Aversion to Harpsichord?

[jochanaan]

I noticed a comment recently that one particular GMGer has an "aversion to the harpsichord."  Now, I appreciate his honesty ; however, I have heard this same sentiment expressed often over the years.  Is this a widespread feeling?

I happen to love the harpsichord.  It has a sparkle and brilliance all its own, and even though its dynamic range is somewhat limited, when played with a slight rhythmic flexibility, it's as expressive and evocative as any other instrument.  But then I love just about any instrument, especially if it's played well.

Other opinions?  (I deliberately didn't do a poll question; I want your own opinions.)

[Mark G. Simon]

I love the harpsichord, and for all the reasons you state. In the sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti, it gives it a sound that emphasizes the Spanish character of much of the music. One hears the strumming of guitars and click of castanets. Obviously this goes for Soler too, in his earlier Scarlattiish works.

And face it, when it comes to de Falla, Poulenc, Carter and all the other 20th century composers who wrote for harpsichord, no other instrument will do.

[orbital]

I am one of these people  It is not that I don't particularly like the sound, but I can't take it in large dozes (meaning more than say, 10-15 minutes at a time) as the timbre becomes discomforting to my ears after a while.

[Wanderer]

I love the harpsichord, and for all the reasons you state.

Me too. Apart from the fact that I find the timbre of the harpsichord very appealing (it can sound annoying if it's not properly recorded), I believe it lends itself very well to modern compositions, as well (I'm thinking, for instance, Mark Warhol).

[Mark]

I can only echo the comments made so far. I like this instrument for all the reasons stated in the OP, but like Orbital, can only bear it in small doses if, as Wanderer remarks, it's been poorly recorded. I also think that harpsichord music is very much like organ music, inasmuch that my enjoyment of either - live or recorded - depends very much on the individual instrument. Some harpsichords (and organs) that I've heard have simply turned me off, while others have had me listening raptly for an hour or more.

[M forever]

Most people don't actually know how good a harpsichord can sound. It is particularly hard to record and an instrument ifor which the acoustical environment it is played in is very critical. Plus most harpsichords out there are not so good instruments. A really well made and well played harpsichord in the right acoustical environment can sound amazing, it fills the air with complex sounds and is very colorful. The bass end of a good harpsichord also has a "funky" kick to the attack of the notes. Which is also great when you play together with one as basso continuo because it outlines the bass line crisply which the other player(s) can then color with their string or wind instruments. A particularly effective basso continuo group for stuff like the Bach passions is harpsichord, bassoon (instead of cello), bass. Very colorful and darkly sonorous, with lots of possible nuances of timbres.

[Don]

I love the sound of harpsichords and could listen to them all day (and I have).  Same with clavichords, organs, tangent pianos, modern pianos, etc.  I consider myself a keyboard man.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

And face it, when it comes to de Falla, Poulenc, Carter and all the other 20th century composers who wrote for harpsichord, no other instrument will do.

Martinu, too. And Artie Shaw.

[DavidW]

I agree with M, I've heard harpsichords in concert that sounded much more subtle, vibrant and colorful than the typical brittle clanginess I more often than not here in recordings.  But those concerts were in small rooms with excellent acoustics.  In a large room, I could imagine the sound being too soft and quiet.  With poorly positioned microphones the sound on a recording of the harpsichord can easily be brittle and abrasive.

[hornteacher]

Most people don't actually know how good a harpsichord can sound. It is particularly hard to record and an instrument ifor which the acoustical environment it is played in is very critical.

That's a great point, and it explains why I didn't start liking the harpsichord until I'd heard a well constructed one played well.

[Josquin des Prez]

I love the harpsichord, but i really detest the clavichord with every fiber of my being. I mean it's probably a fine instrument when heard in person but on recordings it sounds exactly like an harpsichord, played by a tiny mouse in a house next door or sometimes 20 feet underwater.

[Lilas Pastia]

Loud or soft, bright or dull-sounding, hearing a harpsichord instantly curls Mrs. P's' hair and nostrils when she hears it. I surmise it's a question of frequencies. It can't have anything to do with the music. Obviously. Some manufacturing defect, then.

[Don]

I love the harpsichord, but i really detest the clavichord with every fiber of my being. I mean it's probably a fine instrument when heard in person but on recordings it sounds exactly like an harpsichord, played by a tiny mouse in a house next door or sometimes 20 feet underwater.

I don't like the clavichord as much as the harpsichord, but it does offer a level of intimacy not found on a harpsichord.  I feel the clavichord sounds best and is most effective on recordings at low volume levels.

[M forever]

In a large room, I could imagine the sound being too soft and quiet.

Not at all. A good instrument with solid sound can be adequate for a fairly large room. But one with a rather reverberant acoustic like what most rooms in the age it was used actually, had, or in a church (although in a church the organ is also usually available, but it depends on the musical context which instrument is preferred). And by church I mean an actual church, not what you guys usually call a church here in the US, a multifunctional building with a sign outside.

[marvinbrown]

I noticed a comment recently that one particular GMGer has an "aversion to the harpsichord."  Now, I appreciate his honesty ; however, I have heard this same sentiment expressed often over the years.  Is this a widespread feeling?

  Absolutely NOT!!  This is a subject I am very passionate about and has gotten me into trouble with some GMG members in the past! I for one have an aversion to Bach on the piano  !  Don knows all about this and I'll say it again, I  refuse to listen to Bach on the piano and I don't give a damn how good Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations are on piano  !  I mean what can I say, baroque music just doesn't "sound" baroque when the harpsichord is replaced with a more modern keyboard instrument  !  Something is definitely missed when this instrument is replaced and/or excluded!

  marvin

[Sergeant Rock]

I'm one who has an aversion to the harpsichord in some repertoire. When part of an ensemble, I have no problem with the instrument, in classical music or pop. And last year some of the good folks here helped me discover Scarlatti on the harpsichord (opted finally for some Hantai CDs and love them). But I still dislike Bach on the harpsichord (sorry Marvin): I find it extremely monotonous sounding and, after a few minutes, akin to water torture actually...in an aural form. Another analogy that comes to mind: Bach on the harpsichord reminds me of simple pasta dishes: although initially very tasty, after a few bites the lack of variety becomes boring and I'm quickly satiated. If forced to continue, the dish becomes repulsive. Yeah, I know I'm weird: who doesn't like macaroni and cheese or spaghetti carbonara? Well, I don't.

Sarge

[lukeottevanger]

I love the harpsichord, but i really detest the clavichord with every fiber of my being. I mean it's probably a fine instrument when heard in person but on recordings it sounds exactly like an harpsichord, played by a tiny mouse in a house next door or sometimes 20 feet underwater.

The important point is in the middle - it certainly is 'a fine instrument when heard in person', or, even better, when played to oneself. That's why it elicited such fulsome poetic praise as the finest of all instruments in the 18th century. I speak as a dedicated clavichord lover, owner and player. I agree, though that it doesn't often come across well in recordings  - none that I have really work for me at all like playing the thing myself, even though the instruments on these recordings are undoubtedly much finer than my own, and the performers much finer than me too.

Note that Kirkpatrick's clavichord recordings of the WTC carried a note from the performer advising that they were to be played back at very low volume, not [only] in a search for authenticity but simply because, played loud, the effect of the clavichord is totally transformed, in a negative way.

[karlhenning]

I for one have an aversion to Bach on the piano  !

There's always one, isn't there? 

[Mark]

Strong words, Marvin. No Bach on the piano? Have you heard Angela Hewitt's much-praised two-volume Hyperion release of Bach keyboard works? She makes a very strong case for Bach on a more modern instrument (a Fazioli, I believe).

However, if, at the last, my preference is for Bach on the harpsichord, it's only because (for me) it lends an air of period authenticity that I rather enjoy.

[Mark G. Simon]

I can listen to Bach solo keyboard music on the piano or harpsichord. The interest is not in the sonority of the instrument, as it is in Scarlatti, but in the contrapuntal texture. The Bach keyboard concertos, however, sound extremely irritating to me on the piano. The left hand of the piano draws attention to itself by slogging through the bass line from start to finish.