GMG Classical Music Forum

Opinions of Bach and Scarlatti on modern grand piano?

I voted okay but in truth I think the most important thing is the musician and not the instruments on which he is performing.

I am not against it, but the music does not work as well as on period instruments, unless it's given an idiosyncratic performance like Gould's.  Too often it just sounds sterile.

Definitely not! I don't know about sacrilege, but it doesn't work for me. I don't much care for Bach, although I have a lot of his music, but I am a big Scarlatti fan. It would be interesting to hear some on a clavichord or tangent piano though. :)

80

Everything on piano.  8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 05, 2014, 05:48:18 PM
Definitely not! I don't know about sacrilege, but it doesn't work for me. I don't much care for Bach, although I have a lot of his music, but I am a big Scarlatti fan. It would be interesting to hear some on a clavichord or tangent piano though. :)

80

How about an upright lautenwerck?
https://www.youtube.com/v/IlTaxziDwXA

Piano all the way. Period instruments are often quite physically beautiful, but the music usually sounds better on a piano.

I get headaches a lot, so period instruments are doable maybe 10% of the time. I can nearly always listen to piano, though. With a few exceptions, I stopped buying Bach on keyboard when I got Andras Schiff's CDs.

I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is acceptable for Bach (less so for Scarlatti).

Quote from: Sammy on May 05, 2014, 06:45:48 PM
I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is acceptable for Bach (less so for Scarlatti).

+1

It definitely depends on the music, the performer and the instrument. Rameau, for example, comes across beautifully as played by Marcelle Meyer (and even Hewitt). I think that is true for Couperin as well.  Regardless, it is just a different experience to hear Meyer play Rameau compared to his music being performed on a harpsichord.  It seems like there is more variation in the harpsichord realm depending on the instrument and the performer.  Why can't we enjoy both worlds?

not either/or : and

Quote from: sanantonio on May 06, 2014, 03:05:17 AM
not either/or : and

Oh please, no! I'd rather hear the music played either on the piano or on the harpsichord, not as a hpd & pf duo!  0:)

Sacrilege?

Now come on.

>:D

accordion .... marimba ... saxophone quartet ... wendy carlos?

Recorder quartet, gambas, they're all good in the DKF. :)
Just leave the Goldbergs for the harpsichordists..

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 05, 2014, 05:58:24 PM
How about an upright lautenwerck?
https://www.youtube.com/v/IlTaxziDwXA

That's a new one for me, I like it!  :)

8)

Quote from: sanantonio on May 06, 2014, 04:33:28 AM
accordion .... marimba ... saxophone quartet ... wendy carlos?

Whomever on whatever.
Just listen, and then pick your favourite(s).

I have a rather conservative taste, so I prefer period instruments. IMO, most of the baroque keyboard works sound more natural on them, and I love the sound of those oldies.

But I don't think that Bach or Scarlatti are holy, and that their compositions and scores are sacred, and that there is just One Holy Way of playing them, on just One Holy Instrument.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 06, 2014, 05:10:01 AM
That's a new one for me, I like it!  :)

8)

Yes, me too.

Quote from: Marc on May 06, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
But I don't think that Bach or Scarlatti are holy, and that their compositions and scores are sacred, and that there is just One Holy Way of playing them, on just One Holy Instrument.

To say nothing of that One Holy Instrument not being in existence when the music was composed . . . .

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 06:39:41 AM
True up to a point, the musician also has to somehow get around the issues of recording it well .. for some odd reason the harpsichord rarely sounds good on recordings.

I find that it generally sounds very good on recordings.  I guess you just don't like the instrument.

It's an easy answer to say "the performance is all that matters."  But remember, always, that neither the Bachs nor the Scarlattis nor Couperin nor any other Baroque composer wrote their music for an instrument that hadn't yet been developed into its modern form.  Therefore, as beautiful as Bach etc. can be when played on piano, it's in essence a transcription.

J.S. Bach once tried out a fortepiano and didn't much care for it.  OTOH, his son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach was one of his generation's premier fortepianists. 8)

Re recordings: What usually doesn't come across on recordings is the fact that period instruments produce considerably less sound than modern ones.  So for those of you who "get headaches" listening to recordings of period instruments, maybe you should try to hear a live performance (if you can).

Quote from: Sammy on May 05, 2014, 06:45:48 PM
I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is acceptable for Bach (less so for Scarlatti).

I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is more than acceptable for Scarlatti (less so for Bach).

There are strong historical reasons to think that Scarlatti was a lot more familiar and interested in fortepianos than Bach.

I think these reasons are well explained and demonstrated in a beautiful disk entitled "Una nuova inventione per Maria Barbara" (Ambronay), played on a Cristofori pianoforte by Aline Zylberajch.

That said, several times I have found Scarlatti sounds excellent on modern piano. 

Quote from: Gordo on May 06, 2014, 07:57:18 AM
...There are strong historical reasons to think that Scarlatti was a lot more familiar and interested in fortepianos than Bach...

True, and an excellent point.  But the fortepiano of Scarlatti's and Bach's time was little like a modern Steinway or Boesendorfer.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 05:16:00 AM
Piano. No contest.

As long as there is no use of the pedal and very little use of dynamics. I like Bach played on piano simply because I prefer the piano's sound over the harpsichord's, but I don't like it when performers see no dynamic markings as an opportunity to fill in whatever they want. Just a preference, though.

Quote from: jochanaan on May 06, 2014, 08:04:24 AM
True, and an excellent point.  But the fortepiano of Scarlatti's and Bach's time was little like a modern Steinway or Boesendorfer.

No, indeed.

I mean, true, indeed.

Quote from: EigenUser on May 06, 2014, 08:13:09 AM
As long as there is no use of the pedal and very little use of dynamics. I like Bach played on piano simply because I prefer the piano's sound over the harpsichord's, but I don't like it when performers see no dynamic markings as an opportunity to fill in whatever they want. Just a preference, though.

Nothing wrong with that.  And, as I was explaining another time, while at present I can listen to harpsichord music for hours with enjoyment, it was a while before I attained this state . . . .

Quote from: Gordo on May 06, 2014, 07:57:18 AM
I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is more than acceptable for Scarlatti (less so for Bach).

I should be interested in your further opinion here.

Quote from: jochanaan on May 06, 2014, 07:52:19 AM
It's an easy answer to say "the performance is all that matters."  But remember, always, that neither the Bachs nor the Scarlattis nor Couperin nor any other Baroque composer wrote their music for an instrument that hadn't yet been developed into its modern form.  Therefore, as beautiful as Bach etc. can be when played on piano, it's in essence a transcription.

Fine, but should "transcription" be such a naughty word? AFAIK it wasn't in Bach's time.

Most of my Bach keyboard collection is on period instruments, but if somebody wants to play it on piano or Moog or electric guitar or some instrument I've never heard of, then I'm not going to tell them not to.

Quote from: Pat B on May 06, 2014, 08:26:15 AM
Fine, but should "transcription" be such a naughty word? AFAIK it wasn't in Bach's time.

I don't think jo was decrying transcription, only endorsing an awareness.

Like any musical activity, a transcription can be well done/considered or poorly done/considered.  (And sometimes, the difference will be a matter of taste.)

Come to think on it, it may be that the latest Bach I listened to, was in transcription (by either Liszt or Busoni).

Quote from: Pat B on May 06, 2014, 08:26:15 AM
Most of my Bach keyboard collection is on period instruments, but if somebody wants to play it on piano or Moog or electric guitar or some instrument I've never heard of, then I'm not going to tell them not to.

You see, I think jo's post was a caution that, if we hear Bach realized on an electric guitar, we might guard against the reaction, Oh, if only this were played on a piano, the way Bach meant it . . . .

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 08:24:38 AM
I don't mind the instrument at all, it just never really sounds good on recordings; can you give me an example of a recording which illustrates "very good" recorded sound. Thanks.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'not sounding good'?

There are a number of concerto recordings in which the harpsichord is overwhelmed by an orchestra when it shouldn't be, but offhand I can't think of any solo harpsichord recording I disliked because of the sonics (as opposed to some I don't like because of how the musician plays the music).  My baseline for "sounding good" amounts to 'sounds like a harpsichord'.  Perhaps your baseline differs from mine?

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 06, 2014, 08:32:58 AM
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'not sounding good'?

There are a number of concerto recordings in which the harpsichord is overwhelmed by an orchestra when it shouldn't be

And lots of recordings where the harpsichord overwhelms the orchestra, which it certainly shouldn't do, too.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 06, 2014, 08:32:58 AM
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'not sounding good'?

There are a number of concerto recordings in which the harpsichord is overwhelmed by an orchestra when it shouldn't be, but offhand I can't think of any solo harpsichord recording I disliked because of the sonics (as opposed to some I don't like because of how the musician plays the music).  My baseline for "sounding good" amounts to 'sounds like a harpsichord'.  Perhaps your baseline differs from mine?

Another thing (and, as far as I am concerned, another reason to consider a slight preference for the harpsichord), there are a great many different types of harpsichord, many of them with quite distinct voices.  In comparison (and I speak as one who loves the piano lit, as well) the piano is a bit . . . monochrome.

Thus, the very idea of asserting that the harpsichord never sounds good in recording is . . . under-informed, shall we say.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 08:56:32 AM
Can you please name me one recording where the sound is "very good" in your estimation then. Thanks.

Continuum sounds great on this disc
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JSXBS3F4L._SY300_.jpg)

should we include chamber and orchestral music as well? Do we need a Steinway for the continuo for the Brandenburg Concertos or should the grand piano just be used for the solo in the 5th concerto?

Quote from: karlhenning on May 06, 2014, 08:29:47 AM
I don't think jo was decrying transcription, only endorsing an awareness.

Like any musical activity, a transcription can be well done/considered or poorly done/considered.  (And sometimes, the difference will be a matter of taste.)

Okay, maybe I misinterpreted his intent. I do think the word "transcription" carries a bit of a stigma. Your second paragraph is very true.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 08:52:10 AM
Yea .. the piano has a richer sound on all fronts, good for exploring the intricacies of that unparalleled rich polyphony and a wider way .. and can be recorded very well, worlds apart from the thin, antiquated, monotonous and tinny sound of the harpsichord.

Well, 'Duh!'  ::)

Thank you, Mr. Obvious!   :-*

8)

I prefer Bach on piano and Scarlatti on harpsichord for these reasons:

1. A piano is a lot easier to listen to for extended periods, so it suits Bach's long multi-movement works better. Scarlatti specialized in tiny bite-sized sonatas, which are easier to digest on the harpsichord.

2. Harpsichord suits the character of Scarlatti much better. Harpsichords can sound amazingly like guitars, fully bringing out the Spanish aspect. They are also more percussive and rhythmically incisive.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 08:52:10 AM
Yea .. the piano has a richer sound on all fronts, good for exploring the intricacies of that unparalleled rich polyphony and a wider way .. and can be recorded very well, worlds apart from the thin, antiquated, monotonous and tinny sound of the harpsichord.

So you do not like the harpsichord, that is all. 

Quote from: North Star on May 06, 2014, 08:41:56 AM
And lots of recordings where the harpsichord overwhelms the orchestra, which it certainly shouldn't do, too.

I must admit I did think of a reference to Goodman's Haydn series as a way to balance that statement of mine.😁

Thin, antiquated, monotonous and tinny . . . how unseemly for James to parade how poor his ear is, for all to read.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 06, 2014, 10:37:55 AM
So you do not like the harpsichord, that is all. 

Well observed.  No point in his adding the superfluous adjective antiquated save to register his disapproval.

Raise your hands, everybody who cares about James's disapproval . . . .

It my opinion that Kenneth Gilbert's recordings have very good sound.  For example this one -

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vTp3tvVGL._SX300_.jpg)

This is not to say that there are not many, many other examples.

BTW most of the Bach pieces played on lute and guitar were really written for this instrument

https://www.youtube.com/v/GVGAMtI77J4

This disk on Accord by Luciano Sgrizzi has a superb sounding harpsichord.

[asin]B008ALNCMY[/asin]
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51v73xNRcFL.jpg)

I have many others with great sound also. If you don't like the sound, it doesn't matter how fine it is. The music certainly sounds better.

8)

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 08:24:38 AM
I don't mind the instrument at all, it just never really sounds good on recordings; can you give me an example of a recording which illustrates "very good" recorded sound. Thanks.

Sure.  Bach's French Suites from Francesco Cera on Arts Music.

One minute, it's I don't mind the instrument at all; the next, it's thin, antiquated, monotonous and tinny . . . LOL

Quote from: Velimir on May 06, 2014, 10:34:56 AM
I prefer Bach on piano and Scarlatti on harpsichord for these reasons:

1. A piano is a lot easier to listen to for extended periods, so it suits Bach's long multi-movement works better. Scarlatti specialized in tiny bite-sized sonatas, which are easier to digest on the harpsichord.

I've heard this "extended" comment about harpsichords many times, but it sure doesn't hold for folks who love the sound of a harpsichord.  I can listen to the harpsichord all day long and wake up the next morning wanting even more.

FWIW, I feel the same way about the piano, fortepiano and organ.  It's the clavichord that I have trouble handling for more than a half-hour or so.

Prefer piano, but will gladly listen to harpsichord.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 05:16:00 AM
Piano. No contest.

I want to change my vote! To Sacrilege ...

>:D

Pfffft

ah, the wonders of Youtube - Chopin on Harpsichord

https://www.youtube.com/v/ZDB6-oXT8es

Quote from: Sammy on May 06, 2014, 11:40:46 AM
I've heard this "extended" comment about harpsichords many times, but it sure doesn't hold for folks who love the sound of a harpsichord. I can listen to the harpsichord all day long and wake up the next morning wanting even more.
[....]

8)

Like (right now) Bach's Goldbergs, played by Scott Ross.
Great sound!

Maybe some of the (more or less) harpsichord dislikers should try some recent Bach recordings by Christophe Rousset, with a more 'fat and wet' harpsichord sound.

Quote from: jochanaan on May 06, 2014, 07:53:58 AM
Re recordings: What usually doesn't come across on recordings is the fact that period instruments produce considerably less sound than modern ones.  So for those of you who "get headaches" listening to recordings of period instruments, maybe you should try to hear a live performance (if you can).

I don't get a headache from listening to harpsichord. I just get headaches. And when I already have one, harpsichord recordings make some of the most clangorous sounds. I like them fine, though, when I don't have a headache.

Quote from: Marc on May 06, 2014, 12:08:48 PM

Maybe some of the (more or less) harpsichord dislikers should try some recent Bach recordings by Christophe Rousset, with a more 'fat and wet' harpsichord sound.

It was Leonhardt's recording of William Byrd that convinced me I could love the sound of a harpsichord.

Quote from: karlhenning on May 06, 2014, 10:43:18 AM


Raise your hands, everybody who cares about James's disapproval . . . .

Huh? You pffffted me when I mocked it!

Quote from: Velimir on May 06, 2014, 12:37:40 PM
It was Leonhardt's recording of William Byrd that convinced me I could love the sound of a harpsichord.

I completely understand.
It gives you the sensation of physically wandering around in 16th century good ole England. :)

It's also a very good recording to understand the (IMO) huge difference between the sound of a (forte)piano and a harpsichord. The latter is a plucked string instrument and sounds much more like a lute or guitar.

Quote from: Ken B on May 06, 2014, 12:46:33 PM
Huh? You pffffted me when I mocked it!

The mockery of the 'pfffft' was most assuredly directed at James.

In the late 70s and early 80 s I was a harpsichord only stalwart. And with anything but solo instrument I won't even sample non HIP Bach. But with a solo instrument the player brings so much, an individuality, which I believe Bach wrote for. So I prefer harpsichord but it is mostly the player. I think Hewitt is wonderful.

For CPE Bach I was a little reluctant to get Markovina even at a bargain price, but she is terrific on a modern (an imperial no less.)

As we move forward in time I am more flexible. I prefer HIP, and will only buy HIP for Mozart and Haydn for the most part. Going back I won't even listen to non specialist recordings of renaissance vocal music.

Quote from: Marc on May 06, 2014, 12:08:48 PM
8)

Like (right now) Bach's Goldbergs, played by Scott Ross.
Great sound!

Maybe some of the (more or less) harpsichord dislikers should try some recent Bach recordings by Christophe Rousset, with a more 'fat and wet' harpsichord sound.

Yes. When Moonfish was saying he wanted to like harpsichord but was having trouble I suggested he stick to recent recordings until the tinny antiquated beast reshaped his soul. (Not in those words  ;) )

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 01:13:18 PM
I'll check it out.

Sergio Vartolo's recording of Die Kunst der Fuge (Naxos) comes in mind, too.
Beautiful recording and a rather idiosyncratic performance.

Quote from: jochanaan on May 06, 2014, 08:04:24 AM
True, and an excellent point.  But the fortepiano of Scarlatti's and Bach's time was little like a modern Steinway or Boesendorfer.

It's true, but not the important point here: the common feature between old and modern pianos, it's that they can be played at different volumes by hitting the keys harder or softer. By doing this it's possible to avoid the (sometimes) irritating percussive character of Scarlatti's music played on harpsichord.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 01:24:23 PM
No samples provided [....]

I know it's 'just' Scarlatti, but maybe this link works for you (from the Dutch central library):

http://www.muziekweb.nl/Link/CAX0089

Quote from: Jay F on May 06, 2014, 12:22:59 PM
I don't get a headache from listening to harpsichord. I just get headaches. And when I already have one, harpsichord recordings make some of the most clangorous sounds. I like them fine, though, when I don't have a headache.

Hmmmmm. Might that bombastic Mahler be causing the headaches?
;)

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 08:56:32 AM
Can you please name me one recording where the sound is "very good" in your estimation then. Thanks.

There is a lot of modern examples. Just to mention one:

[asin]B000088SU7[/asin]

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 01:39:04 PM
Awful. Sounds compressed & muted to shit.

Last try: the 'wet' Ruckers of Rousset:

http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1041054

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 01:39:04 PM
Awful. Sounds compressed & muted to shit.

Of course, if you're listening to YouTube through a laptop.

Quote from: Gordo on May 06, 2014, 01:45:50 PM
Of course, if you're listening to YouTube through a laptop.

I still do a lot of library pre-listening.
Please Lord, save the Public Library from doom!

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 01:48:10 PM
Nothing special here .. too ambient, muddy.

James, maybe the harpsichord just isn't your thing.
Better not waste any more listening time and remain faithful to the piano.

Quote from: Marc on May 06, 2014, 01:51:21 PM
I still do a lot of library pre-listening.
Please Lord, save the Public Library from doom!

It's a nice chance. Unfortunately, our public libraries here in Chile don't almost have disks, just books. 

At some extent, I'm doing something similar via Spotify and Deezer.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 02:03:25 PM
I would have NEVER gotten into or bothered with Bach's music if I was presented the recordings you guys just suggested.

Another proof (unnecessary, anyway) of your superiority not just as a listener, but ultimately as human being. 

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 02:03:25 PM
I would have NEVER gotten into or bothered with Bach's music if I was presented the recordings you guys just suggested.

I guess you'll have to wait for a harpsichord Goldberg, recorded in a helicopter.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2014, 02:03:25 PM
I would have NEVER gotten into or bothered with Bach's music if I was presented the recordings you guys just suggested.

Each suggestion was highly worthy; the problem is between you and the harpsichord.  I think you already knew this.

Which pianists do you prefer for Bach?  Maybe we can get some kind of consensus here.

Quote from: Marc on May 06, 2014, 02:13:11 PM
I guess you'll have to wait for a harpsichord Goldberg, recorded in a helicopter.

;D

As someone who does not favor the sound of the harpsichord, I found a clip that I enjoyed. I am sure it would sound better on disc, but the warmth of the sound is evident even here, which is something I find to be quite rare in a harpsichord.

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

Oh I see it's that time of the year again, time for PI vs MI!  After that we can argue over atonality! 

I like Bach on the piano. 

This is what bugs me... Gorecki's Harpsichord Concerto played on piano... but played by his daughter.  Is that recording authentic or not? ;D

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 06, 2014, 11:57:07 AM
ah, the wonders of Youtube - Chopin on Harpsichord

https://www.youtube.com/v/ZDB6-oXT8es

not sure about that one, but there's some interesting clips to be seen in the accompanying playlist of Youtube suggestions.

Quote from: Ken B on May 06, 2014, 01:17:31 PM
Yes. When Moonfish was saying he wanted to like harpsichord but was having trouble I suggested he stick to recent recordings until the tinny antiquated beast reshaped his soul. (Not in those words  ;) )

I am happy to report that the relationship between myself and the realm of the harpsichord is rapidly improving (especially after all the great recommendations here on GMG). I am actually starting to enjoy Baumont's Couperin quite a bit at this point. It is an intriguing soundscape. At the same time I take time to enjoy different piano renditions as well.  The recent CPE Bach recordings by Markovina have been a delight!

[asin] B000OCZ7WK[/asin]

Quote from: Gordo on May 06, 2014, 01:36:46 PM
There is a lot of modern examples. Just to mention one:

[asin]B000088SU7[/asin]

Obviously we all have very different connections to the music we listen to........
This recording sounds both beautiful and intriguing based on the samples.

Quote from: Gordo on May 06, 2014, 01:45:50 PM
Of course, if you're listening to YouTube through a laptop.

Touché!  ;D

Quote from: Moonfish on May 06, 2014, 09:59:47 PM
I am happy to report that the relationship between myself and the realm of the harpsichord is rapidly improving (especially after all the great recommendations here on GMG). I am actually starting to enjoy Baumont's Couperin quite a bit at this point. It is an intriguing soundscape.

Splendid!

Quote from: DavidW on May 06, 2014, 05:57:10 PM
Oh I see it's that time of the year again, time for PI vs MI!  After that we can argue over atonality!

As long as I get First Honk!  8)

Quote from: Moonfish on May 06, 2014, 09:59:47 PM
I am happy to report that the relationship between myself and the realm of the harpsichord is rapidly improving (especially after all the great recommendations here on GMG). I am actually starting to enjoy Baumont's Couperin quite a bit at this point. It is an intriguing soundscape. At the same time I take time to enjoy different piano renditions as well.  The recent CPE Bach recordings by Markovina have been a delight!

[asin] B000OCZ7WK[/asin]

Hey! I recommended that. MUCH better than the Brilliant set.

Quote from: Ken B on May 07, 2014, 07:07:59 AM
Hey! I recommended that.

So we did, so we did . . . .

Not unexpected I much prefer harpsichord to modern piano, at least when it is about  music written for harpsichord. I find the following three points very important.

1) The brilliant sound rich of partials of the harpsichord suits IMO Bach´s music much better than the dull sound of modern piano.

2) The piano mechanism has got a slower action than the harpsichord mechanism and the musician has got a rather indirect contact with the piano strings compared to rather direct contact to the harpsichord strings. This is the reason why it is impossible to articulate equally precise and clear on a piano as on a harpsichord. It is well known, that clear and expressive articulation is one of the most inmportant elements of performance of baroque music.

3) Most , if not all, pianos are equally tuned, and the musicologists now agree that this was far from Bach´s favoured tuning. In modified meantone tuning the music also sounds more brilliant and sonorous, because the partials are in better harmony. The more I listen to Bach played in equal tuning, the less I like the tuning, which actually is basically out of tune.

To call Bach-playing on piano a sacrilege is going a bit too far I think, and I understand well, why many pianists also want to play Bach. The good news is that I am free to ignore them.

Quote from: Gordo on May 06, 2014, 07:57:18 AM
I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is more than acceptable for Scarlatti (less so for Bach).

There are strong historical reasons to think that Scarlatti was a lot more familiar and interested in fortepianos than Bach.

That said, several times I have found Scarlatti sounds excellent on modern piano.

This depends upon which sonatas we are talking about. The piano can not do justice to the much represented type with arpeggio effects and cluster chords.

Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2014, 04:26:59 AM
As long as I get First Honk!  8)

Honk that mouthpiece!*squawk squawk* :laugh:

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 07, 2014, 12:30:51 PM
...1) The brilliant sound rich of partials of the harpsichord suits IMO Bach´s music much better than the dull sound of modern piano.

True.  You get a lot more of the really high frequencies--which, I suspect, is what irritates many listeners.  Again I suggest hearing a live performance, in which the total sound level is much lower than you might expect and therefore the high frequencies aren't as irritating...

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 07, 2014, 12:30:51 PM
2) The piano mechanism has got a slower action than the harpsichord mechanism and the musician has got a rather indirect contact with the piano strings compared to rather direct contact to the harpsichord strings. This is the reason why it is impossible to articulate equally precise and clear on a piano as on a harpsichord. It is well known, that clear and expressive articulation is one of the most inmportant elements of performance of baroque music.

And yet lots of pianists, historical and modern, can do brilliant, clear articulation and incredibly fast passagework; think Rachmaninoff playing his own concerti...

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 07, 2014, 12:30:51 PM
3) Most , if not all, pianos are equally tuned, and the musicologists now agree that this was far from Bach´s favoured tuning. In modified meantone tuning the music also sounds more brilliant and sonorous, because the partials are in better harmony. The more I listen to Bach played in equal tuning, the less I like the tuning, which actually is basically out of tune....

Tuning temperament is as much an art as a science.  As a piano tuner, I've not yet been asked to use a mean-tone temperament, but it's not out of possibility--and then I'd have to read up and practice up on historical temperaments! :o Not that I expect it to require much practice; it's easier to hear pure intervals than to count beats on tempered ones...

"Moot points," James?  Anything that affects the sound of the music is entirely pertinent, since music is sound.

Quote from: jochanaan on May 07, 2014, 06:39:47 PM
music is sound.

James reverses that.
>:D

Quote from: Ken B on May 07, 2014, 06:42:33 PM
James reverses that.
>:D

"Music is sound, sound music--that is all/Ye know on GMG, and all ye need to know." ;D (Apologies to John Keats.)

Quote from: James on May 07, 2014, 05:59:46 PM
Truly moot points, that thus have little meaning, especially considering everything that has been done with this music artistically & successfully since, and with great merit. But even you admit that it is not the instrument that is important, it is the musician. You shouldn't let your obsession with historical accuracy contradict this important position.

And while I'm at it .. what in your estimation is a "very good" BACH harpsichord recording. Again, I personally do not mind the instrument and am open, but there is a technological end to this .. and I have yet to locate a recording that the instrument comes off well .. especially in light of all the fabulous modern piano interpretations from some of the greatest pianists that ever lived.

Given that you have already directly expressed your dislike of the harpsichord, it would be a good idea for you to discontinue your lack of sincerity.  I've always admired your honest enthusiasm for modern music but find nothing to admire of your writings on the current topic.

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 07, 2014, 12:54:30 PM
This depends upon which sonatas we are talking about. The piano can not do justice to the much represented type with arpeggio effects and cluster chords.

No doubt, but I haven't stated an absolute preference for the piano here. I have simply said, generally speaking: Scarlatti's music is better suited for the piano than Bach's music.

I think some harpsichord interpretations exacerbate the Spanish roots and percussive sound to almost unmusical extremes, as if the harpsichord were a Spanish guitar of Andalusian folk music. 

Obviously, for instance, "arpeggio effects" are more natural to plucked instruments, but I have listened to some piano disks doing complete justice to this music. I recall a fairly famous disk by Ivo Pogorelich and several sonatas performed by Horowitz.

M'lud I submit into evidence one analog recording, referred to as "The Goldberg Variations", performed in an egregiously Romantic manor by one W Kempff. It is an affront to musicology, but, m'lud, simply gorgeous.

Quote from: Gordo on May 07, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
No doubt, but I haven't stated an absolute preference for the piano here. I have simply said, generally speaking: Scarlatti's music is better suited for the piano than Bach's music.

I think some harpsichord interpretations exacerbate the Spanish roots and percussive sound to almost unmusical extremes, as if the harpsichord were a Spanish guitar of Andalusian folk music. 

Obviously, for instance, "arpeggio effects" are more natural to plucked instruments, but I have listened to some piano disks doing complete justice to this music. I recall a fairly famous disk by Ivo Pogorelich and several sonatas performed by Horowitz.

When the people who use modern pianos play fast and busy Scarlatti sonatas, it always sounds a bit hectic to me, I don't know why. The harpsichordists can sound more noble and composed in the faster music, and for that reason I prefer them.

I'll also add I think it's unfair to call  percussive harpsichord playing unmusical like that, as if percussiveness = unmusicality.  Some of Skip Sempé's percussive performances - K492 - do "complete justice to the music."

Re Bach, it seems so strange to me that pianists haven't recorded the ricercari from opfer more.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 07, 2014, 09:54:29 PM
[....]
Re Bach, it seems so strange to me that pianists haven't recorded the ricercari from opfer more.

Even more strange when you consider that Bach composed them for Das musikalische Opfer after visiting Der Alte Fritz in Potsdam, where he had played the fortepiano. Dunno about the 6 part piece, but, who knows, maybe Bach was thinking of Friedrich's Hammerklavier whilst composing the Ricercar a 3.

Re harpsichord: thanks to this thread, where this both ancient and eternal debate (piano vs harpsichord) has started all over again, and thanks to my fruitless quest for James, I have been listening to harpsichord recordings all over again for the last few days and have thoroughly enjoyed them .... all over again.

Quote from: Marc on May 08, 2014, 03:11:33 AM
. . . my fruitless quest for James . . . .

You can lead a horse to water, but this horse sez, Pffffffftt, that's not water!

Quote from: Mandryka on May 07, 2014, 09:54:29 PM
When the people who use modern pianos play fast and busy Scarlatti sonatas, it always sounds a bit hectic to me, I don't know why. 

Because the tracker action of modern pianos is too slow to articulate the music clearly in very fast tempo.

Quote from: Mandryka
Re Bach, it seems so strange to me that pianists haven't recorded the ricercari from opfer more.

There are a few fortepiano recordings of the 3-part ricercare, which I agree may be written with this instrument in mind, considering its more "modern" style.
The 6-part ricercare however is written in kind of stylo antico, and was probably meant for organ, harpsichord being a secondary option.

Quote from: Gordo on May 07, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
No doubt, but I haven't stated an absolute preference for the piano here. I have simply said, generally speaking: Scarlatti's music is better suited for the piano than Bach's music.

Even if it is very likely that a number of Scarlattis´s sonatas may be written with the early fortepiano in mind, they are obviously not written with the modern piano in mind, so playing Scarlatti on modern piano looks like an emergency solution for musicians who do not have access to / have interest in or master the fortepiano nor its style.

Quote from: Gordo
I think some harpsichord interpretations exacerbate the Spanish roots and percussive sound to almost unmusical extremes, as if the harpsichord were a Spanish guitar of Andalusian folk music.

I do not hear percussive elements in harpsichord sound as opposed to piano sound, and this is not surprising, because the piano is a percussion instrument, and the harpsichord isn´t.
But I agree that some harpsichordists seem to overdoo the Spanish guitar elements. But this may to some extent be caused by the fact, that most harpsichords sound more incisive and aggressive on recordings than in the real life.

Quote from: Gordo
Obviously, for instance, "arpeggio effects" are more natural to plucked instruments, but I have listened to some piano disks doing complete justice to this music. I recall a fairly famous disk by Ivo Pogorelich and several sonatas performed by Horowitz.

I admire Horowitz very much - his musicality and technical powers - even I do not agree, that his Scarlatti (or any other pianist´s Scarlatti I have heard for that matter) does full justice to the specific harpsichord effects in the music for the reasons I stated above.

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 08, 2014, 06:15:16 AM
I admire Horowitz very much - his musicality and technical powers - even I do not agree, that his Scarlatti (or any other pianist´s Scarlatti I have heard for that matter) does full justice to the specific harpsichord effects in the music for the reasons I stated above.

Indeed. Much as I enjoy Scarlatti and Bach played on the modern piano, to hear either composer only on the piano, is almost like not actually hearing either composer.  But through a glass darkly . . . .

Quote from: James on May 07, 2014, 05:59:46 PM
Truly moot points, that thus have little meaning, especially considering everything that has been done with this music artistically & successfully since, and with great merit. But even you admit that it is not the instrument that is important, it is the musician. You shouldn't let your obsession with historical accuracy contradict this important position.

I do not mind, that you listen to as much Early music played on modern piano as you want, I just tell you, that I much prefer period instruments and why.

Quote from: James
And while I'm at it .. what in your estimation is a "very good" BACH harpsichord recording.

Considering the fact, that you have rejected all the fine suggestions above, I do not think my choices would make any difference.

In good conscience, I cannot vote!

Yes, I would even prefer Rameau on a Steinway | No, certainly not my sentiment.
No, it's sacrilege | Absolutely not my sentiment.
Ok, but prefer period instruments | Closest, but I like certain piano performances (and, even, some non-historic organ realizations) too well for me to endorse an outright preference for period instruments.

To me, the instrument is important. I like the sound of a piano and there's no getting around it. Sure, I listen to harpsichord recordings but not often.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 07, 2014, 09:54:29 PM
When the people who use modern pianos play fast and busy Scarlatti sonatas, it always sounds a bit hectic to me, I don't know why. The harpsichordists can sound more noble and composed in the faster music, and for that reason I prefer them.

On the contrary, my problems with harpsichord interpretations of Scarlatti have to do with the fast sonatas, where frequently the instrument tends to create a lot of overtones.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 07, 2014, 09:54:29 PM
I'll also add I think it's unfair to call  percussive harpsichord playing unmusical like that, as if percussiveness = unmusicality.  Some of Skip Sempé's percussive performances - K492 - do "complete justice to the music."

Yes, I think "percussiveness" is unmusical when it's transformed in a general feature of the music itself (at least the fast sonatas), when it's just a feature of the instrument under certain circumstances.

Anyway, some performers (Belder, f.i.) successfully avoid this problem.   

Quote from: Ken B on May 07, 2014, 09:29:32 PM
M'lud I submit into evidence one analog recording, referred to as "The Goldberg Variations", performed in an egregiously Romantic manor by one W Kempff. It is an affront to musicology, but, m'lud, simply gorgeous.

In the same vein,  I would suggest Ashkenazy's recording of Chopin's Six Partitas for solo keyboard,  anachronistically ascribed to one Johann Sebastian Bach.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 08, 2014, 07:04:13 AM
In the same vein,  I would suggest Ashkenazy's recording of Chopin's Six Partitas for solo keyboard,  anachronistically ascribed to one Johann Sebastian Bach.

I didn't know Ashkenazy had played Erards or Pleyels on recordings  0:)

Quote from: karlhenning on May 08, 2014, 06:19:34 AM
Indeed. Much as I enjoy Scarlatti and Bach played on the modern piano, to hear either composer only on the piano, is almost like not actually hearing either composer.  But through a glass darkly . . . .

Yes, this is sort of the key point. I like lots of Bach or Scarlatti on piano, but I absolutley want to engage with the "real stuff". I don't want the piano image of the music to be the only, or even dominant, view I have of it. If it's for harpsichord I don't really know it until I know it on harpsichord. Then seeing how pianists treat it is rewarding.
YMMV.

Quote from: Pat B on May 06, 2014, 08:26:15 AM
Fine, but should "transcription" be such a naughty word? AFAIK it wasn't in Bach's time.

Most of my Bach keyboard collection is on period instruments, but if somebody wants to play it on piano or Moog or electric guitar or some instrument I've never heard of, then I'm not going to tell them not to.

I meant to answer this, but "life happens!" :P Anyway, yes, transcriptions have been a fact of music ever since music started to be written down, and before that it made little difference since instruments were not often specified.  (The Biblical prophet Habakkuk closes his prayer: "To the chief singer on my stringed instruments." --Habakkuk 3:19.  But which stringed instruments?  That's a matter for archaeologists.)  Still, whatever the rest of the world does or prefers, the educated folks here at GMG should at least be aware that there's some anachronism about Bach on a modern Baldwin. :)

Quote from: James on May 08, 2014, 07:11:16 AM
This stagnant running joke is so 2012 or was it 2011? Come up with some new stuff!

I love the effortless way in which you come up with oxymorons like stagnant/running!

Anyway, another failure of insight on your part:  it is not necessary that the statement be completely original (a goal which is quixotic, at best), only that what is said is apt.

And your squirming here demonstrates that it was le mot juste; thus, in spite of your post being an apparent protest, you have underscored the relevance of my wee jest.

Quote from: Ken B on May 08, 2014, 07:17:51 AM
Yes, this is sort of the key point. I like lots of Bach or Scarlatti on piano, but I absolutley want to engage with the "real stuff". I don't want the piano image of the music to be the only, or even dominant, view I have of it. If it's for harpsichord I don't really know it until I know it on harpsichord. Then seeing how pianists treat it is rewarding.

Agreed.

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 08, 2014, 05:44:45 AM
Because the tracker action of modern pianos is too slow to articulate the music clearly in very fast tempo.

There are a few fortepiano recordings of the 3-part ricercare, which I agree may be written with this instrument in mind, considering its more "modern" style.
The 6-part ricercare however is written in kind of stylo antico, and was probably meant for organ, harpsichord being a secondary option.

If you could let me know what piano recordings you mean for the opfer ricercare than I'll follow it up.

By the way, Kirkpatrick argues that late Scarlatti sonatas are less stuffed with keyboard effects than earlier ones, so it may be that these later ones are more pianistic too. It must be said that Kirkpatrick was against the idea that Scarlatti  had written them for piano, even though he knew well that Maria Barbara owned several pianos. I'd need to look at the book again to recall the details of his argument.

I agree that the 6 part ricercar is a very good organ piece. Have you heard Walcha's unpublished recording?

Quote from: jochanaan on May 07, 2014, 05:12:20 PM
True.  You get a lot more of the really high frequencies--which, I suspect, is what irritates many listeners.  Again I suggest hearing a live performance, in which the total sound level is much lower than you might expect and therefore the high frequencies aren't as irritating..

I wonder if many e.g. James listen to harpsichord music through headphones. This might partly explain their reactions.

Quote from: jochanaan
And yet lots of pianists, historical and modern, can do brilliant, clear articulation and incredibly fast passagework; think Rachmaninoff playing his own concerti.

Well, yes, but they play more legato, what is necessary to be able to play that fast.

Quote from: jochanaan

Tuning temperament is as much an art as a science. 

Yes, it will always be the ear, which controls the tuning.

Quote from: jochanaan
As a piano tuner, I've not yet been asked to use a mean-tone temperament, but it's not out of possibility--and then I'd have to read up and practice up on historical temperaments! :o Not that I expect it to require much practice; it's easier to hear pure intervals than to count beats on tempered ones...

Tuning a piano in mean tone would of course make it sound less out of tune, but I do not think it would add much brilliance or add to the general impact of the instrument.

Recently the label Aeon has released a recording of the Art of Fugue by the pianist Cédric Pescia, who has made the tuning of the piano a bit unequal, but as he writes in the booklet, he has not used any particular tuning system, but just changed the tuning by ear to stress the d-minor mode This is the first example I know of a recording not using equal tuning for pianos.

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 08, 2014, 07:49:56 AM
I wonder if many e.g. James listen to harpsichord music through headphones. This might partly explain their reactions.

Maybe!  I know that my own "conversion" to affection for the instrument was driven largely by being in the space when the instrument was performed.

Quote from: Gordo on May 08, 2014, 06:28:16 AM
On the contrary, my problems with harpsichord interpretations of Scarlatti have to do with the fast sonatas, where frequently the instrument tends to create a lot of overtones.

Yes, I think "percussiveness" is unmusical when it's transformed in a general feature of the music itself (at least the fast sonatas), when it's just a feature of the instrument under certain circumstances.

Anyway, some performers (Belder, f.i.) successfully avoid this problem.   

The question of overtones is interesting, espcially with unequal temperament. I don't know whether Scarlattti or Bach would have enjoyed the dissonances which they give rise to or not - I don't know whether dissonances were seen as an undesirable secondary effect of the instrument and tuning, or as a desirable feature.

And same for percussiveness.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 08, 2014, 07:45:11 AM
If you could let me know what piano recordings you mean for the opfer ricercare than I'll follow it up.

Lorenzo Ghielmi (Winter & Winter)
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Lorenzo-Ghielmi-%DCber-JS-Bachs-LebenKunst-Kunstwerke/hnum/1042207

and

Michael Behringer
Haenssler Bach Ausgabe

Quote from: Mandryka
I agree that the 6 part ricercar is a very good organ piece. Have you heard Walcha's unpublished recording?

Yes live on the Dutch "Orgelkoncerte" site . But I have also heard him play it at a recital in Copenhagen many years ago. It is very strange that he did not record it.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 08, 2014, 07:58:31 AM
The question of overtones is interesting, espcially with unequal temperament. I don't know whether Scarlattti or Bach would have enjoyed the dissonances which they give rise to or not - I don't know whether dissonances were seen as an undesirable secondary effect of the instrument and tuning, or as a desirable feature.

And same for percussiveness.

I am not sure about Scarlatti, because he seems to cultivate dissonances very much in some of the sonatas, but maybe he preferred controlled dissonances, and not the uncontrolled dissonances you get from equal tuning.

Bach on the other hand probably disliked equal tuning and its uncontrolled dissonances, just hear how the equal tuning takes the bite and harmony out of his music.

Quote from: karlhenning on May 08, 2014, 07:51:23 AM
Maybe!  I know that my own "conversion" to affection for the instrument was driven largely by being in the space when the instrument was performed.

This experience also was instrumental in my relation to the harpsichord, but I was first and foremost attracted to the instrument because I found it idiomatic in relation to the music (In my early days Bach of course).

Quote from: James on May 08, 2014, 08:39:12 AM
Of course I have, and it doesn't change things unfortunately.

What a pity.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 08, 2014, 07:45:11 AM
If you could let me know what piano recordings you mean for the opfer ricercare than I'll follow it up.

By the way, Kirkpatrick argues that late Scarlatti sonatas are less stuffed with keyboard effects than earlier ones, so it may be that these later ones are more pianistic too. It must be said that Kirkpatrick was against the idea that Scarlatti  had written them for piano, even though he knew well that Maria Barbara owned several pianos. I'd need to look at the book again to recall the details of his argument.

What do you think about these fortepianos? (obviously just the Cristofori was historically available to Scarlatti)

http://www.youtube.com/v/207j8Bpl5oQ&feature=share&list=PLvdX-BeHPXk-c3aF6FKSC3w5cvKOEly_n&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/v/OiEHhASKuj0

Unfortunately, there are not online examples of Aline Zylberajch.

BTW, apparently the vast majority of Scarlatti's output was composed very late in his life.

Quote from: James on May 08, 2014, 08:39:12 AM
Of course I have, and it doesn't change things unfortunately.

What do you think of the sound of the harpsichord here?

https://www.youtube.com/v/t_hTxJpWITw

Quote from: Gordo on May 08, 2014, 11:45:26 AM
What do you think about these fortepianos? (obviously just the Cristofori was historically available to Scarlatti)

http://www.youtube.com/v/207j8Bpl5oQ&feature=share&list=PLvdX-BeHPXk-c3aF6FKSC3w5cvKOEly_n&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/v/OiEHhASKuj0

Unfortunately, there are not online examples of Aline Zylberajch.

BTW, apparently the vast majority of Scarlatti's output was composed very late in his life.

Very nice indeed at first glance, I'll listen carefully tomorrow. Thanks.

Have you had a chance to hear Baiano's piano CD (on spotify?)

Has anyone recorded JS on fortepiano?  He is recorded as having played early pianos I recall, chez le roi.

Quote from: Ken B on May 08, 2014, 02:12:48 PM
Has anyone recorded JS on fortepiano?  He is recorded as having played early pianos I recall, chez le roi.

Yes, this visit has been talked about before in this thread.
And a few posts before yours, Premont mentioned a.o. Lorenzo Ghielmi playing the Ricercar a 3 on a fortepiano.

http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastian-Bachs-Life-Work/dp/B0002HUB1Y/?tag=goodmusicguideco

Walter Riemer played both the Goldberg Variationen and Die Kunst der Fuge on a fortepiano:

http://shop.niederfellabrunn.at/

IIRC, there's also some fortepiano WTC stuff recorded by Daniel Chorzempa and Anthony Newman, who used different instruments for Book 2.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 08, 2014, 01:45:52 PM
Very nice indeed at first glance, I'll listen carefully tomorrow. Thanks.

Have you had a chance to hear Baiano's piano CD (on spotify?)

Just after you mentioned it. It looks very attractive, indeed: the harpsichord for the fast sonatas, the fortepiano for the slow ones.

I'll give it a careful listening. Thanks!

Quote from: Gordo on May 08, 2014, 03:33:18 PM
......indeed: the harpsichord for the fast sonatas, the fortepiano for the slow ones.

This sounds very reasonable. I was never adverse to the period fortepiano for the sonatas suited for such a rendering. It is the modern piano I have problems with.

Thanks for the fortepiano links. I have listened to some of the sonatas and find the playing most convincing. The style of the sonatas, I listened to, is also relative modern in a Scarlatti context.

Quote from: Marc on May 08, 2014, 02:30:05 PM
Walter Riemer played both the Goldberg Variationen and Die Kunst der Fuge on a fortepiano:

Walter Riemer´s fortepiano (for the AoF and probably the GVs as well) is not strictly period, as it is a copy of an instrument by Andreas Stein 1773. 

Quote from: Marc
IIRC, there's also some fortepiano WTC stuff recorded by Daniel Chorzempa and Anthony Newman, who used different instruments for Book 2.

Not to forget Robert Levin´s recording of WTC for Haenssler.

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 08, 2014, 11:46:32 PM
Not to forget Robert Levin´s recording of WTC for Haenssler.

What's your opinion on this one?

Quote from: karlhenning on May 09, 2014, 02:03:10 AM
What's your opinion on this one [Levin WTC]?

Here is what I wrote about Levin´s WTC long time ago, and I have not changed my mind:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,289.msg258227.html#msg258227

Thanks!

Quote from: Gordo on May 08, 2014, 11:45:26 AM
What do you think about these fortepianos? (obviously just the Cristofori was historically available to Scarlatti)

http://www.youtube.com/v/207j8Bpl5oQ&feature=share&list=PLvdX-BeHPXk-c3aF6FKSC3w5cvKOEly_n&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/v/OiEHhASKuj0

Unfortunately, there are not online examples of Aline Zylberajch.

BTW, apparently the vast majority of Scarlatti's output was composed very late in his life.

Mario Sollazzo's CD is on spotify. I liked the Cristophori piano in the slower sonatas a lot, thanks for pointing it out. Is that a modern piano he plays for some of them?

He's not afraid to play fast is he? 289 is as fast as Hantai. I don't much like it like that - Leonhardt plays it slightly slower and I think it really benefits. Another fast one is 175, but I thought that it wasn't spanish or percussive enough. Hantai is outstanding in that one.

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 08, 2014, 06:15:16 AM
Even if it is very likely that a number of Scarlattis´s sonatas may be written with the early fortepiano in mind, they are obviously not written with the modern piano in mind, so playing Scarlatti on modern piano looks like an emergency solution for musicians who do not have access to / have interest in or master the fortepiano nor its style.

I do not hear percussive elements in harpsichord sound as opposed to piano sound, and this is not surprising, because the piano is a percussion instrument, and the harpsichord isn´t.
But I agree that some harpsichordists seem to overdoo the Spanish guitar elements. But this may to some extent be caused by the fact, that most harpsichords sound more incisive and aggressive on recordings than in the real life.

I admire Horowitz very much - his musicality and technical powers - even I do not agree, that his Scarlatti (or any other pianist´s Scarlatti I have heard for that matter) does full justice to the specific harpsichord effects in the music for the reasons I stated above.

Sorry, I hadn't seen this message, Poul, but I must confess this time I don't understand exactly your point because maybe we are thinking of different issues.

I guess you know, after some years, I'm not a guy particularly fond of the piano sound. But I answered the question of this thread as if it were: do you prefer Bach or Scarlatti played on "modern grand piano"?

My best assumption is: you prefer Bach played on modern piano. Or maybe not.

My own answer was the opposite: I vastly prefer Scarlatti to Bach played on modern piano because of the reasons I have pointed out. But this doesn't mean any kind of general preference for modern piano over period instruments (harpsichord or fortepiano) in Scarlatti's music, although sometimes the harpsichord interpretations are a bit tiring in his music, precisely because of the aforementioned percussiveness and folk elements in some interpretations. After all, I have and enjoy two integral recordings of his music (almost exclusively) played on harpsichord and a fair amount of single disks played on harpsichord.

That said, I'm maybe wrong and just percussion instruments can be percussively played, but I'm not totally persuaded about this.  :)

Quote from: Gordo on May 09, 2014, 02:02:53 PM
Sorry, I hadn't seen this message, Poul, but I must confess this time I don't understand exactly your point because maybe we are thinking of different issues.

Yes. I think we are.

The original question was not Bach or Scarlatti, but Bach and Scarlatti on modern piano. I answered, that I prefer period instruments (some of my reasons given above), but that I think it is OK with modern piano (as long as I am myself to decide whether I want to listen to it or not).

Your question seems to be whether Bach or Scarlatti suffers the least when played on modern piano. This is a more delicate question.

Some of Scarlatti´s sonatas are very harpsichord-specific, and I do not find a rendering of these on piano advisable. Other Scarlatti-sonatas are written in a more modern style and are perhaps even more suited for pianoforte than for harpsichord. But this statement does not necessarily imply, that I find them suited for modern piano, but maybe they are the ones, which suffer the least in that way.

Bach´s harpsichord music is less instrument-specific than Scarlatti´s sonatas, but still I find that his music suffers on modern piano and that nothing is gained. Other than the reasons I stated above (dull piano sound, slower action and equal tuning), there are other stylistic questions, but this is more about the pianists than about the instrument (even if the instrument invites to that kind of playing). I think f.i. of too much legato playing and the common practice to indicate the metre and rhythm by dynamic accents instead of doing it by means of rhythmic articulation.

So by thinking that a part of Scarlatti´s sonatas suffer the least from a rendering on modern piano, I agree partly with you.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2014, 04:23:23 AM
The harpsichord is significantly narrower, and especially in articulation, and it does sound much more percussive attack-wise than a piano which is much more sensitive to subtle degrees of touch & articulation. The piano can really sing and flow & is more lyrical & rich (great for vocally rooted music of JSB), due to how it is designed and its tonality; you don't get this with a harpsichord which is much more boxy, stringy, thin & twangy.

To be able to say anything sensible about this, you need to have some personal experience with both harpsichord playing and piano playing.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2014, 04:23:23 AM
The harpsichord is significantly narrower, and especially in articulation, and it does sound much more percussive attack-wise than a piano which is much more sensitive to subtle degrees of touch & articulation. The piano can really sing and flow & is more lyrical & rich (great for vocally rooted music of JSB), due to how it is designed and its tonality; you don't get this with a harpsichord which is much more boxy, stringy, thin & twangy.

No. This is not only for the ears. You write about attack and articulation in a way, which only one who has got this in his own fingers can say.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2014, 07:15:32 AM
It is more than fingers with these instruments, we aren't talking guitars here. How the notes are attacked/executed by the mechanisms within the instrument can be registered with the ear too. It is also tied to the inescapable nature of the instrument. Yes finger pressure etc. also plays a role, and goes into the mix of what comes out. But attack/articulation are definitely registered as part-of the instruments general sound characteristics.

You're not making sense, James, to those of us who actually have played harpsichords.  There is literally no control over tone or dynamics or attack; that's set when we regulate the instrument.  Where we have control is on timing/rhythm and length/articulation.  Tempo is very very important, also those tiny time variations that add expressiveness when you can't control dynamics.  Historically, a detached sound is normal for harpsichords, but it is also possible to play legato, to "flow like oil" (Mozart).  It's all done with rhythm and articulation.

Whom are you going to believe: someone who has actually played the instrument, or James?  :laugh:

Quote from: James on May 10, 2014, 05:14:38 PM
But the instrument does have tone, dynamic and attack. That is definitely heard as it is being played. How are the notes sounded if they aren't attacked in some way?

They surrender after being besieged.

Quote from: jochanaan on May 10, 2014, 02:32:39 PM
You're not making sense, James, to those of us who actually have played harpsichords.  There is literally no control over tone or dynamics or attack; that's set when we regulate the instrument.  Where we have control is on timing/rhythm and length/articulation.  Tempo is very very important, also those tiny time variations that add expressiveness when you can't control dynamics.  Historically, a detached sound is normal for harpsichords, but it is also possible to play legato, to "flow like oil" (Mozart).  It's all done with rhythm and articulation.

But if you press the key harshly won't that result in an explosive sound? And  if you stroke the key, won't you get a mellow tone?

I first noticed this when I was listening to Leonhardt's Frescobaldi Capricci. But maybe it's all done with jacks and touch.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 11, 2014, 12:20:59 PM
But if you press the key harshly won't that result in an explosive sound? And  if you stroke the key, won't you get a mellow tone?

I first noticed this when I was listening to Leonhardt's Frescobaldi Capricci. But maybe it's all done with jacks and touch.

No, there is really no way to control tone with touch.  But most harpsichords have several sets of jacks and strings, and the more elaborate ones have dual or even triple keyboards like organs.  That's how you get contrasting dynamics and tone on a harpsichord.  (I'm not a harpsichord specialist, but I helped build and maintain one at my college.)

What you can do with touch is vary the timing, or perhaps roll chords (versus playing "straight").  That affects the perceived attack.  Also, a detached articulation will of course sound crisper, more "attacked," than legato.  Finally, if all the notes and chords are exactly in time, it sounds crisper than if they're a little sloppy, as happens sometimes even in major recordings...

Quote from: Ken B on May 10, 2014, 06:13:09 PM
They surrender after being besieged.

...and then rebel after the piece is over! :laugh:

It's not Bach, of course:

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

Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2014, 07:06:58 AM
It's not Bach, of course:

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

Of course????

I only mean, that it thereby veers from the strict topic :)

Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2014, 07:06:58 AM
It's not Bach, of course:

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

Beautiful performance! Thanks for posting that clip!

I am thinking about this:

[asin]B00MX51FHW[/asin]

I'm not to vote here. For me it's not either/or, but both. Unthinkable?

I choose "no, it's sacrilege" as it was the only option with "no" but in fact I don't think it's sacrilege. Just wasting time.

Don't like the options. I like Bach on both instruments and for non-instrumental reasons probably often prefer modern piano (except for some earlier pieces like the toccatas with lots of arpeggios etc.). Similarly with Scarlatti although again for some pieces (gypsy guitar style) the harpsichord is preferable. I seem to clearly prefer harpsichord for any other baroque music (including Handel and Rameau where there are substantial recordings on modern piano).