Mozart and the Pianoforte

I agree with Philip James. This may seem an odd statement to begin with, considering that the man was barely mentioned in the third chapter of Famous Pianists and Their Technique, but I do agree with him. As was mentioned in passing, James thought that the name of the instrument commonly known as a "piano" should instead have been "forte." I have always wondered why the name "pianoforte" was shortened to just "piano;" piano means soft, and didn't we already have a soft instrument in the clavichord? I'll admit, saying "pianist" sounds much better than "fortist" (or would it be "forteist"?). But still, the appeal of the new instrument back in the early 18th century was the fact that it could be played both very softly and very loudly. Think of it; much melodic music attempts to imitate the human voice, and now there was a keyboard instrument with not only the capability in range of the human voice, but also the capability in dynamics. The pianoforte placed at the fingertips of keyboardists the closest thing one person could get to playing a symphony by themselves.
Many fine musicians did take advantage of the benefits of playing the pianoforte well, and none at an earlier age than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Beginning keyboard study of his own volition at the age of three, Mozart is perhaps the greatest argument there is in favor of introducing music to children early on. Were it not clear that Mozart was a special case, a child with a seemingly one track mind, and a passion for music in the extreme, the judgment of Leopold Mozart in taking his two young children on a concert tour could perhaps be questioned. Even with the thought of the young Mozart's genius in mind, questions arise, questions such as; "if young Wolfgang had not seen what a sensation he was early on, would he have been such an insufferably stuck up prig about his keyboard skills in later life?" But right on the heals of that question must come; "would he indeed have been such a good keyboardist in later life, were it not for the training he received on the road?" While throwing a child of seven into the concert circuit might seem a bit extreme, the value of his education and practice in accompaniment, transposition, improvisation, and mere technique must have been incredible. It makes me wonder if we shouldn't try teaching some of these skills to our young students today. And then I wonder, how would we teach them?
Mozart did become a master at all those skills, and they no doubt contributed to his prowess as a composer. His ideas on touch and movement at the keyboard, however, were very interesting. The idea of a non-legato sound, and a fingery technique must have been easier to carry out on the early pianofortes, with their lighter touch. Mozart's ridicule of the girl who used her arm to stress notes is telling; why did Mozart feel that motion of the arm was such a laughable idea? Perhaps because he did not need it. However, just because Mozart did not need it does not mean we don't. After all, we were not all child prodigies, either.
Mozart also laughed at Clementi, who thought of the next generation, when he prepared method books, and foreshadowed it with his virtuosic style. Although Gradus ad Parnassum may be an object of some jokes (Debussy parodied it, for one), Clementi should be noted for not only writing a method of technique for young players, but also for including pieces of music written by others than himself. Certainly, he understood the value of a well rounded musical education, and of learning from others. And in pedagogy, what could be more important?