General Harpsichord and Clavichord Thread

[Mandryka]

I put it on because of your post and quite enjoyed it. I like how Froberger's music seems life 3am. Or perhaps it's Ruiter-Feenstra that's giving it that quality for me. She is very mellow without being bland at all, not as intimate as my Verlet but also not as quirky sounding. There's an effect of otherworldliness to the way Ruiter-Feenstra interprets the music. It's nice to re-appreciate Froberger. I need to go back through it and see what's what. I have Verlet, Staier, Rousset, Rotaru and Klosiewicz, yet it's been so long I can't say which I like best. Verlet seems like a bit of a challenge. Staier never stuck. Klosiewicz did stick with me...especially his no. 12 Allemande. Gosh Froberger is deliciously melancholy.     

So I've decided there are two ways to play baroque harpsichord music. Static Electricity Style, with buzzy busy ornamentation, like metal burrs, ricochet and shrapnel, high energy, Hantai's the main culprit. Or Tête Reposée Style, lots of space, lots of calm, no rush, zen, la couler douce. Frau Ruiter-Feenstra is defo tête reposée, which I rather like. I got a lot of pleasure from Gilbert's Froberger the other day, and he's TR too. I'm starting to see what I like.

[Mandryka]

Just got this in the mail. I'm only on my second disc, but WOW.  What joie de vivre.  Charming, delightful, and energetic.  This could turn anyone into a harpsichord enthusiast. 
[asin]B0009MWAVQ[/asin]

That's 555 hits of joie de vivre. Call me a miserable sod if you like, but it's too much for me.

[milk]

Ah. You've got to be able to understand German to really get the most out of that CD.

Yeah, I don't understand what's going on with the expositions.

[Mookalafalas]

That's 555 hits of joie de vivre. Call me a miserable sod if you like, but it's too much for me.

You don't have to play it consecutively you know.  Leaven it with some lugubrious organ music.

[milk]

You don't have to play it consecutively you know.  Leaven it with some lugubrious organ music.

Scarlatti wrote some great music but there's something about the structure of his music that leaves me quickly filled up, as it were, and not often rushing back to it. I guess I feel similarly about Soler.

[Mandryka]

Part of what's going on is that Scott Ross doesn't find a whole lot of emotional variety.

[Wakefield]

<Raises hand>

Exactly my story.   

Great set, glad you are enjoying it.

Great set, indeed.

Speaking of which, this set should be re-released:

[Mookalafalas]

Great set, indeed.

Speaking of which, this set should be re-released:

  Interesting, two for, two against---three for, if we include me, which we probably shouldn't as I'm a noob.  No doubt 555 pieces is several hundred more than I (or almost anyone else) will really need or ever be able to meaningfully distinguish among, and yet the more I play the happier I am I got the set
   I'll see if I'm ready for the Couperin when it comes out.  Ross says he did not enjoy playing it as much as the Scarlatti, which dampens my enthusiasm a bit, but of course that could have been for any number of reasons--perhaps he was distressed by the degree of emotional variety

[Mandryka]

Part of the reason Ross seems a bit emotionally limited is that the style is so rhythmically straight, no hesitions, or not much. I also think he's not the best at getting colour out of the harpsichord. And generally he's fast, so the depth of feeling doesn't really come through. And I didn't notice any imaginative ideas about how to take repeats and how to ornament, or how to relate the voices.

I think that often this doesn't matter because, quite honestly, a lot of Scarlatti's music isn't very interesting emotionally. But often enough it does matter.

Last night I listened to Vol 2 of  Enrico Baiano's Scarlatti, and did some comparisons with Ross, and that was revealing of expressive, affective, possibilities which elude Ross completely. 213, 132 and 148 are good examples to show the difference in approach I think. Ross's vision of the music is one of a thrilling keyboard trickster.

One thing this little exploration of Scarlatti's threw up is Hantai's extraordinary expanded, telescoped out, extended,  recording of 215. Not sure what to make of it, I don't think I like it, but I'm not sure.

It also threw up a wonderful 215 from Leonhardt.

[Mookalafalas]

I understand what you are saying.  In fact, Ross uses different harpsichords to introduce variation and prevent boredom, rather than let natural variety in emotional register create its own moods and tones.  No doubt a fraction of the 34 discs would be enough, but as I would have paid the same price for 8 or 10, and feel no reason to complain at receiving 34.  Perhaps the most rational (frugal?) way to acquire the set would be to split the cost among a few people and then divvy up the discs. I'm sure most would be satisfied with a smaller number. 
    I ordered the Hantai set yesterday and look forward to hearing it. 

[Karl Henning]

http://www.youtube.com/v/avHJXq6esIM

[Mandryka]

Leonhardt playing Fröberger's Tombeau for Blancrocher on this performance from 1996, I don't know who made the instrument. What's interesting is the impression of dynamic variation, the clearest example of this I can remember hearing.

[Que]

Reissue:



Q

[Mandryka]

Reissue:



Q

Does anyone think the style in the first CD is different from the other two?

Basically Hantai said that for him the key feature of Scarlatti's art is repetition of short motifs, repeated with different colours,  interrupted by wierd keyboard noises. And I can hear some of that I think in the first CD but less so in subsequent ones.

But I could be wrong. I have a bit of a love hate relationship both with Scarlatti and Hantaï.

[Mookalafalas]

I've been on something  of a harpsichord binge lately.  I broke out an old disc from the Mercury box that I don't think I ever played. 

[asin]B00000IIX7[/asin]

  I remember someone speaking rather disparagingly of him--I think he was compared to a sewing machine.  I assumed the poster meant a mechanical, unvarying rhythm or pulse through the music, or at least some kind of monotony.   Now that I listen, however, I am not sure what could be "sewing machine like" about this disc.  Puyana really seems to go out of his way to introduce variety into his playing.  He varies speeds radically, perhaps a bit too much.  He will go through a virtuosic passage and then slow down to a degree that the music really loses its forward momentum.  He also seems determined to demonstrate the range in volume and intensity his harpsichord can produce as well.  At times he's almost mincing, and the sound becomes very distant (almost like something was done during post production processing) , and then he gets to playing so hard you wonder if he might damage the strings.  In the CPE Bach piece there is a point where it seems that some pedal or other effect is being used (or maybe he is doing it himself by reaching into the body of the player and using his hand) to depress the strings so that they have almost no resonance.

   Also, the tone and sound of the instrument seems to change, or maybe he has switched to another instrument (or instruments) (especially in track 13, the Teleman).  This may be partly because he works the bass end so much at times that it becomes like a drone on an organ (isn't this supposed to be impossible with a harpsichord?). 

    Anyway, sorry to ramble on.  It's extremely interesting. I was under the impression that since the string is plucked, the harpsichord has no "touch" and so only the make of the instrument can effect the sound.  However, this seems not to be the case at all.
  I also really like Puyana, or at least what I am hearing in this disc.
     

[Pat B]

I also enjoyed those Puyana discs on Mercury. I should pull them out for another listen.

He had an unusual, 3-manual harpsichord, which may or may not explain some of what you heard.

[Cosi bel do]

This discussion deserves to be continued here :

More harpsichord. 
[asin]B000059OBO[/asin]

from this:

[asin]B00EO7XQ2E[/asin]

  I bought this after reading some comments Mandryka made about it that sounded very interesting. It turns out I misunderstood what he said to some degree (apparently he wasn't actually recommending the set or Hantai), although (fortunately) it really is very interesting.

I can't remember what I said! But I do know that recently I've started to enjoy the first volume of his Scarlatti. The Bull and Frescobaldi seem absolutely fabulous to me.

I'm really keen to know if anyone else hears a different style in Vol 2 and 3 of his Scarlatti -- I'm not sure I trust myself on this, I can only listen to so much Scarlatti.

He's an interesting musician as you say. Be sure to check his new recording with English Suites.

This Frescobaldi album is one of the best recordings by Pierre Hantaï, and definitely the best Frescobaldi harpsichord recording. It's just disappointing he didn't play more Frescobaldi throughout his career...
The Bull CD is also very fine (it's just the music that is, of course, a little less interesting).

Have you heard Aapo Häkkinen's CD? There's also Leonhardt's Capricci.

I prefer Leonhardt's late Frescobaldi & Louis Couperin CD. His DHM capriccis are more of a historical interest now. I'd like to find his Philips Frescobaldi CD but I don't know when Universal will release all Leonhardt Philips recordings again, all of those I heard are admirable.

I don't know Häkkinen's Frescobaldi, I don't know him at all actually. How good is he ?

I've found Leonhardt more rewarding than Aymes or Butt in fact. What do you think of Vartolo?

The DHM Capricci remind me of his DHM AoF. Both have been real sources of stimulation for a long time now.

I like Häkkinen in Byrd and Frescobaldi a lot - esp Byrd. I haven't heard his Bach.

Yes of course Leonhardt is still very pleasant to hear, I just meant that no Frescobaldi harpsichord recording I know matches the perfection of Hantaï's CD. But that Leonhardt does better than Aymes or Butt is not something I would disagree with, of course !

Vartolo's complete set on Tactus is trash. Really, I mean it, I don't even know why I keep it, except that I hate not keeping CDs...
Frankly, Loreggian's performances in the Brilliant box are really very fine, better than most other recordings available.

I agree with most of this. What I would say - I'm not sure this is right, I just propose it to see what people think - is that Leonhardt is a sort of anti-virtuoso musician. You know, his aim is never épater le galerie with a display of skills. He's like late (Sv.) Richter, Richter after his heart trouble. With Leonhardt, you have the impression of a man focused on getting right to the heart of the music in the score. Hantaï has more of the bravura keyboard man about him.

There's a sense in which it's hard to compare Hantaï and Leonhardt because their ideas about what a performance is are so different.

[Cosi bel do]

In response to the last comment by Mandryka, I would really not oppose Hantaï and Leonhardt is such a way. And I don't believe AT ALL that their conception of performance, and of music in general, are so different. 

First because Hantaï was Leonhardt's pupil and this is quite obvious, really, when considering their understanding of the internal, almost cyclical conception of time in many scores (Bach, obviously). Of course they are two different musicians, and even when teaching Leonhardt was known for letting his students making their own choices. But still, Hantaï was in my opinion one of his students Leonhardt influenced the most in terms of interpretation.
It is true, though, that comparing recordings made by Leonhardt in the 70s with recordings made by Hantaï in the 90s or more recently is not very relevant, but this is mainly because interpretation has changed, and because the way we hear harpsichord on recordings also relies heavily on recording techniques. Even comparing Leonhardt's own recordings from decade to decade is difficult, because of how the way he plays and how he was recorded changed so much...

Also, because Hantaï is not such a virtuoso, less so than he was 10 or 15 years ago, and even then his brilliance was never at the level showed by Sempé or, many years ago, by Scott Ross. It doesn't mean that Hantaï is not a very fine technician, one of the best actually (even if his performances are not as perfect as they were when he was younger). But Leonhardt also was, and this is an aspect that is too rarely understood : even in his very late performances, Leonhardt was one of the very few harpsichordists who was able to really make every technical consideration really secondary, in order to fully give back to the listeners a true living impression of the score. Hearing him in concert remain one of the most striking experiences I've had in concert.

Comparisons with pianists are quite out of place actually. If I had to compare someone to Richter, it would certainly not be Leonhardt though. Leonhardt would compare more adequately to someone like Neuhaus, maybe... Then Hantaï to Gilels, and Sempé to Richter ? Well, this is really far-fetched...

[Moonfish]

Check this out:
Elisabetta Lanzoni - harpsichord painter!!!   
These are some beautiful instruments (at least visually)!

http://www.elisabettalanzoni.com/index.htm

Lots of examples. Here are two:
[I WANT one of these! I would spend the rest of my life playing the harpsichord....]



or

[milk]

In response to the last comment by Mandryka, I would really not oppose Hantaï and Leonhardt is such a way. And I don't believe AT ALL that their conception of performance, and of music in general, are so different. 

First because Hantaï was Leonhardt's pupil and this is quite obvious, really, when considering their understanding of the internal, almost cyclical conception of time in many scores (Bach, obviously). Of course they are two different musicians, and even when teaching Leonhardt was known for letting his students making their own choices. But still, Hantaï was in my opinion one of his students Leonhardt influenced the most in terms of interpretation.
It is true, though, that comparing recordings made by Leonhardt in the 70s with recordings made by Hantaï in the 90s or more recently is not very relevant, but this is mainly because interpretation has changed, and because the way we hear harpsichord on recordings also relies heavily on recording techniques. Even comparing Leonhardt's own recordings from decade to decade is difficult, because of how the way he plays and how he was recorded changed so much...

Also, because Hantaï is not such a virtuoso, less so than he was 10 or 15 years ago, and even then his brilliance was never at the level showed by Sempé or, many years ago, by Scott Ross. It doesn't mean that Hantaï is not a very fine technician, one of the best actually (even if his performances are not as perfect as they were when he was younger). But Leonhardt also was, and this is an aspect that is too rarely understood : even in his very late performances, Leonhardt was one of the very few harpsichordists who was able to really make every technical consideration really secondary, in order to fully give back to the listeners a true living impression of the score. Hearing him in concert remain one of the most striking experiences I've had in concert.

Comparisons with pianists are quite out of place actually. If I had to compare someone to Richter, it would certainly not be Leonhardt though. Leonhardt would compare more adequately to someone like Neuhaus, maybe... Then Hantaï to Gilels, and Sempé to Richter ? Well, this is really far-fetched...

Sempe's L. Couperin is still one of my favorite recordings. Yet I'm hoping for Sempe to record a complete Bach work, or another solo album at least. It seems like his interests are more in directing chamber ensembles. I guess the field is crowded for solo Bach. But I'm a little disappointed he hasn't done it (aside from, I think, one partita some years back).