Harpsichord or piano?

[FideLeo]

great performers are anything but generic, doesnt matter what instrument they happen to play. Thats why you can tell the difference between them, they are individual. Despite 'the clothes the notes actually wear' (aka timbre), "the music really transcends the instrument"....proven time and time again.

And because of this truth, we can hear the music in an assortment of audio attires. 

I don't even think there is a consensus here regarding which ones are "great performers." 

And do disagree about timbre being clothes for notes etc.   Scarlatti is very much a
colouristic composer for me.

[jochanaan]

horse or car?

For trail riding, give me a responsive, well-trained horse. I admit, though, that I wouldn't enjoy a horse ride on an interstate highway.

I cannot recall ever preferring Bach or other early music on a piano.  And the harpsichord has never seemed "melancholy" to me; its sparkling tone evokes joy.  One of my early favorites (probably out of print by now) was Helmut Walcha's recording of Bach's Italian Concerto.  For the last movement Herr Walcha cuts loose with 4', 8' and 16' "stops," and the effect is full-bodied and wonderful.  I also love the Landowska Goldbergs.   (If you're wondering, a 4-foot "stop" sounds an octave higher than the written pitches, while a 16' stop sounds an octave lower and an 8' sounds as written.  The Walcha recording sounds as if every note were played in double octaves.  This terminology is borrowed from organ registration.)

P.S.  That Hantai recording is marvelous!  Wonderfully edgy performance and high-powered, in-your-face recording. 

[The Mad Hatter]

I prefer the piano, heathen that I am. But then I'm a pianist, so that's hardly surprising.

Just find it easier to hear the various voices.

[PSmith08]

It differs for me. For Baroque and some Classical-period stuff, I tend to default to the harpsichord. That is not to say, though, that the clavichord and the piano are excluded. It really depends on how well the performer makes the case. For example, in Bach's wohltemperierte Klavier (i.e., book 1), Ralph Kirkpatrick makes a pretty sound case for the clavichord, but Luc Beauséjour's recent Naxos set makes a solid case for the harpsichord. In the Goldberg Variations, on the other hand, the field is pretty much wide open as far as I am concerned. Scott Ross and Pierre Hantaï make the harpsichord seem like the only viable option, but Gould's three major recordings ('55,'59, and '81) make the piano seem primus inter pares.

Throw into this, too, Hogwood's "Secret" series, and the waters get less clear. It seems likely that Hogwood's thesis is supported both by some contemporary evidence (e.g., Mozart) and by the fact that the music sounds "right" on the clavichord, too. In other words, to my mind, this isn't settled law. These pieces can be made to work on a lot of different instruments. So, I'll defer to my training thus far, and say both "It's complicated" and "It depends."

[Catison]

When I think of harpsichord, it is the extremely dry and precise sound that I love.  It is perfect for music with a lot of motion, because it brings a clarity you can't find on any other instrument.  It is the same reason I like chamber version of Appalachian Spring.

Here is my favorite piece for harpsichord.  It is Michael Nyman's The Convertibility of Lute Strings.  It is not for the faint of heart, but it is a lot of fun.  I recently stumbled upon this recording again, and I've played it about 5 times this past week.

http://download.yousendit.com/FC4805C01727E264

[FideLeo]

I can hear polyphony more clearly on harpsichords, fortepianos etc. which all have straight strings, usually in parallel to the grains of the sounding board.  The cross-stringing in modern instruments does muddle things quite a bit to my ears.   
Also consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_history_and_musical_performance 

[orbital]

With a harpsichord, the sound of each individual instrument is unique, unlike the generic Steinway D pianos crafted for conformity of tone.  Vladimir Horowitz insisted on touring with his own Steinway of early 20th century manufacture.  He claimed that it had a particular "nasal" tone that no other piano had.  I wish that pianos would be as individual as violins, then there would be that extra quality for each soloist.  Until then, I'll just keep my harpsichord recordings close by.

you think?
the opposite applies for me  My harpischord experience is very limited, perhaps that may be the reason. But Hantai, Suzuki, Staier I hear the same sound 

Your point about pianos makes [most] pianists so awe inspiring for me. The better ones create their own sound and touch from the mechanically same instrument, though I can't help but think people like Michelangeli or Weissenberg must have altered the pianos they use (for recording at least) to suit their style.

[FideLeo]

Bach only made transcriptions for period instruments, and only in ways that he knew would work.   

BTW, a great recording of the harpsichord sound - absolutely nothing dry, brittle, cold or metallic here.



http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/13

Includes JS Bach Fantasia and Fugue BWV904

[Drasko]

.....though I can't help but think people like Michelangeli or Weissenberg must have altered the pianos they use (for recording at least) to suit their style.

Michelangeli travelled with mulpitle pianos and used to change them for different parts of the same recital (one piano for Debussy another for Beethoven) 

[lukeottevanger]

The debate over this was over a long time ago and is ultimately pointless ... it's no big deal anymore in reality. The music sounds undoubtably good on both.

The music is well established and universally admired on the piano.

And Glenn Gould is well established as one of the great Bach interpreters...I personally never met anyone who didn't like GG ... liking him is not progressive or radical either.

The problem here is that you're attempting to prove a general point about the harpsichord ('the music sounds undoubtably good on both') by a specific example - Bach...and then

Similarly the debate over authentic performance has become less polarised, its no big deal, its something that started more than over 30 years ago.

It's interesting to hear on period instruments as Bach would have heard his music on. But I don't think it's something Bach rigidly adhered to. He transcribed the prelude of 'Partita number 3 for solo violin' to a version for organ & orchestra as prelude or Sinfonia to Cantata 29. & he transcribed other of his compositions of his from lute to violin to organ & indeed in some cases made transcriptions of other composers works. Fugue 539 exists in versions for transcriptions for violin, another for organ & another for Lute. Can you imagine three more different instruments ? Prelude 999 exists in versions for keyboard & another one for lute. His compositions are so universal they sound musical on any instrument. Bach on marimbas is even wonderful I've found. 

....the same thing here - a paragraph on authenticity in general, then one on Bach. But the two aren't interchangeable. I wouldn't disagree with you about JSB himself - but he is a special case, because his music is so pure and not generally reliant on instrumental specifics that it can often be fairly happily transferred to other timbres. But Bach, for all his greatness, is not All Harpsichord Music. Scarlatti, whether you prefer him on the piano or not - that's just personal choice, as you already agreed yourself - conceived his many passages in his sonatas expressly for the plucked sound of the harpsichord, not the struck sound of the piano; any other instrument will simply not measure up to this standard. That the piano is more 'rich, warm and full sounding' is possibly beside the point if the music requires something else as it so often does in Scarlatti's case. Similarly CPE Bach sometimes writes explicitly for the clavichord, bebung and all. In this case it is simply impossible to play what CPE Bach asked for on any other instrument; there is an inevitable compromise in performing these pieces on the piano. Indeed, in comparison to the clavichord, which has a much more flexible sound and a greater timbral range, albeit at a smaller dynamic, the piano can come off as pretty clunking and expressively deficient in these particular pieces.

[FideLeo]

Bach wrote the Goldberg variations specifically for a two-manual harpsichord, and I always find the music sounding considerably out of character in any transcribed form (including on the modern piano).

[Maciek]

I wonder what that smiley is supposed to mean?

[lukeottevanger]

Hmmm.

Personally, I think James is probably misreading traverso, and maybe me, if he read my post. I don't think anyone is 'going on and on whining about what they prefer' - this is a thread about the harpsichord, so I think people are entitled to say why they like it here if nowhere else! James has his own hangups about this, it is clear - hence loaded phrases like 'more highly evolved instruments' which suggest a teleological view of musical performance which is really peculiar. Harpsichord (and clavichord) and piano are totally different instruments, that is all, each with different pros and cons. Don't forget that contemporary composers have written bucketloads for harpsichord also; they don't see it as merely a stepping stone to greater things, but as an entirely separate resource.

So, you can simply prefer HIP, or performance on modern instruments, or, as most here do, factor into that equation the quality of the performances/interpretations too - in the end these are taste-based issues about which, I suspect, we are all more than happy to take different stances. No need to get uptight about them whichever side you stand. But that doesn't make discussion of what works technically illegitimate. For instance - James may feel that 'the music of...CPE works very well on the more highly evolved keyboard instruments of today as well' and he is absolutely entitled to that opinion. But, objectively, it doesn't change the technical fact that it is at times impossible to play what CPE wrote on this 'more highly evolved instrument.' That's not a whine, it's not trying to convince anyone that clavichord sounds better; it's a taste-neutral technical observation.

[Gurn Blanston]

It means my dick is bigger than his. 

I suspect you meant ego...

In any case, you grant that he is entitled to have his point of view and then you immediately turn around and attempt to delegitimize it:

James wrote:

anyway, thats your opinion and youre entitled to it traverso. doesnt make it the only way it can be done my friend, and obviously in reality, what you say isnt true at all, and holds no weight whatsoever.

and:

You dont have to like it, thats fine, but many people do which deflates the notion that it should be done only one way.

Flauto Traverso wrote:

Bach wrote the Goldberg variations specifically for a two-manual harpsichord, and I always find the music sounding considerably out of character in any transcribed form (including on the modern piano).

So, he is saying that the music was written for a certain instrument and he prefers to hear it played on that instrument. This is a personal opinion (shared by as many as those sharing yours, BTW), and stating it doesn't automatically cause penile shrinking, as you seem to suggest 

[Guido]

Can't stand Bach on Harpsichord, but don't mind Scarlatti. I do find the sound gets monotonous after a while...

Luke can you give particular examples of Scarlatti sonatas that have these clusters?

[Mark]

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 

I spent a long time telling myself that I didn't like Scarlatti's Sonatas ... or the harpsichord. Then, I heard some of these works played by Tilney, and my opinion was totally changed. I think the timbre of harpsichords can differ so much - the first recordings I heard with these instruments featured was clearly not the right one to introduce me to their particular merits. I'm glad I didn't give up on them altogether - and I'm beginning to think I should hear Bach's Goldberg Variations played on a harpsichord, as I find the work a little dull on the piano.

[Symphonien]

Piano. I find that the harpsichord tends to grate on my ears after I listen to it for an extended period of time. Not just this, but I also think that hearing composers like Scarlatti on the piano can show some fascinating new insights into the music and work surprisingly well when the piano's full resources are utilised. If you're going to play this sort of music on the piano, you may as well take advantage of the extra possibilities that the piano provides, and this can produce some great results.

[George]

Yes, Piano.

The harpichord is nice once in awhile, like Bill said, with other instruments, but for solo, it's piano for me. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Harpsichord. I can listen to, and enjoy, harpsichord music on the piano now and then, but I really prefer it on the harpsichord. The idea that all harpsichords sound alike (and its corollary, that they grate or are boring) seems to me to stem from having heard a few disks that DID grate. But some harpsichords sound absolutely wonderful, and if the performance is up to par the music just lends itself to the instrument far better to my ears than to the piano. Although clavichord is best of all...

[Bogey]

Yes, Piano.

The harpichord is nice once in awhile, like Bill said, with other instruments, but for solo, it's piano for me. 

Harpsichord. I can listen to, and enjoy, harpsichord music on the piano now and then, but I really prefer it on the harpsichord. The idea that all harpsichords sound alike (and its corollary, that they grate or are boring) seems to me to stem from having heard a few disks that DID grate. But some harpsichords sound absolutely wonderful, and if the performance is up to par the music just lends itself to the instrument far better to my ears than to the piano. Although clavichord is best of all...

Gentlemen,
I need to come clean.  I guess my major hang-up for the solo harpsichord was due to this "character", Trelane, from Star Trek lore in the episode The Squire of Gothos.  In short, when I hear solo harpsichord this villain always comes to mind, and I found him ever so annoying even as a child.  I am somewhat of a Star Trek geek and though this is complete and utter nonesense to the sane, we Trek geeks hang our hats fedoras on such trivial hooks.  And by the way, I'm not kidding here.