Harpsichord or piano?

[Gurn Blanston]

I was thinking earlier today, as I listened for the first time to Bach's Goldberg Variations played on the harpsichord rather than the piano (an experience that has converted me to the work, I might add), how for me, harpsichords are a bit like organs ... and even, pianos. What I mean is that different instruments can sound MARKEDLY different, and have a really positive or negative effect on the listener depending on whether or not he or she likes the sound made by the particular model of instrument in question. I've rejected a number of harpsichord and organ CDs because I hated what I heard; then I experienced the same repertoire played on different harpsichords and organs, and loved what I heard. A similar, though less 'severe' thing has happened to me with piano recordings.

Quite agree, Mark. This was something I noticed early on in my discovery of the instrument, and which I still listen for today. Like the one that Sgrizzi uses in the Scarlatti disk he did has the resonance and depth that almost make it sound like an organ compared to other's I've heard. Pinnock uses one in one of his Goldberg recordings that has a similar quality. It truly sounds wonderful! 

[lukeottevanger]

Gurn

No, he's a gap on my shelves, I must admit. I will rectify this, when cash permits! Looks too good an offer to turn down - what's the Tangentenflügel sound like? My mind is busy imagining all sorts of wonderful things....

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn

No, he's a gap on my shelves, I must admit. I will rectify this, when cash permits! Looks too good an offer to turn down - what's the Tangentenflügel sound like? My mind is busy imagining all sorts of wonderful things....

It's one of the first iterations of the fortepiano. The hammers are wood with no covering. If I had to describe it... well, I couldn't, actually. It doesn't sound like any fortepiano I ever heard, but it is definitely a percussion instrument. Not really sure what sort of escapement it has, although he can (and does) play rather rapid passages on it. I have also that single disk (you see it there) of half of the same repertoire played by Schooenward on a fortepiano (on Zig-Zag Territories), and it also sounds very nice (it's nice music, after all), but entirely different from the clavichord/tangent piano sound. Many people would prefer it because the sound is more familiar to their ears, you know? But for those of more exotic taste, well...

[lukeottevanger]

er, its not the ideal im talking about, its laid out in history, the quest for the ideal keyboard instrument that consolidated and builded upon (or discarded) subsequent keyboard developments during its history and strived to improve the old and meet all of the desires wanted by performers and composers i.e. more control, more resources etc as discussed to death here already...this is why things have evolved and improved. The striving for that ideal...without it, things would never change. this is obvious, and we're going in circles here ...

Yes, indeed, going round in circles as you say (mostly because you refuse to recognise that, whatever the circumstances that led up to the development of the piano, the music written before this time was not written for that instrument; it was conceived for another, as I've already said, and written in those terms. Nothing wrong with playing it on modern piano, but doing so is not 100% gain, it has its negatives too. Which is all I've said.) More to the point here - 'the ideal' isn't 'laid out in history' - hindsight allows us to see a clear trend, certainly, but the unified Ideal you imply accompanied that trend is a nebulous one, not articulated by an artistic movement, countered by voices within it etc. etc. In this case I am interested less in these broad trends as seen in hindsight as in the music as it was composed, and the intrinsic qualities of the music itself. Which is why, for instance, though I don't object to either composer being played on the piano at all, and am more than happy to acknowledge many great and revealing recordings of both on that instrument, I distinguish between Bach and Scarlatti in this matter. The former transfers more easily and logically to other instruments; the latter is more physically grounded in harpsichord sound, timbre and dynamic capabilities. It works on the piano, but it is a greater wrench, which involved more damage being done to the original conception, even if something else may be gained in the process.

Yeah but dont confuse surface color for musical content, because A LOT can be gained by hearing the music on the modern piano, and its not me saying this, its universally regarded, proven & known, that fascinating new insights, as Gould and Horowitz proved, shining a whole new light on the music almost certainly. And that it can be explored with more subtilty and depth. Cant ask for more than that!

To begin with, surface colour is emphatically part and parcel of musical content, which if it does anything extends into psycho-acoustical realms and not simply theoretical ones. (That is more true of Scarlatti than most Baroque composers, I'd contend, in fact.) It's snobbish to pretend otherwise. In any case, if surface colour is not part of musical content, as you contend, then the extra facilities of the piano which you keep on mentioning as brining positive benefits to the music - dynamics, flexibility etc - are irrelevant, because they, too, are surface colour. You can't have it both ways.

Secondly, I've never contended that the modern piano can't bring anything to this repertoire. Far from it. Your obsession with snappy categoricals - 'proved' in this post, as with 'primitive' and 'evolved' before - I find less persuasive, although that's beside the point here.

[lukeottevanger]

It's one of the first iterations of the fortepiano. The hammers are wood with no covering. If I had to describe it... well, I couldn't, actually. It doesn't sound like any fortepiano I ever heard, but it is definitely a percussion instrument. Not really sure what sort of escapement it has, although he can (and does) play rather rapid passages on it. I have also that single disk (you see it there) of half of the same repertoire played by Schooenward on a fortepiano (on Zig-Zag Territories), and it also sounds very nice (it's nice music, after all), but entirely different from the clavichord/tangent piano sound. Many people would prefer it because the sound is more familiar to their ears, you know? But for those of more exotic taste, well...

Sounds fascinating, Gurn!


Whilst we're - more or less - on the subject, have you heard [of] these? (I know it's not quite your area, but you're pretty informed on these things...)

[Gurn Blanston]

Sounds fascinating, Gurn!


Whilst we're - more or less - on the subject, have you heard [of] these? (I know it's not quite your area, but you're pretty informed on these things...)

No, damn the bad luck! I do have several disks of Scarlatti, but none of Lester's. 38 disks!   That's more than Scott Ross' traversal, IIRC.  Worth checking out, I should imagine. Thanks for the tip.

Oh, only a tiny bit more on the tangent piano (there really is very little info on them), they don't actually have a hammer head, rather just a wooden stick, which is to say, only the handle. It may be that my inability to describe it (actually, it sounds more like a harpsichord than anything else I can think of  ) is because this rather light stick makes a sort of "bong" you might say when it strikes the string. Using words to describe sounds can be difficult...

[lukeottevanger]

No, damn the bad luck! I do have several disks of Scarlatti, but none of Lester's. 38 disks!   That's more than Scott Ross' traversal, IIRC.  Worth checking out, I should imagine. Thanks for the tip.

Well, I asked for several reasons. It's the first full traversal of the sonatas, believe it or not, because the 3 discs of volume 6 include newly discovered ones edited for performance by my old analysis supervisor W Dean Sutcliffe.

I'm on a bit of a Scarlatti binge at the moment inspired not by GMG but by my piano pupils. The astonishing K175 is set for ABRSM Grade 8 this year; there's also a nice little A minor sonata set for Grade 5 which quite a few of my pupils have chosen to play in the last two or three weeks. So, to introduce them to the composer, I play them K175 - and without exception, they've all been utterly bowled over, left breathless by the music. Even when I play it! Teenage girls, mind you. Not the easiest set to impress with the Baroque... Their enthusiasm has fired me up, so I thought I really ought to get hold of a complete set at last. Amazon turned up this one amongst others - the second volume (6 CDs) is selling at Amazon UK for less than £7; I bought it and the first volume yesterday.

But the really great thing for me is that Richard Lester was my second ever piano teacher, from the ages of about 5-7! I have an LP of him playing Scarlatti made in the 70s, which I treasure - someone gave it to me when I about 8 - but I had hardly heard of him since then; it was wonderful to see this yesterday. Reading the biography on his site brought back all sorts of memories....apparently he has recorded Messiaen organ music, seemingly at the church adjoining the beautiful old building I used to have lessons in....and then I had a vague memory of turning up for a piano lesson and finding him sitting at that organ, and him inviting me to have a play. I remember being scared of it, I think...

So, between the Lester and the Sutcliffe coincidences, I feel I really ought to get this set. 2 down, 4 to go!

Oh, only a tiny bit more on the tangent piano (there really is very little info on them), they don't actually have a hammer head, rather just a wooden stick, which is to say, only the handle. It may be that my inability to describe it (actually, it sounds more like a harpsichord than anything else I can think of  ) is because this rather light stick makes a sort of "bong" you might say when it strikes the string. Using words to describe sounds can be difficult...

Yes, that sounds more like the tangent on a clavichord, which likewise isn't a hammer but just 'a stick' (sort of...). This whole thing sounds fascinating! Thanks for your description.

Using words to describe sounds can be difficult...

Someone really should take that as their tag-line....

[lukeottevanger]

you're so long-winded...

Yes, I've often said so myself on this board. But it's probably partly because I try to punctuate and spell properly.

there is a history of the development of the instrument, first they had the clavichord, which was not loud enough for what they wanted, so then came along the harpsichord which tried to address the volume issue with 'plucking' the strings, but that lacked touch control of volume & tone, and was limiting, which was later addressed in subsueqent developments and on and on things went etc...striving and making advancements to meet that ideal (maybe not the best word) keyboard instrument that will be the most versatile (flexable) for musicians and composers wants and needs, i dont understand how its so hard to see or understand this, its so clear. and the history is written. so yes, the modern piano is an clear advancement and improvement on earlier instruments.

Apart from its primary school comprehension of music history ('first they had.....then along came....' - you really think that's how it worked? ) you still, with your fixation that teleology=100% progress, miss the fundamental point, and I don't understand how you find it so hard either. As Bunny so eloquently put it earlier, technological 'advancement' and 'improvement' are only such for the tasks for which they are designed. Her example was of a motorbike and a horse - the one might be more modern, more advanced, faster and so on. But it doesn't supercede the other, which remains beautiful and simple and perfectly fitted to its task.

and what is lost in scarlatti? i only hear gains...the music on the harpsichord? fine, thats how it sounded then, with what they had. clicky, thin, nil expression, all that the same level, and mechanical. but on the multicolored and resourceful modern piano? its more organic, flowing, lyrical, rich etc...

Well, now we get to it  . You just don't like the sound of the harpsichord (have you just been pretending till now that you have a more appreciative, open mind towards it?) That's fine, though you could have said so in the first place. You make a nice pair of lists:

The harpsichord is 'clicky, thin, nil expression, all the same level, mechanical' - but these derogatory epithets can easily be turned around, and from that perspective they are to many listeners positive qualities. 'All the same level'? Well, of course, the dual manual harpsichord gives two levels, which is, overwhelmingly, exactly how the music is structured. 'Nil expression'? A matter of taste - I find the timbre of the pure vibrating string, plucked and left to vibrate, extraordinarily expressive and plangent. 'Thin'? Depends what instrument you've heard, just as with pianos. But even so, is 'thin' always a negative? That's the sort of thing you seem to have trouble contemplating. And so on...

'Organic, flowing, lyrical, rich' - likewise, I could turn these around, find negative-sounding synonyms. I don't really want my Scarlatti flowing lyrically most of the time. There are sonatas where it might be lovely, but mostly it's pretty inappropriate. Why else do you think most pianists playing Baroque music opt for a detached touch, Gould being the prime example, obsessively so? Because it is what works musically, because the music was designed to work that way - and that's because the music was designed with harpsichord in mind.

It's now nearly 2:30 am here. I haven't got more time for this debate, which as you say is going in circles.

[Gurn Blanston]

The development of the instrument and the development of the music pushed each other constantly. Like all evolutionary processes, time's arrow drives it in one direction (you may call it forward if you wish). In any case, music is not written at one point in history to take advantage of what (unforeseeable) thing will come at a later point. My own preference of the harpsichord for harpsichord music stops very abruptly at the beginning of the Classical Era. I can't tolerate early Haydn or especially early Mozart on anything but a fortepiano or clavichord, even though the harpsichord lived on until 1790 or so and is actually the authentic instrument that they were writing for (pre-1770, I'm talking about). It's the music that has changed, and left the instrument behind.

I certainly don't, by any means, try to deny you your god-given right to listen to the music you want played on the instrument you want to hear it on. But I think it is awfully boorish of you to attempt to discredit other people's same rights and say that we are wrong, or anachronistic. Neither is "better" or "worse", but are only expressions of one's preferences.

[lukeottevanger]

The development of the instrument and the development of the music pushed each other constantly. Like all evolutionary processes, time's arrow drives it in one direction (you may call it forward if you wish). In any case, music is not written at one point in history to take advantage of what (unforeseeable) thing will come at a later point. My own preference of the harpsichord for harpsichord music stops very abruptly at the beginning of the Classical Era. I can't tolerate early Haydn or especially early Mozart on anything but a fortepiano or clavichord, even though the harpsichord lived on until 1790 or so and is actually the authentic instrument that they were writing for (pre-1770, I'm talking about). It's the music that has changed, and left the instrument behind.

Beautifully put, Gurn. And not long-winded either.

As you suggest, it is the sum of the imperatives of the individual piece of music that need to be put first, and as long as that is the case, and not filtered through preconceived ideas of generalised instrumental or musical 'ideals', everything will turn out fine.

[Gurn Blanston]

Beautifully put, Gurn. And not long-winded either.

As you suggest, it is the sum of the imperatives of the individual piece of music that need to be put first, and as long as that is the case, and not filtered through preconceived ideas of generalised instrumental or musical 'ideals', everything will turn out fine.

Thanks, Luke. Now, go to bed!

[Mark G. Simon]

This is just to let musicians of the 25th century know that I would much prefer to have my Anniversary Sonata played on the Bejoran X&(* clarinet, which is superior in all respects to the clarinets which exist today.

What I particularly enjoy about the Bejoran clarinets is their control of Glarth, an essential 10th-dimensional aspect of music about which the Prophets once said "it don't mean a sarth if it ain't got that Glarth". Its ability to articulate four different shades of Pibnix makes it easily the instrument of choice. I believe all composers of the 21st century will prefer this instrument. whether they know of it or not.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is just to let musicians of the 25th century know that I would much prefer to have my Anniversary Sonata played on the Bejoran X&(* clarinet, which is superior in all respects to the clarinets which exist today.

What I particularly enjoy about the Bejoran clarinets is their control of Glarth, an essential 10th-dimensional aspect of music about which the Prophets once said "it don't mean a sarth if it ain't got that Glarth". Its ability to articulate four different shades of Pibnix makes it easily the instrument of choice. I believe all composers of the 21st century will prefer this instrument. whether they know of it or not.

Duly noted, Mark. I am absolutely sure that Pibnix will be at the top of the tonal appreciation list at that point in time...

[Bunny]

This is just to let musicians of the 25th century know that I would much prefer to have my Anniversary Sonata played on the Bejoran X&(* clarinet, which is superior in all respects to the clarinets which exist today.

What I particularly enjoy about the Bejoran clarinets is their control of Glarth, an essential 10th-dimensional aspect of music about which the Prophets once said "it don't mean a sarth if it ain't got that Glarth". Its ability to articulate four different shades of Pibnix makes it easily the instrument of choice. I believe all composers of the 21st century will prefer this instrument. whether they know of it or not.

Yes, and to be accompanied on the epiano with the virtual keyboard. 

[Florestan]

No offense meant, but the idea that the keyboard compositions of the 17th and 18th centuries were written having in mind not the available clavichords or harpsichords but some nebulous, non-existent, yet-to-be-created one is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that if the piano had been available to Scarlatti, his sonatas would have sounded very different than they do.

[lukeottevanger]

gee, so grindingly pedantic too ...

Well, if you're going to talk about things, try to get them right. Otherwise you just end up looking uninformed and unable to see things from various angles...

i was just illustrating rather quickly and simplistically, how they built upon things from each keyboard instrument to the next, in otherwords **IMPROVEMENT**, advancement, development & evolution...going from point A to B to get what musicians and composers desired and wanted, that the previous models lacked etc...

That's the whole point. Do try to understand.  ::)This idea you have of evolution being '**IMPROVEMENT**, advancement, development' is simply wrong. It's wrong in natural terms too: there is no 'value' to evolution, an organism doesn't move from a lesser to a greater state (and it doesn't even necessarily become more complex, but sometimes less so). What it does do is adapt to fit the conditions it finds itself in. And in that sense, not the one you imply, there is an evolution from harpsichord to piano: composers began to require different things of their instrument; so the instrument was radically adapted, so far as to be an entirely new instrument, to make it possible. That, though, does not necessarily imply an improvement except by the standards of those demands. But those demands themselves are not for-all-time, as you seem to think they are. Remember that thing about an open mind, James, and understand that not all musicians have always prioritised the things you think are most important.

[A personal example - sorry if it becomes long-winded: I myself am a composer-of-sorts. My own priorities are always towards humility in music: I don't want demonstrativeness, I'm not fond of writing 'big statements'; I want my music to be intimate and vulnerable, to work on a human level. I actually write a great deal for the piano, but I tend to exploit some aspects of it more than others - resonance and timbre over dynamic range, for instance. Those are my personal priorities. The clavichord actually suits me far better for some pieces, though, because its sound is so flexible and its textures so clear. ]

and my "derogatory epithets" are pretty much on the mark, it is a thinner sounding instrument, its expressive capabilities (lacking sensativity of touch & control over volune & TONE) are next to zero etc etc, and its because of these realities things moved onwards and continously developed to newer, better and more resourceful keyboard instruments...following composers and musicians who had the benefits of these newer tools still played that older music on it too, they weren't fussy about it, because it works easily enough and nothing is really lost....

Again for the hard of reading: why is a thinner tone 'a bad thing'? Because your own value system says it is, because in general post classical music heads that way. Fine. But that doesn't make it true for everything - a thinner, more exposed tone, a more vulnerable and flexible sound are absolutely to the point in some music (like some of my own, like CPE Bach's Sonatas). And so on and on - until you are able to accept that the standards by which you are measuring 'success' and 'improvement' are not in themselves fixed, we won't get anywhere.

no one said you were wrong, ive said that older music sounds fab on both,

you've said that...and then you've blotted your copy book by revealing that you don't really mean it, that really you think the harpsichord sounds thin and expressionless etc. Your loss...

i wasnt sayin 'piano' is the only way to go folks, i was just sayin the obvious stuff about the instrument and its development...

Fine. But it can be said in less value-loaded terms, because as I've said many times now, those values are not universal.







[/quote]

[lukeottevanger]

I'd like James to put his money where his mouth is. Previously on this thread he's tried hard to present an egalitarian face ('ive said that older music sounds fab on both') but when it comes to the crunch he hasn't presented a single example of what 'older music' sounding 'fab' on harpsichord actually means - and why? Because it's clear that he doesn't really think that it does (and nor is he under any compulsion to, I should add). He's described the instrument as 'clicky, thin, nil expression, all tha the same level, and mechanical' and his categorical statements imply that his negative opinion of the instrument should really be shared by all (because he can't conceive of people having differing or various priorities in their tastes and predispositions).

So which is it: do both instruments really have something to bring to the repertoire as James states, or is the harpsichord really an instrument which is inferior in every way, as he obviously believes? For myself, I am quite happy to say that the piano is able to bring things to the repertoire that the harpsichord can't; more than that, I am happy to describe a specific example:

Scarlatti's B minor sonata K27 is a semiquaver-ridden Allegro, but a very lyrical gentle one, one of the best-known of the Scarlatti sonatas. It works wonderfully on the harpsichord, and I think I prefer it that way (becuase the guitar-like arpeggiation and repeated notes sound particularly well on that instrument), but I am very happy to admit that the piano brings out latent tendencies in the music which the harpsichord cannot. The piano's varied timbres are perfect for articulating the phrase structure of the piece, with its audacious use of a much-repeated bar, stalling harmonically before breaking out into sequences; and the piano's greater potential for sustain really help to maximise the effect of the sensuous hand crossings of the same passage.

Of course there are many other examples of such things throughout the Scarlatti sonatas too. So, that's an even-handed assessment of the situation from my persepctive. I'd like James to present his even-handed case for what 'what harpsichords can bring to Scarlatti', as he's tried to convince us that he sees these things fairly and that harpsichords sound 'fab' in this repertoire too (despite also being 'clicky, thin, nil expression, all tha the same level, and mechanical')

If James is able to do so, as I'm sure he is, if he's able to give an example of the harpsichord bringing something sepcific to the table which the piano cannot, then his case for the piano being a more advanced instrument that renders the harpsichord 'primitive' even in the repertoire written specifically for it seems rather shot, I think.

[Florestan]

the music on the harpsichord? fine, thats how it sounded then, with what they had. clicky, thin, nil expression, all that the same level, and mechanical.

Had this been true, no serious composer would have ever written anything for such a bad instrument. But since the harpsichord music is one of the richest splendors of the musical past, it's obvious that it was not true then, just as it is not true today.

[lukeottevanger]

Im sorry Luke, you dont make a whole lot of sense and i dont find your arguement too compelling at all...

That's mostly because you don't seem to understand it; I'm sorry if I'm being too verbose etc., that is just my way, and it's not something I'm happy about. But I happen to think you are being rather obtuse consistently ignoring my main point, which I've repeated so many times you must have absorbed it by now: there are different aesthetic stances in music/music history; you seem to think there's only one.

what i said & illustrated earlier is roughly correct, plus youre reading way too much shit into what im saying

Well, yes, I am reading a lot of shit in what you wrote, true...

assuming and adding things ive never really said,

such as?

and im not going to go over things again. you seem to be arguing for the mere sake of it and ignoring basic facts & realities.

this from the board's most argumentative member! 

My argument has never been primarily about historical facts, which do not always link up with musical fact, as Gurn already said. It has been about music itself, something you seem unwilling to talk about except in the vaguest of terms. And it has been about your incapability to recognise that composer, performers and listeners do not always prioritise the things you seem to think are universal priorities.

Ok, let me take at look at this...

Well in his day the keyboard instruments had a far smaller range than the modern piano, but within those confines much to his credit, he created some good stuff (though nowhere near the depths of his contemporary Bach), and his music explores the limits of what 10 fingers can do, and can be credited with inventing a new keyboard technique...the music was conceived for keyboard playing...and nothing is really lost when its performed on newer keyboard instruments. So I wouldnt say that the harpsichord brings much to the music other than presenting it on the keyboard instrument of Scarlatti's day that it was played on, with the brighter, thinner and lighter tone. So its like travelling back to that time and hearing it on the older keyboard instrument. When in the mood to hear that, and if well recorded and performed, it can be fab and refreshing at times sure, why wouldnt it be.

OK, so to your mind the only value of listening to harpsichord is a kind of time-travelling? That's fine - I actually think there's quite a lot of value in that. But now you've started talking about 'brighter, thinner and lighter tone', and at last, without your standard pejorative implications. That's what I wanted to see. Surely these things, whether to your own personal tastes or not, are unique to the harpsichord and unavailable to the piano. That's all that's important, you see: some people, including not unfeasibly Scarlatti himself, may indeed place a bright, light tone over (say) dynamic shading and lyrical legato in these pieces. Which means that the harpsichord isn't as obsolete and surpassed as you wish to paint it, in the case of this music, and that the piano can't give all that anyone could wish in the case of this music either. Which is all I ever said, really.

[jochanaan]

in a way yes but mostly no, you have the same key layout, but its not a stringed keyboard instrument, its sounds are electronically produced and its so different,  i tend to keep acoustical and electronic instruments separate.

But the way the clavichord produces sounds is entirely different than that of the harpsichord, and that of the harpsichord is also entirely different from that of the piano.  Touched, plucked, or struck--you really can't compare them, any more than you can compare string-generated sounds with electronically-generated ones.  That's what we've been saying!

(Off-topic comment:  A harpsichord is much easier to tune than a modern piano because the string tension is so much lower.  But it falls out of tune much faster for exactly that reason!  And they both need tuning much more often than a synthesizer. )