Harpsichord or piano?

[Harry Collier]

That analogy doesnt work.
As what we're really comparing here, is music making tools.

Well said. The viol family, with its consort of viols, died out at towards the latter decades of the 17th century. The instruments were eclipsed by the rise of the violin family -- violin, viola, cello and double bass. The principal reason: the advances in expressivity and sound afforded by the new "music making tools".

[FideLeo]

Well said. The viol family, with its consort of viols, died out at towards the latter decades of the 17th century. The instruments were eclipsed by the rise of the violin family -- violin, viola, cello and double bass. The principal reason: the advances in expressivity and sound afforded by the new "music making tools".

Unwanted expressivity to these ears. 

Try reproducing the almost ethereal sonorities of a viol consort on a modern steel-string quartet.  You won't get them.

[FideLeo]

However, if you prefer everything all at the same level, with little or no dynamics (read: uniform or evenness; hence why its more mechanical), even at the most humanly impossible speeds, than nothing tops a Pianola or Digital Piano.

But a pianola doesn't sound like a Silbermann organ, does it?   Diversity rules.

[Que]

But a pianola doesn't sound like a Silbermann organ, does it?   Diversity rules.

Gorgeous.

Q

[FideLeo]

Gorgeous.

Q

Agreed.

But, for Sweelinck or other pre-Bach music, I actually do sometimes prefer instruments by Arp Schnitger! 

[FideLeo]

wasnt the title of the thread harpsichord or piano?

organs are a different branch/family of keyboard instruments arent they? as they dont use strings to produce sound? anway...

barrel organ..

Didn't someone mention violins and stuff in this thread also?   Funny you chose to pick on organs.  They are such magnificent instruments!   

[FideLeo]

I don't even agree that "piano vs harpsichord" necessarily has anything to do with "evolution of music tools"
(Synthesizers, anyone?)   I hope by now you see that you don't actually direct the discussion in this thread. 

[lukeottevanger]

One is an earlier and more primative version of a later much more advanced model...

This is where your whole point falls down - you point out later that the organ is hors concours, a different kettle of fish because it doesn't have strings, but you fail to see that harpsichord (and clavichord) are different also because their method of sound production is totally different to that of the piano, which means they can do things it can't, as well as vice versa. They are, simply, different instruments, not more 'primative' versions of the piano's evolutionary end-point. Again, I repeat my earlier observation - if they have been made obsolete by the piano, how come composers still choose to write for them (wll, not so much the clavichord, for a different reason, but that's their loss!) Answer - because they value the individual tone qualities of the instruments

[FideLeo]

And I repeat my earlier observation that the so-called "obsoletion" of harpsichords by pianofortes (which looks actually more like a change in fashion to me) occurred only gradually over a very long period, from c. 1700 to
after 1780. 

[Mark G. Simon]

How do you think Elliott Carter is going to react when you tell him "Hey, we've just improved your Double Concerto! We're going to get rid of that obsolete old harpsichord and play it with two pianos!"

[FideLeo]

How do you think Elliott Carter is going to react when you tell him "Hey, we've just improved your Double Concerto! We're going to get rid of that obsolete old harpsichord and play it with two pianos!"

That would make it a transcription of the original, no?   

[lukeottevanger]

Exactly, Mark. And of course, the examples go on and on - 20th century music which, like Scarlatti, exploits the harpsichord for its own particular qualities: major and wonderful masterpieces by Ligeti and Xenakis spring to mind immediately.

[FideLeo]

Mozart owned a clavichord as well as a fortepiano in his home.   Don't think he actually thought one replaced the other.

[lukeottevanger]

they are apart of the same family though, there is a clear history/evolution/development of the keyboard, the harpsichord was the next step of development from the clavichord, in an attempt to produce more volume, then came the fortepiano etc....and as time went on, each sort-of outmoded the other and/or was used less frequently (never obsolete) for the more advanced models that we see prevailent today...but each is an earlier descendant of the other.

the organ is separate from the family of keyboard instruments that uses strings to produce sound, it uses air, and continued to develop in a different way...

But that's just wrong. The harpsichord and the clavichord developed in parallel; the harpsichord comes from spinet and virginal, not clavichord at all - I repeat, they share nothing but the fact their strings are controlled from a keyboard. So we can, perhaps, (rightly or wrongly) talk of harpsichord being 'superior' to virginal - that's more like comparing like with like. But with harpsichord, clavichord and piano we have three totally different methods of making a string sound (and more), sharing only the fact that they are controlled from a keyboard.

But the main problem with your above post, to my eyes, is above all that word 'advanced' - 'advanced' in what way? There are losses and gains in both directions, and therefore the most sensible response seems to me a more flexible one, one that doesn't bandy around absolute judgements - advanced, evolved, primitive, etc. - but that responds in a more fair minded way. It is perfectly OK to prefer piano to harpsichord (in Scarlatti, for example); but it's not OK to say that the harpsichord is superceded in by the piano (in Scarlatti, for example). Because it isn't; the benefits the piano brings to the music are counterbalanced by losses also, and their being seen as benefits depend in any case on one's prioritising dynamic range etc. in this repertoire, which is not actually the take-as-read value-judgement that your posts suggest, but rather a matter of taste. Myself, I look for other things in these pieces before or besides this

Traverso - Bach had a clavichord too, and according to at least one biographer he preferred it to all other keyboard instruments, at least in certain types of repertoire, on account of its exceptionally expressive and flexible tone.

[Bunny]

The music undoubtably sounds good on both as previously discussed, so there really is no arguement here. Take your pick whichever you prefer. Despite that though, the piano is a big big improvement, and that's why its the most widely used & preferred keyboard instrument today. Obvious.

However, if you prefer everything all at the same level, with little or no dynamics (read: uniform or evenness; hence why its more mechanical), even at the most humanly impossible speeds, than nothing tops a Pianola or Digital Piano.

Organs are similar to harpsichord in that the sounds are produced via a keyboard all at the same level, with little or no dynamics (read: uniform or evenness; hence why its more mechanical), even at the most humanly impossible speeds.  I think mentioning them is pertinent to the argument.  Both harpsichords and organs employ "stops" to alter tone and loudness as well.  Organs are as pertinent to the discussion as viols and violins are.

[FideLeo]

Traverso - Bach had a clavichord too, and according to at least one biographer he preferred it to all other keyboard instruments, at least in certain types of repertoire, on account of its exceptionally expressive and flexible tone.

Was it you who mentioned CPE Bach in this context, too?   I can't recall exactly now, but is CPE the main reference in the technique of "Bebung" for students of the Clavichord? 

[orbital]

They are pertinent, but not to the same level. That's why we never discuss if we prefer the Choral Preludes on organ or the piano. First, because we actually call those transcriptions as they have to be rewritten to sound anywhere close to resembling the original piece, second because the answer is pretty obvious  

[FideLeo]

Organs are similar to harpsichord in that the sounds are produced via a keyboard all at the same level, with little or no dynamics (read: uniform or evenness; hence why its more mechanical), even at the most humanly impossible speeds.  I think mentioning them is pertinent to the argument.  Both harpsichords and organs employ "stops" to alter tone and loudness as well.  Organs are as pertinent to the discussion as viols and violins are.

Thanks Bunny.  I wish I could put it as succintly and clearly as you just did.

[FideLeo]

They are pertinent, but not to the same level. That's why we never discuss if we prefer the Choral Preludes on organ or the piano. First, because we actually call those transcriptions as they have to be rewritten to sound anywhere close to resembling the original piece, second because the answer is pretty obvious  

This is where the example of "claviorganums" can be particularly interesting.  Playing a harpsichord and a chamber organ on the same manual(s), separately or together.  They are not very commonly seen now but believed to have been very popular especially in northern Europe in 16th and 17th centuries.  A hybrid - something that seems to lay beyond the imagination of present-day Steinway idolators also. 

[lukeottevanger]

Was it you who mentioned CPE Bach in this context, too?   I can't recall exactly now, but is CPE the main reference for technique of "Bebung" for students of the Clavichord? 

CPE is the main reference for the clavichord full stop, I think - simply because 1) he writes explicitly for the instrument (including bebung), which is fairly unusual; 2) he uses the clavichord as the empfindsamer instrument it was always most suited to be; and 3) that music is so very fine.

However, if you're referring to his Versuch (a French version of which can be downloaded here) certainly he places the clavichord at the centre of things there, stressing early on the fact that it is capable of vibrato particularly, and that for this and other reasons it is the best keyboard instrument (judged against harpsichord and fortepiano) to judge the quality of a keyboard player on (pages 7-8 of the file I linked to). He does indeed give an example of bebung notation and a description of its execution in that primer, stressing that it is only available to the clavichord (pages 99-100)