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? :)
I always prefer harpsichord, everytime.
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. :)
Quote from: Catison on June 01, 2007, 10:14:05 AM
I always prefer harpsichord, everytime.
I second that! :)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 01, 2007, 10:14:33 AM
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 (http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/essays/2004/04/22746.php) from the most excellent Goldberg Magazine (http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/).
I am getting more used to the sound of the harpischord, but in general I prefer the piano. But to follow tradition ;D 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 ::)
Quote from: Florestan on June 01, 2007, 10:20:21 AM
Then you might find interesting this excellent essay (http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/essays/2004/04/22746.php) from the most excellent Goldberg Magazine (http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/).
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 (http://www.zigzag-territoires.com/article.php3?id_article=908&lang=fr)
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 10:27:04 AM
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 (http://www.denzilwraight.com/crisfp.htm) - very interesting and worthwhile.
Quote from: Florestan on June 01, 2007, 10:20:21 AM
Then you might find interesting this excellent essay (http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/essays/2004/04/22746.php) from the most excellent Goldberg Magazine (http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/).
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?
Quote from: SchubartThe 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 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,289.0.html). But don't allow me to derail your thread already!
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.
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 10:27:04 AM
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?
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 ;D, 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!
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.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 01, 2007, 10:40:48 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 01, 2007, 10:45:54 AM
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.
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
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 12:48:47 PM
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 ;)
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 12:48:47 PMFor 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!
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...
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 12:48:47 PM
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.
If you like Landowska doing Scarlatti, then you should try to get some of Puyana's Scarlatti cds.
My introduction to Scarlatti was Vladimir Horowitz; he never performed anything on a harpsichord. Sudbin's recording of the Scarlatti sonatas is excellent and it's also on a piano. On harpsichord I have recordings by Scott Ross, Puyana, Rousset, Landowska, Staier, and more. I have numerous recordings of Bach, Soler, Sweelinck mostly on harpsichord but also on piano. There are harpsichord recordings that are not as good as the piano recordings and vice versa. It really depends on the artist as much as the instrument. Scarlatti or Bach on piano can sound as bewitching as it does on harpsichord, if it's done well. The music really transcends the instrument because when you are listening to great music it's always going to be greater than the performance. If it weren't, then one recording of each work would be all anyone would ever need, and no one would bother to try to perform the works again.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 01, 2007, 01:06:46 PM
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!
I would love to hear others who can manage that. In some passages with Landowska, the instrument sounds exactly like a guitar. From what I heard from Ross (BEst Sonatas CD off his set) there wasn't any such fancy work :-\
Quote from: Bunny on June 01, 2007, 01:17:29 PM
If you like Landowska doing Scarlatti, then you should try to get some of Puyana's Scarlatti cds.
My introduction to Scarlatti was Vladimir Horowitz; he never performed anything on a harpsichord. Sudbin's recording of the Scarlatti sonatas is excellent and it's also on a piano. On harpsichord I have recordings by Scott Ross, Puyana, Rousset, Landowska, Staier, and more.
Thanks I'll look around for Puyana.
I recently got Sudbin, and I agree it's excellent, but Scarlatti on piano closest to Horowitz's level that I have heard (thanks to Drasko) was Tomsic.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 01, 2007, 01:17:03 PM
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...
Okay, you sold me. I've read some reviews, listened to some samples, and heard the guitar effect; it is striking. Luke, (anyone?) do you have any comments about Pierre Hantaï's performances on the Mirare label? They are highly thought of at ClassicsToday:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9822
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9232
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 01, 2007, 01:46:40 PM
Okay, you sold me. I've read some reviews, listened to some samples, and heard the guitar effect; it is striking. Luke, (anyone?) do you have any comments about Pierre Hantaï's performances on the Mirare label? They are highly thought of at ClassicsToday:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9822
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9232
Sarge
I just saw today on Pristine Classical's website that they have the Landowska CD, and the sound is much improved.
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Keyboard/PAKM004.php
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 01, 2007, 01:46:40 PM
Okay, you sold me. I've read some reviews, listened to some samples, and heard the guitar effect; it is striking. Luke, (anyone?) do you have any comments about Pierre Hantaï's performances on the Mirare label? They are highly thought of at ClassicsToday:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9822
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9232
Sarge
Pierre Hantaï's Scarlatti is really excellent, you need not hesitate to pick any of them up. He has technique to burn, and Scarlatti's compositional style really suits him to a tee. Sometimes even Jed Distler gets it right. Volume 3 came out last year, I'm hoping it wasn't the last one Hantaï is going to record.
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 01:22:34 PM
I would love to hear others who can manage that. In some passages with Landowska, the instrument sounds exactly like a guitar. From what I heard from Ross (BEst Sonatas CD off his set) there wasn't any such fancy work :-\
Sometimes I wonder if that guitar effect was partly the result of the strange sound of her Pleyel harpsichord and the way it was recorded back in then. I think Rousset's Scarlatti also had a lot of the "guitar" effect as well, but my memory may not be accurate -- it's been a long time since I played that cd. Just took a quick listen to the samples at Amazon and I believe that is the one I'm thinking of.
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/514J5YZRW4L._SS500_.jpg)
Quote from: Bunny on June 01, 2007, 02:04:03 PM
Pierre Hantaï's Scarlatti is really excellent, you need not hesitate to pick any of them up. He has technique to burn, and Scarlatti's compositional style really suits him to a tee. Sometimes even Jed Distler gets it right.
Miracles do happen. ;D :D ;D
But that's precisely why I wanted a second opinion. Thanks, Bunny. I can buy confidently now.
Sarge
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 02:01:27 PM
I just saw today on Pristine Classical's website that they have the Landowska CD, and the sound is much improved.
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Keyboard/PAKM004.php
Thanks, I'll look into this.
Sarge
For those interested to taste I've uploaded three Scarlatti Sonatas played by Pierre Hantai (K54, K175, K492). Ripped them in 224 Kbps, so should sound nice enough to be played loudly (please do). Warning: K175 is not for the faint of heart. ;D
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk0xeWEwVWswTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk0xeWEwVWswTVE9PQ)
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00NHZBNkUwTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00NHZBNkUwTVE9PQ)
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00eDNiR0kwTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00eDNiR0kwTVE9PQ)
Quote from: Drasko on June 01, 2007, 06:11:25 PM
For those interested to taste I've uploaded three Scarlatti Sonatas played by Pierre Hantai (K54, K175, K492). Ripped them in 224 Kbps, so should sound nice enough to be played loudly (please do). Warning: K175 is not for the faint of heart. ;D
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk0xeWEwVWswTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk0xeWEwVWswTVE9PQ)
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00NHZBNkUwTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00NHZBNkUwTVE9PQ)
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00eDNiR0kwTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00eDNiR0kwTVE9PQ)
Thanks for the upload. :)
As to my preference between the two intstruments, I'll take the path of the moderate, and say that it's relative to the music played. As to Baroque, I demand harpiscord, but anything past the High Classical Period generally doesn't work for me.
Well using original instruments is certainly important if one wants to hear the music in its original colours. Transcendence or no transcendence, it all depends on how one conceptualises the music.
Quote from: Drasko on June 01, 2007, 06:11:25 PM
For those interested to taste I've uploaded three Scarlatti Sonatas played by Pierre Hantai (K54, K175, K492). Ripped them in 224 Kbps, so should sound nice enough to be played loudly (please do). Warning: K175 is not for the faint of heart. ;D
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk0xeWEwVWswTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk0xeWEwVWswTVE9PQ)
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00NHZBNkUwTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00NHZBNkUwTVE9PQ)
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00eDNiR0kwTVE9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJpQk00eDNiR0kwTVE9PQ)
Thanks, Drasko! Splendid performances, indeed. And I also second Tomsic on piano as being outstanding.
In general, I prefer the harpsichord. After all, the music of that period was conceived according to the characteristics of the instrument.
There are some exceptions, when a pianist gives an extraordinary performance: Friedrich Gulda in Bach's WTC, Glenn Gould in the Goldberg Variations, Lipatti in the First Partita or Horowitz in Scarlatti's Sonatas.
Re the Scarlatti Sonatas: Bernstein liked Marek Drewnowski (piano).
Quote from: Drasko on June 01, 2007, 06:11:25 PM
For those interested to taste I've uploaded three Scarlatti Sonatas played by Pierre Hantai (K54, K175, K492). Ripped them in 224 Kbps, so should sound nice enough to be played loudly (please do). Warning: K175 is not for the faint of heart. ;D
Thanks, Drasko. Very much appreciated. You and Bunny have convinced me to push the buy button (K175 is on Hantai's first volume and that's in stock at JPC)...it might even convince me the harpsichord isn't so bad afterall ;)
Sarge
horse or car?
Piano when it comes to solo pieces....harpsichord otherwise, but only as long as it compliments and does not dominate.
The sound of the harpsichord is something that has to grow on you, I've experienced.
When it does, there is a whole new world out there!
I still have my piano favourites though: Gould/Bach, Horowitz/Scarlatti, Casadesus/Rameau.
Q
Quote from: Que on June 02, 2007, 06:54:57 AM
The sound of the harpsichord is something that has to grow on you, I've experienced.
When it does, there is a whole new world out there!
Q
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. ;)
Quote from: James on June 02, 2007, 10:43:00 AM
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.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on June 02, 2007, 06:14:15 AM
horse or car?
For trail riding, give me a responsive, well-trained horse. ;D I admit, though, that I wouldn't enjoy a horse ride on an interstate highway. :o
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. :D (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. :D
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.
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."
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
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_history_and_musical_performance)
Quote from: Bunny on June 02, 2007, 08:56:56 AM
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.
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://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7375/4805537kh8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/13 (http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/13)
Includes JS Bach Fantasia and Fugue BWV904
Quote from: orbital on June 02, 2007, 01:55:16 PM
.....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) 8)
Quote from: James on June 02, 2007, 02:05:15 PM
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
Quote from: James on June 02, 2007, 02:05:15 PMSimilarly 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. ;D
....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.
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).
I wonder what that smiley is supposed to mean? ::)
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.
Quote from: James on June 02, 2007, 03:17:53 PM
It means my dick is bigger than his. ;) :D
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:
Quoteanyway, 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:
QuoteYou 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:
QuoteBach 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 ::)
8)
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?
Quote from: orbital on June 01, 2007, 10:27:04 AM
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.
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.
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... :)
8)
Quote from: George on June 02, 2007, 05:43:54 PM
Yes, Piano.
The harpichord is nice once in awhile, like Bill said, with other instruments, but for solo, it's piano for me. :)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 02, 2007, 06:07:43 PM
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... :)
8)
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.
(http://www.kontinuum.cz/databaze/epizody/TOS_17_2.jpg)
Quote from: James on June 02, 2007, 03:17:53 PM
It means my dick is bigger than his. ;) :D
Or your ass. $:)
Quote from: James on June 02, 2007, 06:55:55 PMwithout getting utra pedantic over this, it roughly goes something like clavichord > harpsichord > pianoforte > piano
Er, piano is an abbreviation of pianoforte. You're thinking of fortepiano.
Quote from: Bogey on June 02, 2007, 07:48:11 PM
(http://www.kontinuum.cz/databaze/epizody/TOS_17_2.jpg)
Perhaps if you imagined a hot babe on the harpsichord (rather than Trelane -- the spoiled, arrogant brat) your dislike for the harpsichord would disappear ........
(http://www.lanzelotte.com/images/cravimg/acravista01.jpg)
I like both - and will purchase recordings played on either/both - for me it's the playing (emotional/passionate) that's the important thing.
Quote from: stingo on June 03, 2007, 08:32:25 AM
I like both - and will purchase recordings played on either/both - for me it's the playing (emotional/passionate) that's the important thing.
CPE Bach's concerto for harpsichord and fortepiano does require to be played on both. ;D
Quote from: D Minor on June 03, 2007, 08:21:53 AM
Perhaps if you imagined a hot babe on the harpsichord (rather than Trelane -- the spoiled, arrogant brat) your dislike for the harpsichord would disappear ........
(http://www.lanzelotte.com/images/cravimg/acravista01.jpg)
Naw. That's just Odo doing a bit of shape-shifting. ;D
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 03, 2007, 09:51:48 AM
CPE Bach's concerto for harpsichord and fortepiano does require to be played on both. ;D
Here's one of my favorite recordings of that work (Carus-Verlag (http://www.carus-verlag.com/index.php3?BLink=KKArtikel&ArtNummer=8330500)), featuring the Freiburg Barockorchester; Christine Schornsheim on fortepiano and Michael Behringer on Harpsichord.
(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/2677338.jpg)
Quote from: Bunny on June 03, 2007, 11:04:30 AM
Here's one of my favorite recordings of that work (Carus-Verlag (http://www.carus-verlag.com/index.php3?BLink=KKArtikel&ArtNummer=8330500)), featuring the Freiburg Barockorchester; Christine Schornsheim on fortepiano and Michael Behringer on Harpsichord.
(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/800/801336.jpg)
It is an incredbily witty work - the two solo instruments are so much fun
playing together in some kind of brother- or sisterhood. Note this piece
will never work if you pitch in a modern Steinway. It will have to play
a super-staccato-y, emasculated way or threatens to drown everybody
else out. ;D
Quote from: Catison on June 02, 2007, 01:08:12 PM
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
Thanks. He has used the same material in his Harpsichord Concerto later on, hasn't he?
And I've posted a helping of Polish contemporary harpsichord pieces here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,50.msg31888.html#msg31888).
Maciek
Quote from: MrOsa on June 04, 2007, 05:51:16 AM
Thanks. He has used the same material in his Harpsichord Concerto later on, hasn't he?
Yes, precisely. The harpsichordist asked him for a solo piece and concerto, so he used the same material for both. Some of the material was originally in another harpsichord piece called
Tango for Tim.
Quote from: MrOsa on June 04, 2007, 05:51:16 AM
And I've posted a helping of Polish contemporary harpsichord pieces here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,50.msg31888.html#msg31888).
Maciek
Thanks, I'll check it out.
I just really hate the sound of a harpsichord (usually). Probably because I'm a pianist. ::)
And I've spent a number of years trying to play Bach on my instrument. It sounds good to me (better if Glenn Gould plays it though).
Not all harpsichords sound the same. Find the proof here (http://www.gb.early-keyboard.com/gallery.htm). And check also the early Cristofori pianoforte for a surprising sound.
Quote from: Florestan on June 04, 2007, 11:07:14 PM
Not all harpsichords sound the same. Find the proof here (http://www.gb.early-keyboard.com/gallery.htm). And check also the early Cristofori pianoforte for a surprising sound.
Of course, and by the same token, not all pianos sound the same. Still, there is that difference.
Not too difficult to comprehend why, when the pianoforte came along, all harpsichords were all donated en masse to museums. Thomas Beecham's comparison with "skeletons copulating on a tin roof" is not too far off the mark.
Quote from: Harry Collier on June 04, 2007, 11:57:41 PM
Thomas Beecham's comparison with "skeletons copulating on a tin roof" is not too far off the mark.
Only in the sense that the harpsichord has indeed a sensual sound. :)
And the keys are probably often covered in bone of some sort...
Quote from: Harry Collier on June 04, 2007, 11:57:41 PM
Not too difficult to comprehend why, when the pianoforte came along, all harpsichords were all donated en masse to museums. Thomas Beecham's comparison with "skeletons copulating on a tin roof" is not too far off the mark.
What does Beecham know about harpsichords!? ::)
Quote from: Harry Collier on June 04, 2007, 11:57:41 PM
Not too difficult to comprehend why, when the pianoforte came along, all harpsichords were all donated en masse to museums. Thomas Beecham's comparison with "skeletons copulating on a tin roof" is not too far off the mark.
Its a silly remark, of a conductor who knew nothing about Harpsichords.
Quote from: Harry on June 05, 2007, 11:22:39 AM
Its a silly remark, of a conductor who knew nothing about Harpsichords.
Harpsichords know nothing about Beecham either.
BTW, Beethoven was still playing harpsichords when
he was very young. So how long did it take for the
fortepianos to come along? Forty years? Some
people need to get historically informed. ;D
Quote from: Harry Collier on June 04, 2007, 11:57:41 PM
Not too difficult to comprehend why, when the pianoforte came along, all harpsichords were all donated en masse to museums. Thomas Beecham's comparison with "skeletons copulating on a tin roof" is not too far off the mark.
Ah, but there is a bit more that can accompany this quote (in bold and from the web):
Two skeletons copulating on a tin roof.
- Sir Thomas Beecham
[In fairness, we must remember that Beecham died in 1961, before a generation of excellent players, restorers, makers and tuners had emerged to sound the instrument's depths and rediscover its possibilities. ] There are also these quotes (from the web):
Several otherwise discerning musicians have harboured hostile feelings [The composer Ralph Vaughan Williams compared the sound of the harpsichord to 'the ticking of a sewing machine' and Percy Scholes quoted 'a performance on a bird-cage with a toasting-fork' from an unnamed wit. ] towards the harpsichord since its re-introduction after a fallow period in the 19th Century. However, its place at the centre of nearly all Baroque ensembles, and its enormously rich solo literature, have ensured its healthy survival for the foreseeable future.
Personally, as stated earlier, I am not a huge solo fan, however, I cannot imagine most of Hogwoods recordings without one somewhere in the mix. :)
Quote from: Bogey on June 05, 2007, 11:30:40 AM
Personally, as stated earlier, I am not a huge solo fan, however, I cannot imagine most of Hogwoods recordings without one somewhere in the mix. :)
Fair enough
Bill.I happen to be a great admirer of solo harpsichord, to witness the enormous collection I have. ;D
Vaugham Williams probably never heard the kind of harpsichords Hogwood plays.
(harpsichords by Pleyel anyone?)
I don't think I have heard the kind of harpsichords that V-W hated either.
Quote from: Harry on June 05, 2007, 11:36:34 AM
Fair enough Bill.
I happen to be a great admirer of solo harpsichord, to witness the enormous collection I have. ;D
And you know that I think that is great Harry (and those here that prefer it).......and you also know that I
never write any form of music off, especially classical. Just not there yet on this one.
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 05, 2007, 11:37:42 AM
Vaugham Williams probably never heard the kind of harpsichords Hogwood plays.
I can support that. :)
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 05, 2007, 11:37:42 AM
Vaugham Williams probably never heard the kind of harpsichords Hogwood plays.
(harpsichords by Pleyel anyone?)
I don't think I have heard the kind of harpsichords that V-W hated either.
Wanda Landowska and Igor Kipnis certainly would have taken you up on that offer. ;D
Quote from: Bogey on June 05, 2007, 11:30:40 AM
...[In fairness, we must remember that Beecham died in 1961, before a generation of excellent players, restorers, makers and tuners had emerged to sound the instrument's depths and rediscover its possibilities. ] ...
...but not before Wanda Landowska asked Francis Poulenc, "Write me a concerto!" and Poulenc responded with the
Concert champêtre. ;D
Quote from: Bunny on June 05, 2007, 12:05:20 PM
Wanda Landowska and Igor Kipnis certainly would have taken you up on that offer. ;D
But Igor did go hip later, didn't he? :)
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 05, 2007, 11:25:32 AM
BTW, Beethoven was still playing harpsichords when
he was very young. So how long did it take for the
fortepianos to come along? Forty years? Some
people need to get historically informed. ;D
They certainly do: the idea that Beethoven (or Mozart and Haydn) wrote reams and reams of harpsichord music is pure fantasy.
Quote from: Harry Collier on June 06, 2007, 12:06:16 AM
They certainly do: the idea that Beethoven (or Mozart and Haydn) wrote reams and reams of harpsichord music is pure fantasy.
Well some don't - not enough anyway.
For one thing, all keyboard concertos Mozart wrote before K271 were certainly for harpsichords. The solo parts in all of M.s fortepiano concertos were designated "Cembalo" in the manuscripts. Not to mention Haydn. Even Beethoven's first sonatas were published for "Pianoforte o Cembalo" so there you go.
ps. The first unambiguous references to Cristofori's "forte e piano" instruments dated from c. 1700.
The harpsichord has a much more interesting sound than the piano. The piano sounds like crap. Really, I don't know how someone can enjoy the sound of a piano without any sort of accompaniment.
Quote from: Mozart on June 06, 2007, 02:15:18 AM
The harpsichord has a much more interesting sound than the piano. The piano sounds like crap. Really, I don't know how someone can enjoy the sound of a piano without any sort of accompaniment.
Mozart hath spoken! ;D
Quote from: Mozart on June 06, 2007, 02:15:18 AM
Really, I don't know how someone can enjoy the sound of a piano without any sort of accompaniment.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2007, 02:20:49 AM
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;D
Like the 57 Varieites of Heinz Ketchup? ;)
I think the harpsichord is a wonderful and beautiful instrument. What's not to love about it?
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 06, 2007, 03:23:46 AM
I think the harpsichord is a wonderful and beautiful instrument.
Agreed, agreed and agreed.
Quote from: Mozart on June 06, 2007, 02:15:18 AM
The harpsichord has a much more interesting sound than the piano. The piano sounds like crap. Really, I don't know how someone can enjoy the sound of a piano without any sort of accompaniment.
Why so strict? To be fair, the piano may
sometimes be well suited for the performance of genuine piano music.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 08:49:32 AM
ahhh yes...in that quest for more volume, nothing quite like the great stepping stone of mechanical sounding plucked strings...so much control, so much expression.
I regard the evolution from harpsichord to the piano not as improvement but as
change: you win some, you loose some.. (in terms of characteristics and possibilities).
But the final step from the fresh and individual sound of the earlier piano(forte)s to the "big", overbearing and uniformly sounding modern ones, is definitely a great musical loss - diversity is always better than uniformity. The same is true about the clavichord, the harpsichord, the fortepiano and the pianoforte: they all have their musical purpose and value.
Q
Is Chopin an improvement vis-a-vis Scarlatti? :)
They're just different. Same with harpsichord and piano. IMHO.
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2007, 09:45:32 AM
Is Chopin an improvement vis-a-vis Scarlatti? :)
They're just different. Same with harpsichord and piano. IMHO.
Agreed! So, that's settled then! ;D
Now I'm just
dying with curiosity what
Sarge will make of his Scarlatti on the harpsichord with Hantaï... 8)
Q
Of course when one gains some, one loses some elsewhere. Playing loud and soft on a pianoforte, oh sure.
Try playing on it as evenly as one can on a harpsichord (or an organ); still sure? Evolution theory
doesn't work with instruments, period.
Check the following article for some INFORMED opinions on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_history_and_musical_performance
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 06, 2007, 03:23:46 AM
I think the harpsichord is a wonderful and beautiful instrument. What's not to love about it?
Its sound.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 10:13:07 AM
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".
Quote from: Harry Collier on June 06, 2007, 10:58:01 AM
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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 11:04:55 AM
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.
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 06, 2007, 11:08:09 AM
But a pianola doesn't sound like a Silbermann organ, does it? Diversity rules.
Gorgeous.
Q
Quote from: Que on June 06, 2007, 11:10:17 AM
Gorgeous.
Q
Agreed.
But, for Sweelinck or other pre-Bach music, I actually do sometimes prefer instruments by Arp Schnitger! ;D
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 11:25:57 AM
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! ;D
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. ::)
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 10:13:07 AM
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
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.
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!"
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 06, 2007, 11:57:53 AM
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? ;)
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.
Mozart owned a clavichord as well as a fortepiano in his home. Don't think he actually thought one replaced the other.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 12:06:53 PM
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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 11:04:55 AM
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.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 12:25:59 PM
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? ;D I can't recall exactly now, but is CPE the main reference in the technique of "Bebung" for students of the Clavichord?
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 ;D
Quote from: Bunny on June 06, 2007, 12:27:02 PM
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.
Quote from: orbital on June 06, 2007, 12:31:24 PM
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 ;D
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.
(http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1108/04claviorganummb6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 06, 2007, 12:30:52 PM
Was it you who mentioned CPE Bach in this context, too? ;D 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 (http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/bach-cpe/versuch.pdf)) 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)
Luke thank you very much for the link and the reference. :) Clavichords were probably much more popular in the 18th century than most people seem (or are willing) to believe nowadays. Really the Bebung reminds me a lot of those slow fingered tremolos in traditional Chinese Qin performances, only subtler.
Quote from: fl.traverso on June 06, 2007, 12:31:45 PM
Thanks Bunny. I wish I could put it as succintly and clearly as you just did.
I have to give credit where it is due: I just quoted James. ;)
Quote from: premont on June 06, 2007, 06:57:42 AM
Why so strict? To be fair, the piano may sometimes be well suited for the performance of genuine piano music.
I agree, but that doesn't make the instrument sound pleasing. Now if you get George of the Jungle to accompany it while he swings from tree to tree, I think you would really have something special.
Put simply, James, there can't be such a thing as an 'improvement' from one instrument to another unless you can agree on the terms by which it is measured. This is the point you seem to miss. You keep coming back to dynamic range and other factors which are most important to you, and where undeniably the piano is an improvement on the harpichord et al. But you don't seem to understand that these factors are not the be-all-and-end-all; put more bluntly, you don't seem to understand that people might not care (relatively speaking) about dynamic range etc. as they do about other qualities. Tonal quality - the actual sound of the harpsichord, which the piano does not possess, and which is intimately tied up with the whole conception of Scarlatti's sonatas and so on, is at least as important.
In actual fact, I'm not in fact a member of the 'passionate harpsichord brigade', as you describe us, at all - as an instrumentalist I'm a pianist above all else - which also makes me aware of the limitations of my instrument as much as its qualities (I was playing Scarlatti sonatas today, actually, wishing I had a harpsichord to play on - they really don't work on my clavichord ;D) . So, as a signed-up pianist and pianophile, I'm perfectly happy to go a long way towards you - to say that, for the qualities which are most generally prized in music (lyricism, dynamic range, contrast, sustain etc) the piano 'beats' the harpsichord and so on. To this extent it is certainly an improvement on them. But I am not going to meet you, I am not going to say that the piano is an improvement full stop, simply because those qualities are not the only ones that matter, in all music.
(Your argument is a bit like saying a car is an improvement on a boat because it can drive at all sorts of altitudes, in all sorts of terrains, at a greater range of speeds, has a more sophisticated engine, and almost everyone owns one. True as far as it goes. But it can't drive on water, and until it can, it doesn't supercede the boat for that particular purpose ;D )
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 02:19:50 PM
(Your argument is a bit like saying a car is an improvement on a boat because it can drive at all sorts of altitudes, in all sorts of terrains, at a greater range of speeds, has a more sophisticated engine, and almost everyone owns one. True as far as it goes. But it can't drive on water, and until it can, it doesn't supercede the boat for that particular purpose ;D )
Luke, I do not know the mechanics of either instrument, but is the mechanics of piano such that those prized capabilities of the harpischord cannot be adapted to ?
It's sound may be closely tied to Scarlatti's music for example, but I suspect it is not only the bare sound itself. As you have explained previously in this topic, harpischord has those things that you can do with, which are not possible to emulate with the modern piano. Fair enough, but is the piano
inherently handicapped or is it that the developers/producers do/did not incorporate those features because they saw no need to?
Re your analogy: is the current automobile technology sophisticated enough to produce a car that sails as well, but why bother?
I don't want to tire you, if you can just say piano's inner workings do/do not allow such action, it'll be good enough for me :)
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 02:31:35 PM
er dragged back...
its not to me, its what was desired (& obviously preferred) by music makers during this evolution and development of the keyboard, that is, quite simply: more control over things like tone and volume. This was achieved, equalling options and wider range of possibilities for the performer & composer musically, hence 'improvement'. End of story. Fact of reality.
But not quite end of story, of course, because you imply that therefore all keyboard music written
before the piano was developed is therefore piano-music-waiting-for-the-piano, whereas in fact, the piano not being around, it was designed practically enough, primarily for the instruments that existed at the time. Harpsichords have no dynamic range - or at most two levels on two manuals; well, that is precisely how Scarlatti's music is designed. I'd never suggest that music which, written after the piano was developed, demands things which only the piano can play be played on any instrument other than the piano. But music that was written before does not
necessarily gain from being played on it - or if it gains something (that isn't in the original conception, such as subtle dynamic gradations) it loses something else (that
was in the original conception, such as the instrument timbre itself). And in that case, I know what I prefer.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 02:31:35 PM
Of course, the same can apply to cars, or aeroplanes, or computers etc etc also, in there separate lineages, each obviously developed and evolved as well.
Well, of course it's a silly example of mine, but I stand by it - your point here is again that harpsichord and piano are both 'cars' (not 'boat' and 'car') because one is an evolved form of the other. I simply don't agree. You are of course right that the piano sprung from a
desire to create a keyboard instrument that had a dynamic range the harpsichord lacked. But that desire led to a technological leap in the dark, to the extent that it wasn't evolution as much as revolution. We were left with two distinct instruments, as different from each other as car and boat - not a primitive forerunner and an evolved follower, but a plucked instrument and a struck one. From this point on, it is no surprise that the piano took over from the harpsichord almost entirely; it certainly superceded it in that purely numerological respect. But that isn't the same as superceding the harpsichord or making it obsolete in the music which was previously conceived and written for it.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 02:04:29 PM
lol...wow looks like im getting herded by the passionate harpsichord brigade here, too much to address really and a lot of it is nit picky (and a bit off the path)...i didnt think any of this needed to be explained and im quite shocked actually. the piano is a far more advanced (or flexiable, same thing) keyboard instrument, cant be denied, it offers more in terms of range and dynamically there is more you can do with your notes, that earlier stringed keyboard instruments cant do as ive said and nobody seems to be addressing specifically, and which is bleedingly obvious to anyone with a set of good ears. this is why its the most widely used today out of the others even amoungst the 20th c. composers mentioned earlier (its just better and offers more, or "more flexiable", same thing). you can be very percussive with it, and yet, be also flowing, organic, tender and lyrical. anyway, the harpsichord is more limited, thus an inferior instrument musically, despite the novelty of its brighter, thinner, less expressive and more mechanical sound color. the gains of the piano far outweight any perhaps, slight, idiomatic sound color things that may be lost....
and composers who choose to use those older instruments today for color contrast, a nostalgic throughback, providing repetoire on demand for those who play, or they simply want something that is more terse dynamically or whatever is up to them, really has nothing do with what i was talking about. and since the inception of the modern piano, it has dominated. i have said that the music sounds undoubtably good on both instruments a few times in this thread though (where applicable), but am also stating that one is definitely evolved and was an improvement upon the others as a stringed keyboard instrument. this is reality, cant be denied and just plain fact. believe it...
anyway, i really have to get back to work here. enough of this one for me, its been fun. :)
Saying that a piano is a more advanced instrument than the harpsichord is like saying that a motorcycle is more advanced than a horse. Certainly the technology of the motorcycle is more advanced than a horse; there is no way a horse can compare for speed and power to a motorcycle. However, riding a horse gives as much pleasure as riding a motorcycle any day of the week. Moreover, watching a skilled equestrian on a sleek and beautiful animal is as satisfying as watching a motocross event. And yet, the horse as a means of transportation has fallen into disuse. Only a few now learn to ride when once almost everyone needed some knowledge of either riding or driving horses in order to get about in the world.
Harpsichords, clavichords, spinets, virginals, viols are all musical instruments that have fallen into disuse. Who knows when that will not happen to the piano as we know it. Do not scoff -- a decade ago it was unthinkable that a digital camera could ever supercede a film camera and yet that day has come. I don't doubt that the electric piano will eventually have it's technology perfected and more and more people will acquire those instruments. More and more children will grow up learning on them and using them until they will show up in concert halls as well because they will have newer, different qualities of expression with newer, undreamed of dynamic flexiblity and tonal variation. At that point, will you trade in all of your piano recordings for the newer and superior epiano recordings?
Quote from: orbital on June 06, 2007, 02:38:38 PM
Luke, I do not know the mechanics of either instrument, but is the mechanics of piano such that those prized capabilities of the harpischord cannot be adapted to ?
It's sound may be closely tied to Scarlatti's music for example, but I suspect it is not only the bare sound itself. As you have explained previously in this topic, harpischord has those things that you can do with, which are not possible to emulate with the modern piano. Fair enough, but is the piano inherently handicapped or is it that the developers/producers do/did not incorporate those features because they saw no need to?
Re your analogy: is the current automobile technology sophisticated enough to produce a car that sails as well, but why bother?
I don't want to tire you, if you can just say piano's inner workings do/do not allow such action, it'll be good enough for me :)
Well, put at its most basic, as you know, the harpsichord plucks the string, the piano strikes it. If you modified the piano so that it plucked the string....well, it wouldn't be a piano anymore!
As in interesting side note - Glenn Gould modified the hammers of his piano, of course, to give it somewhat more 'plucky', harpsichord-esque sound, though it's still resolutely a piano. That's an interesting compromise between the two instruments, certainly, and it demonstrates, that Gould, so often rightly cited as a great example of Bach working marvellously on the modern piano, wasn't himself entirely happy with the sound of the piano as-is. Implied in this is Gould's recognition of an
inherent need in the music itself to retain at least something of the qualities which the plucked sound imparts. We hear an approximation of the same thing, but without such drastic instrumental modification, in most baroque piano performances - a kind of imitation of harpsichord sonority that has it both ways.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 02:57:13 PM
Well, put at its most basic, as you know, the harpsichord plucks the string, the piano strikes it. If you modified the piano so that it plucked the string....well, it wouldn't be a piano anymore!
Understood. The plucking gives the harpischord its particular sonority. That of course is unique to harpischord, but I meant more like the extracurricular effects that come with that instrument. Or are they too, linked to plucking of the strings?
[re orbital's post]
Ah, sorry, I see.
Well, no, to be honest (and I am as far from an expert as you can get) it is the plucked nature of the thing that is most important. But there is, of course, the complex matter of sustain, damping and pedals (or lack thereof) where the difference between the two instruments is enormous. That in fact, though less obvious than the plucked/struck dichotomy, is at least as important.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 03:05:04 PM
This is it exactly though, the reason it was plucked was to get more desired volume they wanted which was later and better developed/achieved in pianos, all part of the evolution and development of the instrument or tool. Striving toward the ideal.
What is this homogenous ideal you talk about? As Bunny says, the piano itself is, by your standards, being swiftly made obsolete by modern instrument makers striving towards
their ideal, an ideal which is hard for many of us here to take comfortably.
In general, my answer will continue to be that which I made a few minutes ago. I'm going to cut-and-paste it because (for once!) it says exactly what I mean:
Quote from: lukeottevanger...you imply that therefore all keyboard music written before the piano was developed is therefore piano-music-waiting-for-the-piano, whereas in fact, the piano not being around, it was designed practically enough, primarily for the instruments that existed at the time. Harpsichords have no dynamic range - or at most two levels on two manuals; well, that is precisely how Scarlatti's music is designed. I'd never suggest that music which, written after the piano was developed, demands things which only the piano can play be played on any instrument other than the piano. But music that was written before does not necessarily gain from being played on it - or if it gains something (that isn't in the original conception, such as subtle dynamic gradations) it loses something else (that was in the original conception, such as the instrument timbre itself). And in that case, I know what I prefer.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 03:05:04 PMThe key layout hasnt changed much though... this is why the older music can work well, and sounds great on both old and yes, new keyboard instruments.
Naturally.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 02:31:35 PM
its not to me, its what was desired (& obviously preferred) by music makers during this evolution and development of the keyboard, that is, quite simply: more control over things like tone and volume. This was achieved, equalling more options and a wider range of possibilities for the performer & composer musically, hence 'improvement'. End of story. Fact of reality...
...until you hear a clavichord, which with its deceptively simple mechanism (a metal bar touches a string) can produce effects a pianist could never dream of, including a genuine vibrato and even the possibility of crescendo after the note has been played! True, its volume is considerably lower than a piano's, but that is not necessarily a defect. Playing a clavichord in the 18th century was comparable to listening to music on headphones today: a very private experience. But unlike headphones, the clavichord encourages your fingers to develop exquisite sensitivity; it needs a much lighter, freer hand than the modern piano. (I played one in a store, once. It really is an entirely different instrument; my hands would have had to retrain themselves completely.)
So--and this is a challenge, James--do you think that the electronic keyboard/synthesizer is an evolutionary advance over the piano? ???
Quote from: jochanaan on June 06, 2007, 03:23:50 PM
...until you hear a clavichord, which with its deceptively simple mechanism (a metal bar touches a string) can produce effects a pianist could never dream of, including a genuine vibrato and even the possibility of crescendo after the note has been played! True, its volume is considerably lower than a piano's, but that is not necessarily a defect. Playing a clavichord in the 18th century was comparable to listening to music on headphones today: a very private experience. But unlike headphones, the clavichord encourages your fingers to develop exquisite sensitivity; it needs a much lighter, freer hand than the modern piano. (I played one in a store, once. It really is an entirely different instrument; my hands would have had to retrain themselves completely.)
Jo, I think I love you! :-* At least now I know I'm not the only one! Trust me, 'retraining' is exactly right...
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 03:27:28 PM
Jo, I think I love you! :-* At least now I know I'm not the only one! Trust me, 'retraining' is exactly right...
I'm not that type :o , but thank you! ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on June 06, 2007, 03:29:55 PM
I'm not that type :o , but thank you! ;D
Neither am I. But anyone who shares my passion for the clavichord is deserving of my (Platonic) affections!
(Though the thing about crescendo-ing
after a note has been played is stretching things a little - it's just about possible in theory but I've never managed it on my instrument. Still, the clavichord needs its propaganda, so I'll buy it)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 03:37:46 PM
Neither am I. But anyone who shares my passion for the clavichord is deserving of my (Platonic) affections!
(Though the thing about crescendo-ing after a note has been played is stretching things a little - it's just about possible in theory but I've never managed it on my instrument. Still, the clavichord needs its propaganda, so I'll buy it)
Of course you know, Luke, that I DO share that. Plato I can deal with. :D
BTW, I recently got a 2 disk set on Hungaroton of the complete keyboard works of Johann Eckard played by Miklos Spanyi. Disk 1 is on the clavichord and disk 2 on the
Tangentenflügel. Now, that's a treat that I strongly recommend for one of your tastes. Seriously, nice music, very, very interesting sound. :)
(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/41mS2I4KcZL._AA240_.jpg)
8)
Going to Amazon right now, Gurn... :)
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.
This one, I presume, Gurn:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41mS2I4KcZL._AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 03:54:23 PM
This one, I presume, Gurn:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41mS2I4KcZL._AA240_.jpg)
Yes, that's it. Goes for Hungaroton prices, I'm afraid... :-\ Do you know Eckard? He was Stein's front man in Paris, going there in 1758. He was renowned in his time, but scarcely remembered afterwards.
8)
Quote from: Mark on June 06, 2007, 03:53:51 PM
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! :)
8)
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....
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 04:04:40 PM
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... :D
8)
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:02:27 PM
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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:02:27 PMYeah 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.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 06, 2007, 04:10:40 PM
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... :D
8)
Sounds fascinating, Gurn! 8)
Whilst we're - more or less - on the subject, have you heard [of] these (http://www.wyastone.co.uk/nrl/scarlatti.html)? (I know it's not quite your area, but you're pretty informed on these things...)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 04:33:17 PM
Sounds fascinating, Gurn! 8)
Whilst we're - more or less - on the subject, have you heard [of] these (http://www.wyastone.co.uk/nrl/scarlatti.html)? (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! :o 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... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 06, 2007, 04:40:30 PM
No, damn the bad luck! I do have several disks of Scarlatti, but none of Lester's. 38 disks! :o 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!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 06, 2007, 04:40:30 PMOh, 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... :-\
8)
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.
Quote from: Gurn
Using words to describe sounds can be difficult... :-\
Someone really should take that as their tag-line....
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:57:56 PM
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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:57:56 PMthere 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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:57:56 PMand 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 ;D. 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.
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. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 06, 2007, 05:30:28 PM
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.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 06, 2007, 05:37:53 PM
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! :)
8)
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.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 06, 2007, 05:56:24 PM
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.
;D
Duly noted, Mark. I am absolutely sure that Pibnix will be at the top of the tonal appreciation list at that point in time... ;)
8)
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 06, 2007, 05:56:24 PM
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 06:37:32 PM
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...
Quote from: James
link=topic=1300.msg33838#msg33838 date=1181183852
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. ]
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 06:37:32 PMand 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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 06:37:32 PM
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...
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 06:37:32 PMi 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]
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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:57:56 PM
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.
Quote from: James on June 07, 2007, 08:36:15 AM
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.
Quote from: James on June 07, 2007, 08:36:15 AMwhat 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... ;D
Quote from: James on June 07, 2007, 08:36:15 AMassuming and adding things ive never really said,
such as?
Quote from: James on June 07, 2007, 08:36:15 AMand 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.
Quote from: James on June 07, 2007, 08:36:15 AMOk, 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.
Quote from: James on June 06, 2007, 04:02:27 PM
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. ;D)
Quote from: James on June 07, 2007, 02:24:38 PM...the stringed keyboard instruments are part of the same family, history and direct lineage, synthesizers really have no part of that (or the tradition)...
Uh, have you forgotten
Switched-On Bach? ;)
Whilst arguing over how Scarlatti should be played, one must understand the cdircumstances under which his sonatas were composed. According to Fitzpatrick they were nearly all written towards the end of his life when he was music master to Queen Barbara of Spain, who was an accomplished keyboard player herself. Moreover the numbering is more or less chronological. Reviewing them in order you will find a development of style. In the beginning he harks back to the Baroque but soon discards that for the new simplified Classical style with a single key per bar. There is a period rich in imitative sounds, another in which he uses thick heavy chord clusters. This is followed by a period when his textures become sparse. His last sonatas are the obvious precursers of those of Soler. The gist of the argument here is about instruments - the Queen's inventories show that she possessed several harpsichords and a fortepiano. It seems likely that the harpsichords varied in their brightness of sound and that over time her preferences swung from one instument to another. Before anyone can make any assertion as to which is the ideal instrument for any particular sonata, much more research needs to be done.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on June 09, 2007, 12:36:34 AM
Whilst arguing over how Scarlatti should be played, one must understand the cdircumstances under which his sonatas were composed. According to Fitzpatrick they were nearly all written towards the end of his life when he was music master to Queen Barbara of Spain, who was an accomplished keyboard player herself. Moreover the numbering is more or less chronological. Reviewing them in order you will find a development of style. In the beginning he harks back to the Baroque but soon discards that for the new simplified Classical style with a single key per bar. There is a period rich in imitative sounds, another in which he uses thick heavy chord clusters. This is followed by a period when his textures become sparse. His last sonatas are the obvious precursers of those of Soler. The gist of the argument here is about instruments - the Queen's inventories show that she possessed several harpsichords and a fortepiano. It seems likely that the harpsichords varied in their brightness of sound and that over time her preferences swung from one instument to another. Before anyone can make any assertion as to which is the ideal instrument for any particular sonata, much more research needs to be done.
I quite agree with you. However, you seem to be making the assumption that the ideal instrument is the one closest to that Scarlatti was working with/had in mind. Personally, the whole thrust of my posts here has been in agreement with this view of yours - and if a particular sonata is conceived in terms of a particular instrument, I would have thought it only logical to assume that this instrument has something valuable to bring to it. But the argument James was putting forward, as far as I can tell, was that none of these instruments bring anything particular or worthwhile to the music that the modern piano doesn't bring too, and that the modern piano gives more besides, making research pointless except for academic reasons, I suppose. Needless to say, I disagree with this view and share yours, but the different outlooks need to be kept in mind.
That Richard Lester complete set I've mentioned here and on the other current Scarlatti thread uses various harpsichords, organs and fortepianos, from what I can see on the Nimbus site. It seems to be an extremely scholarly edition, backed up by lots of research, and including, as I said above, fairly recently-discovered sonatas not recorded before. Lester seems to be a real expert on this repertoire (which I never suspected when I was having my childhood lessons with him!); interesting to see that he's also recorded Soler.
thank you - your remaks are very reassuring. Of course I have to play Scarlatti on my Steinway but I see nothing wrong in that either and I'm sure the Queen would have been delighted with such an instrument. The point with the piano is that there many many different ways in which it can be played and I adapt my instrument to the music rather the other way around. When I was young, incidentally, I was taught to imitate the harpsichord but now I don't believe that to be the right approach at all.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on June 09, 2007, 01:09:13 AM
thank you - your remaks are very reassuring. Of course I have to play Scarlatti on my Steinway but I see nothing wrong in that either and I'm sure the Queen would have been delighted with such an instrument.
Yes, absolutely. But of course, as has been pointed out here already, had a piano like yours been available to Scarlatti, his music would have been very different. He was a very instrumentally aware composer, of course.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on June 09, 2007, 01:09:13 AMThe point with the piano is that there many many different ways in which it can be played and I adapt my instrument to the music rather the other way around. When I was young, incidentally, I was taught to imitate the harpsichord but now I don't believe that to be the right approach at all.
I think you are correct in both sentences in this paragraph. Specifically, if the piano is only to be used as a substitute harpsichord, the point of using it at all is rather lost - if one is to use the piano, one has to make use of the possibilities it provides. And at the same time, as your first sentence suggests, the intrinsic musical implications of the piece itself must be paramount, and the performer must put his instrument at their service. All of which is as much as to say: performing Scarlatti on the piano requires a careful and calculated balancing act, one which if brought off can be immensely successful. But performing him on the harpsichord requires no such juggling.
I'm put in mind of something Karl very interesting wrote on the Greatness in Music thread, to the point that, if Prokofiev had been attempting to imitate Haydn
precisely in his Classical Symphony, and if he had succeeded on all musical levels, there would still be a sense in which he had failed, because the writing of the a piece which would have been natural to Haydn would have necessarily come as an effort to Prokofiev. In the event, of course, Prokofiev tried no such thing - he saw no value in simple imitation, I suppose, and much more in a subtle and revealing conversation between his world and that of Haydn. I think the similarity to the discussion at hand is interesting, perhaps.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on June 09, 2007, 12:36:34 AM
According to Fitzpatrick they were nearly all written towards the end of his life when....
"Fitzpatrick"= Ralph Kirkpatrick?
Quote from: masolino on June 09, 2007, 01:39:53 AM
"Fitzpatrick"= Ralph Kirkpatrick?
Goodness me, we'll have to change all those K numbers! I was having one of my fitz.
harpsichord
I can see the arguments for playing on period pianos coming up next. Should we hear Beethoven as it sounded then?
Do you need a tin-opener for that can of worms you're holding? ;D
Quote from: Ten thumbs on June 12, 2007, 01:27:24 AM
I can see the arguments for playing on period pianos coming up next. Should we hear Beethoven as it sounded then?
Well, I wouldn't say
should - each to his taste.
But I prefer it - check the
HIP Beethoven thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,145.0.html)! ;D
My experience sofar is that Beethoven, and let's not forget Mozart and Haydn, are all better of played on a fortepiano.
Q
Wasn't it Immerseel on Zig Zag that recorded Ravel HIP?
Quote from: stingo on June 12, 2007, 06:14:52 AM
Wasn't it Immerseel on Zig Zag that recorded Ravel HIP?
He did. He conducted the Anima Eterna which used French instruments of early 20th century vintage. Claire Chevalier played a 1905 Erard piano for the Concerto for the Left Hand. The recording has that particular timbre of pre World War 2 French orchestras. The only American equivalent would have been the Boston Symphony under Charles Munch which had a decidedly French flavor.
Maybe we should ask, How happy was Beethoven, or Mozart, or Chopin with the instruments of their day? I get the sense when studying Beethoven's music that he was testing the limits of the pianos available to him in a way few other composers of that time were doing; he might really have "dug" a modern Steinway or Bösendorfer. But of course, we'll never know for certain.
One reviewer of an early HIP Appassionata recording on a period instrument said that he felt an intensity that was sometimes lacking in performances on modern pianos; he felt that the music stretched the piano almost to the distortion point, much like some recordings that put the sound into the red zones on the recording dials. Of course, there's no reason you can't get the same intensity on a modern piano too. :D
Quote from: jochanaan on June 12, 2007, 08:43:47 AM
(Beethoven) might really have "dug" a modern Steinway or Bösendorfer. But of course, we'll never know for certain.
But the only thing we know about Beethoven is that he was never quite satisfied with anything: even if he might "dig" the instruments we offer today, he would still get dissatisfied and ask for more. ;D
Quote
Of course, there's no reason you can't get the same intensity on a modern piano too. :D
Yes, but much more physical strength. To shake the steel frames and make them vibrate...to pound on the heavy, lead weighted keys...to make the fortified, multiple-part action mechanism bounce... imagine the rest. :o Those who want to hear a fortepiano pushed to limits in "Appasionata" check out Anthony Newman's over-the-top performance (on now defunct Newport label) if they can find it somewhere. ;D
QuoteHow happy was Beethoven, or Mozart, or Chopin with the instruments of their day?
Ughh Mozart loved it! Just listen to his pcs! They are unmatched by any other composer.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on June 12, 2007, 01:27:24 AM
I can see the arguments for playing on period pianos coming up next. Should we hear Beethoven as it sounded then?
Why not? Why must one preclude the other? There's no right or wrong with this. The sonatas sound differently on fortepiano than Steinway, Bösendorfer or Blüthner, for instance.
The music always has more secrets to reveal depending on instrument and performance which is why I have multiple recordings of favorite works.
Quote from: Mozart on June 12, 2007, 11:21:27 PM
Ughh Mozart loved it! Just listen to his pcs! They are unmatched by any other composer.
That doesn't mean he loved what he had to work with. Remember his flute concertos, and his oft-stated dislike for that instrument...
Quote from: jochanaan on June 13, 2007, 09:15:23 AM
That doesn't mean he loved what he had to work with. Remember his flute concertos, and his oft-stated dislike for that instrument...
2 flute concertos vs. 27 fortepiano concertos...hmm... ::)
Quote from: masolino on June 13, 2007, 09:18:23 AM
2 flute concertos vs. 27 fortepiano concertos...hmm... ::)
But look at the quality! The flute concertos are as good as the ones for piano or violin. (Of course, he wrote the latter for himself and the former for noble patrons; still-- :))
Quote from: jochanaan on June 13, 2007, 09:21:53 AM
But look at the quality! The flute concertos are as good as the ones for piano or violin. (Of course, he wrote the latter for himself and the former for noble patrons; still-- :))
I am a flute player, but I'd say most of Mozart's fortepiano concertos (after K. 271) are better quality music than his flute concertos. Your mileage may vary though... ;D
ps. Don't forget Mozart's vast amount of chamber music involving a fortepiano - trios,
quartets, one quintet which use the keyboard instrument in a highly concertante style.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 13, 2007, 09:21:53 AM
But look at the quality! The flute concertos are as good as the ones for piano or violin. (Of course, he wrote the latter for himself and the former for noble patrons; still-- :))
And the flute quartets... sheer delight.
Quote from: Florestan on June 13, 2007, 09:25:38 AM
And the flute quartets... sheer delight.
Right. The fortepiano quartets...sublime and divine. ;D
Quote from: masolino on June 13, 2007, 09:24:23 AM
I am a flute player, but I'd say most of Mozart's fortepiano concertos (after K. 271) are better quality music than his flute concertos. Your mileage may vary though... ;D
And one of those flute concertos is just an arrangement of the oboe concerto, because Mozart didn't want to bother with writing another flute concerto from scratch.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 13, 2007, 12:52:54 PM
And one of those flute concertos is just an arrangement of the oboe concerto, because Mozart didn't want to bother with writing another flute concerto from scratch.
No I meant the authentic flute concerto plus the double concerto for flute and harp (which is no arrangement either).
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 13, 2007, 12:52:54 PM
And one of those flute concertos is just an arrangement of the oboe concerto, because Mozart didn't want to bother with writing another flute concerto from scratch.
Or didn't have time to bother. :o
Quote from: Florestan on June 13, 2007, 09:25:38 AM
And the flute quartets... sheer delight.
He never got paid for those!
Quote from: masolino on June 13, 2007, 07:32:27 PM
No I meant the authentic flute concerto plus the double concerto for flute and harp (which is no arrangement either).
That's a nice one (fl & harp), especially the slow movement.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 14, 2007, 05:43:42 AM
That's a nice one (fl & harp), especially the slow movement.
Agreed.
Quote from: George on June 14, 2007, 05:48:32 AM
Yep. 0:)
But compare that to the Adagio in the fortepiano concerto K. 488 (f minor), and hear the difference. Mozart spoke his soul foremostly on the keyboard.
I understood Mozart hated the flute... am I mistaken?
Quote from: stingo on June 14, 2007, 09:39:32 AM
I understood Mozart hated the flute... am I mistaken?
Mozart loved the fortepiano. So much so he even had favourite makers -
Andreas Stein in Augsburg, Anton Walter in Vienna. I don't know if Mozart
ALWAYS hated the flute - there are many, many beautiful flute solos in his
concertos for fortepiano especially. Hard to imagine this about a composer
who was supposed to a flute-hater.
Quote from: masolino on June 14, 2007, 10:08:32 AM
...Hard to imagine this about a composer
who was supposed to a flute-hater.
Well, you have a point there. Flutist Eugenia Zukerman has theorized that Mozart's "hatred" was really directed more at the situation in which he found himself; according to her, his "I become quite powerless when forced to write for an instrument I cannot bear" is really a mature version of "The dog ate my manuscript." ;D
But I think we need to remember in this context that, for Mozart, Haydn and the other composers of the time, music-making was as much a craft as an art, something he did not just from an inner compulsion but because others were commissioning him. A trained craftsman with a professional attitude takes pride in always doing good work; it's a point of honor with him/her. Mozart had that honor to a high degree; in the same letter he reiterated that he would not release anything for which he "would be ashamed of my name on the title page." (This remains true among many composers. Messiaen's last orchestral composition,
Éclairs sur l'Au-Dela, was commissioned by the New York Philharmonic.)
But we're getting off-topic. Perhaps we should ask whether Mozart's flute concertos should be played on modern or period flutes...? ???
Quote from: George on June 14, 2007, 04:20:13 AM
Dontcha mean "I?"
Dontcha know God refers to himself in the 3rd person? :D
Quote from: Mozart on June 14, 2007, 01:55:05 PM
Dontcha know God refers to himself in the 3rd person? :D
Whah - whahhh. ::)
Quote from: George on June 14, 2007, 04:06:07 PM
Whah - whahhh. ::)
Mozart!
Thou shan't say his name in vain!
Quote from: Mozart on June 14, 2007, 04:08:49 PM
Mozart!
Thou shan't say his name in vain!
Hallowed be thy ego. 0:)
Quote from: jochanaan on June 14, 2007, 10:00:49 PM
His tie, of course! ;D
A 'period' tie, of course. Not one from Burton's.