Harpsichord or piano?

[Florestan]

How do you like to hear the keyboard music of 17th and 18th century? On harpsichord or piano?

I feel the harpsichord has a peculiar melancholy sound producing a musical atmosphere which is lost in piano versions.

Anyone with me in that?

[Catison]

I always prefer harpsichord, everytime.

[lukeottevanger]

In general, yes, though there will be exceptions of course. Plus I prefer the clavichord to the harpsichord when it is appropriate - and that's an even more intimate, expressive and flexible instrument.

[Harry]

I always prefer harpsichord, everytime.

I second that!

[Florestan]

In general, yes, though there will be exceptions of course. Plus I prefer the clavichord to the harpsichord when it is appropriate - and that's an even more intimate, expressive and flexible instrument.

Then you might find interesting this excellent essay from the most excellent Goldberg Magazine.

[orbital]

I am getting more used to the sound of the harpischord, but in general I prefer the piano. But to follow tradition    I tend to prefer recordings with a more metallic timbre (such as Weissenberg's).

Although they may have been written for the instruments of their time, I don't see how Scarlatti sonatas can sound better on the harpischord then they do on the piano 

[FideLeo]

Then you might find interesting this excellent essay from the most excellent Goldberg Magazine.

The author, Marcia Hadjimarkos, actually made a recording of six(?) Haydn sonatas on clavichord for the French Zigzag Territories label.  If you find the original issue grab it, as it contains some most gorgeous art works I have seen for CD's.  http://www.zigzag-territoires.com/article.php3?id_article=908&lang=fr

[FideLeo]

Although they may have been written for the instruments of their time

They WERE written for the instruments of their time, but the fact needn't interfere with your personal preferences.
There are Scarlatti recordings made on a Cristofori-action pianoforte - see http://www.denzilwraight.com/crisfp.htm - very interesting and worthwhile.

[lukeottevanger]

Then you might find interesting this excellent essay from the most excellent Goldberg Magazine.

Thank you for that - some nice details on technique in there particularly. That first quotation - allow me to reproduce it here - is rather beautiful, isn't it?

The clavichord, that individual, melancholic, inexpressibly sweet instrument, has advantages over the harpsichord and the fortepiano when made by a master of his craft. It produces not only musical colouring but also middle tints, notes swelling and dying away, melting trills hardly breathing under the fingers, portato or vibrato; in a word expression for every shade of feeling.

All this can be reproduced and conjured up by the pressure of the finger, the vibration and throb of the strings, and by a touch heavy or gentle. Those who do not care for bluster, frenzy or storm, and whose hearts find frequent and welcome relief in the overflow of sweet sentiment, will pass over the harpsichord and choose a clavichord.(...)

When you improvise by the light of the moon, or refresh your soul on summer nights, or celebrate the evenings of spring ; ah, then pine not for the strident harpsichord. See, your clavichord breathes as gently as your heart.

We discussed the clavichord a little a month or two back on both pages of this thread. But don't allow me to derail your thread already!

[Don]

Generally, I can enjoy works on either instrument, finding that the artistry of the performer is of paramount importance.  Having said this, I do prefer Scarlatti on harpsichord because it does a better job of conveying the composer's sharp contours.

[lukeottevanger]

Although they may have been written for the instruments of their time, I don't see how Scarlatti sonatas can sound better on the harpischord then they do on the piano 

Really? I won't argue with your preference, but really? The harpischord gives Scarlatti pungency and vibrancy, to say nothing of its aptitude for his famous guitar/cluster effects, which never come off as well on the piano - and how could they?

[Maciek]

The harpsichord happens to be my wife's favorite instrument so I have to at least like it. That said, I generally prefer the piano - the harpsichord I can stand only in smaller doses, no more than 2-3 hours at a time , after that I begin to grow tired of its sound. Unles it's contemporary harpsichord music you're talking about - I'm a sucker for that. Probably one of my favorite instruments there. Talk about ambivalent feelings!

[BachQ]

As to 17th/18th Century pieces, I prefer that the piece be performed on an instrument most closely approximating the composer's intent, after giving effect to possible modifications in that intent (as best we can glean) in light of subsequent developments in technology.

[Florestan]

Thank you for that - some nice details on technique in there particularly. That first quotation - allow me to reproduce it here - is rather beautiful, isn't it?

Yes, the quote is very beautiful indeed.

[Ten thumbs]

The question of intent is not always as easy to answer as one thinks. Most of Scarlatti's keyboard output seems to be for the harpsichord but one cannot be sure that it ALL was. Queen Barbara did possess a fortepiano. When one moves on to Soler, it becomes much more difficult. How many of us have both the room and the finances to possess both instruments?

[orbital]

The harpischord gives Scarlatti pungency and vibrancy, to say nothing of its aptitude for his famous guitar/cluster effects, which never come off as well on the piano - and how could they?

The first part, I don't know if I agree with, I think that piano in the right hands delivers the vibrancy more clearly. Plus even if it does not, the flip side will be that harpischord will be too vibrant for the slower minor sonatas to which piano can easily adjust itself.

For the second part, I completely agree. The funny thing is I noticed that just a few days ago when I received my Landowska Scarlatti CD and witnessed that guitar effect for the first time. And I was completely amazed. That being said,  I only had two harpischord (one Staier and one Ross) CDs of Scarlatti before, and I had not noticed either of them showcasing the effect.

[Sergeant Rock]

I can enjoy the harpsichord in moderation, and when it's part of a group of instruments, but for extended time as a solo instrument...no, I really can't abide it. The sound is monotonous and incredibly irritating to me, the aural equivalent of chinese water torture. It's my least favorite instrument. I know it's un-HIP (pun intended) but give me a piano any time.

Sarge

[Josquin des Prez]

I always prefer harpsichord, everytime.

[lukeottevanger]

The first part, I don't know if I agree with, I think that piano in the right hands delivers the vibrancy more clearly. Plus even if it does not, the flip side will be that harpischord will be too vibrant for the slower minor sonatas to which piano can easily adjust itself.

By 'vibrancy' I meant exactly that - the literal vibration of the string. The bass of the harpsichord can (depending on the instrument) deliver this in spades, to a sometimes crude degree  - the note twanging till it is almost out of tune - which is not suitable for most music but which certainly fits some of Scarlatti's sonatas. He has a way of emphasizing the bass - plunging passages to round off sections, cross hand accents and so on - which shouts out for this heavily twanging sound (sorry, no other word for it!). It's just too refined on the piano 

For the second part, I completely agree. The funny thing is I noticed that just a few days ago when I received my Landowska Scarlatti CD and witnessed that guitar effect for the first time. And I was completely amazed. That being said,  I only had two harpischord (one Staier and one Ross) CDs of Scarlatti before, and I had not noticed either of them showcasing the effect.

They are extraordinary to play, quite unprecedented. We're talking dense clusters of 6 or 7 notes in the left hand, sometimes nearly as many in the right as well, but weighed up really subtly - he doesn't just repeat the same clusters, but varies them and adds internal ornaments so boldly and brazenly. Wow!

[lukeottevanger]

I think the key for me to my liking for the harpsichord is precisely its physicality - which can express itself as relatively unrefined in Scarlatti, but isn't only that. Here we have a box filled with plucked strings, simply that. There are none (well, few) of the moderating mechanisms of the piano, no soft[ish] felt hammers, dampers or pedals to control and modulate the sound. Just that simple box of vibrating strings. It's an 'imperfect' sound - we can hear the mechanism working, we can hear the lack-of-control of sustain etc. The clavichord has different 'issues', but the effect is similar: both instruments really sound as if they are almost alive, we can hear their insides working before our ears; that doesn't happen with a piano, and nor should it.

Of course, these are flaws for a lot of music, no doubt. But they are perfect for many other pieces, like Scarlatti sonatas, like Couperin Ordres...