Harpsichord or piano?

[FideLeo]

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.

[Bunny]

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.

[Mozart]

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.

[lukeottevanger]

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 ) . 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  )

[orbital]

(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  )

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

[lukeottevanger]

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.

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.

[Bunny]

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?

[lukeottevanger]

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.

[orbital]

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?

[lukeottevanger]

[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.

[lukeottevanger]

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:

...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.

The 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.

[jochanaan]

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?

[lukeottevanger]

...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...

[jochanaan]

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 , but thank you!

[lukeottevanger]

I'm not that type , but thank you!

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)

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

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.   

[lukeottevanger]

Going to Amazon right now, Gurn...

[Mark]

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.

[lukeottevanger]

This one, I presume, Gurn:

[Gurn Blanston]

This one, I presume, Gurn:

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.