
Cristofori', Galpin Society journal, Iv the Musikinstrumenten-Museum of Musical Instrument Society, x (1984),
pp.32-68, and also The early fortepiano pp.41-63 (the earlier date of this inventory is transcribed in V. Gai,
(Cambridge, 1995), pp.43-95. reference was drawn to my attention by Gli strumenti musicali della corte
Kerstin Schwarz). M. O'Brien, medicea e il museo del Conservatorio
6 See also publications by K. Restle,
Bartolomeo Cristofori at court in late 'Luigi Cherubini' di Firenze (Florence,
Bartolomeo Cristofori und die Anfdnge
Medici Florence (diss., Catholic U. 1969), pp.6-22, with the arpicimbalo
des Hammerclaviers (Munich, 1991),
and K. Schwarz, 'Bartolomeo America, 1994, UMI no.9424289), on p.11.
pp.115-27. O'Brien does not openly 21 A different view is taken in Schwarz,
Cristofori, Hammerfliigel und Cembalo
state that the Manucci memoria
im Vergleich', Scripta artium, ii (2001), 'Bartolomeo Cristofori, Hammerfliigel
described by Fabbri is a fake, but the und Cembalo', p.57: seeing the double
pp.23-67.
implication is clear from his analysis. bentside structure being used in both
7 Alexander Langer constructed a
13 This translation was kindly harpsichord and fortepiano, Schwarz
working model of this action in 1993, concludes that there was no
which he described and demonstrated undertaken by Prof. Riccardo Pergolis,
formerly a teacher of Italian-English fundamental difference in the stringing
at the symposium 'Bartolomeo
Cristofori und Giovanni Platti. translation at the University of Trieste, for the two types of instrument.
and also a researcher and maker of However, Cristofori made the hitchpin
Das friihe Fortepiano und seine Musik
keyboard instruments. The version rail of the fortepianos much stiffer than
in der Toscana und Franken',
Musikwissenschaftliches Institut der given in Pollens, The early pianoforte, in the 1722 harpsichord, but further
P.57, changes the voice from 'he has discussion of our different approaches
Bayerischen Julius-Maximilian-
judged it impossible ...' to 'I have is not possible in the space available
Universitit, Wfirzburg, 28-31 October
judged it impossible ...', and has here. Schwarz's own fortepiano
2004. Working independently, Michael
Maffei as the source of the drawing. stringing was described (op. cit., P.53)
Cole published a scale drawing
Selfridge-Field, 'The invention of the as 0.27 mm in the treble and 0.52 mm in
interpreting the early Cristofori action the bass.
in The pianoforte in the Classical era fortepiano as intellectual history', p.87,
inverts the sense and asserts that the
(Oxford, 1998), fig.1.2, p.7. There are 22 Information kindly communicated
some differences between these two instrument has been clearly described. by David Sutherland.
interpretations. 14 Translation by Pollens, The early 23 Information kindly communicated
8 Giornale de' letterati d'Italia, v (Venice, pianoforte, p.235, with my comments in by Thomas Wolf.
171), pp.144-59. See also the account of square brackets.
24 To make these calculations I have
Maffei in Selfridge-Field, 'The invention 15 Another reading is provided by assumed the use of Nuremberg gauge
of the fortepiano as intellectual history', E. Good, 'What did Cristofori call his sizes 1 (=0.52 mm) and 3 (=0.42 mm)
pp.86-8. invention?', Early music, xxxiii (2005), in yellow brass wire and an assumed
9 A transcription of the Italian from the P.95, which suggests that Maffei was pitch of a' = 415 Hz, even though the
1711 edition appears together with a 'propagandizing' Cristofori's original instrument may have been
instrument. tuned a little lower, perhaps as low as
translation into English in Pollens, The
early pianoforte, pp.238-43, 57-62. 16 Pollens, The early pianoforte, p.57. It
400 Hz. For details of Nuremberg wire
sizes based on measured wire, see
10 L. Och, 'Bartolomeo Cristofori, is difficult to translate professori since
D. Wraight, 'Principles and practice in
Scipione Maffei e la prima descrizione there may even be an implied criticism
of those who were acknowledged the stringing of Italian keyboard
del "gravicembalo col piano e forte"', II
instruments', Early keyboard journal,
flauto dolce, xiv-xv (1986), pp.16-23. leaders in their field yet did not
xviii (2000), pp.175-238, esp. p.212.
I am grateful to Riccardo Pergolis for appreciate Cristofori's invention.
supplying me with a copy of this article. 25 Cole, The pianoforte in the Classical
17 Pollens, The early pianoforte.
era, p.243-4, discusses the various
11 An exception is a mention in
18 See L. F. Tagliavini, 'Giovanni compromises involved in a combination
Selfridge-Field, 'The invention of the
Ferrini and his harpsichord "a penne e instrument, and posits a wire size of about
fortepiano as intellectual history', n.31.
marteletti"', Early music, xix (1991), 0.32 mm for the top note as equivalent to
The Italian text of Maffei's notes and an
pp-398-4o8. Tracks 34 and 35-37 on the gauge 8. Although this is a practical size
English translation is given in Pollens,
CD Ermitage ERM 427-2 illustrate the for a fortepiano, it is probably equivalent
The early pianoforte, pp.232-7, but this instrument. to gauge 6 of Nuremberg wire, and may
does not indicate that passages were
19 Pollens, The early pianoforte, thus not represent Ferrini's intention.
crossed out-a significant detail for
Och's argument. Pollens does not pp.57-8. 26 As observed by Cole, The pianoforte
report or comment on Och's thesis that 20 Good ('What did Cristofori call his in the Classical era, and Wraight,
Maffei's description of the instrument 'Principles and practice in the stringing
invention?') prefers the shape of the
was provided by Cristofori. of Italian keyboard instruments'.
fortepiano case and its similarity to the
12 C. Vitali and A. Furnari, 'Hindels harp shape as an explanation for the 27 See also n.24 above. The string
Italienreise: neue Dokumente name arpicimbalo. The description of tensions used in Tagliavini, 'Giovanni
Hypothesen und Interpretationen', the arpicimbalo is reproduced in many Ferrini and his harpsichord' are almost
Giittinger Hiindel-Beitriige, iv (1991), writings on Cristofori, but the full as I would interpret the numbers, being
only one gauge light in the bass. One 32 Wraight, 'Das Hammerklavier von37 K. Mobbs, 'A performer's
hears on the CD (see n.18) that the tone Bartolomeo Cristofori'. comparative study of touchweight,
in the treble is rather weak in key-dip, keyboard design and
33 These dimensions were kindly
comparison to the noise of the action, repetition in early grand pianos,
communicated by Kerstin Schwarz and
which would surely have been quieter c.1770 to 1850', Galpin Society journal,
when the instrument was first made. Tony Chinnery.
liv (2001), pp.16-44,
table 2. After consultation with
28 The National Museum of Music, 34 I demonstrated this effect in my
Vermillion, SD, USA. The gauge lecture at the symposium in WiirzburgKenneth Mobbs I suggest that the
numbers are reported in Pollens, (see n.7 above) by substituting centre of the weight be placed iomm
The early pianoforte, p.156; further
hammers. from the front edge of the key in
details are in J. Koster, 'Three grand order to produce a standardized
35 A representative CD recording of measurement which will be
pianos in the Florentine tradition',
the Antunes piano was made in 1996 by comparable with his. Several grams of
Musique-Images-Instruments, iv (1999), Cremilde Rosado Fernandes (Numerica
pp.95-1o6. the playing weight of the Cristofori
NUM 1047). This distinction between the
action are caused by friction, so an
29 Wraight, 'Principles and practice in two approaches was clearly audible for action which has been played in may
the stringing of Italian keyboard participants at the workshop on The measure less than a new one and
instruments', pp.177-80. Florentine Fortepiano held at the Royal comparisons should be made with
30 I assume the same hypothetical Academy of Music, London, October this in mind.
pitch of a' = 415 Hz, with which this 2003, when a Portuguese fortepiano
scaling will certainly work. (Antunes?) owned by Harold Lester was
38 G. Le Cerf and E.-R. Labande,
heard alongside my reconstruction of
31 I have described these findings and Les traites d'Henri-Arnaut de Zwolle et
the 1730 Cristofori-Ferrini instrument.
given a detailed examination of the de divers anonymes (Paris, 1932);
gauge numbers in 'Das Hammerklavier 36 This inspired Linda Nicholson and reprint with comments
von Bartolomeo Cristofori-das Aline Zylberajch to choose, independently by F. Lesure, Documenta Musica, 2nd
Vorbild fuir Gottfried Silbermann?', of each other, music played on the una series, iv (Kassel, 1972). The primus
corda as the first track on recently
Freiberger Studien zur Orgel, ix (200oo6), modus forpicum is illustrated
pp.53-69. produced CDs. in plate 6.
listening to musicians - responding to their needs

For people in the music business
there is always help at hand from
the Musicians Benevolent Fund
* Help with stress and health problems
* Help and advice with financial problems
* Help that's given in strict confidence
* Help given to outstanding young musicians
If you or someone you know needs our

help, please contact:
Musicians Benevolent Fund
16 Ogle Street London W1W 6JA
Telephone: 020 7636 4481

Facsimile: 020 7637 4307
email: info@mbf.org.uk
website: www.mbf.org.uk

Recent Approaches in Understanding Cristofori's Fortepiano

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Recent Approaches in Understanding Cristofori's Fortepiano

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Recent Approaches in Understanding Cristofori's Fortepiano

Author(s): Denzil Wraight