# BBC Music Magazine Vs. Bach's '48'



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I was browsing the latest issue of the BBC Music mag and thought I would see which recordings of the _Well Tempered Clavier_ they recommended only to discover, to my horror, that the top choice was a modern piano version. In fact, all the recommended versions were piano with just a small, one piece recommendation for a HIP Harpsichord version. This makes me unhappy, I think primacy should be given to instruments from the period of composition and the modern piano versions relegated to a small box out. Piano versions have a place but not at the top of the list surely? Please tell me I'm not alone here.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I agree in principle, and for any other pre-Classical composer that will be the case, but there's such a great tradition of performing Bach on piano that there's always an exception for his music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I agree with Nereffid. I would extend it to other baroque and composers in the early classical period. Scarlatti played on the piano is as popular as (if not more than) Scarlatti played on the harpsichord.

It's always interesting to hear music on instruments from the period in which it was written, but the bulk of ensembles (and keyboard players) play modern instruments and if the music isn't going to be confined to a small group of specialists it will have to be played by those using modern instruments. Having said that, there are surely enough harpsichord players around - and historical harpsichord recordings of Bach's WTC to be able to make recommendations.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

It was the way the harpsichord recording was treated as an afterthought, as though it's not as important. I say pick a brilliant example of each but don't neglect it entirely.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Somewhat ironically, the best 48 I know is played on harpsichord, clavichord and fortepiano.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

larold said:


> Somewhat ironically, the best 48 I know is played on harpsichord, clavichord and fortepiano.


Which version is that?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

My favorite version is on the Jews Harp


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

classical yorkist said:


> I was browsing the latest issue of the BBC Music mag and thought I would see which recordings of the _Well Tempered Clavier_ they recommended only to discover, to my horror, that the top choice was a modern piano version. In fact, all the recommended versions were piano with just a small, one piece recommendation for a HIP Harpsichord version. This makes me unhappy, I think primacy should be given to instruments from the period of composition and the modern piano versions relegated to a small box out. Piano versions have a place but not at the top of the list surely? Please tell me I'm not alone here.


Which was the piano recording they liked so much?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Most people have heard pianos their whole lives. In contrast, harpshichords are somewhat alien and harsh-sounding. In this case a HIP recording will put up something of a barrier to an average listener, and even though it may not be authentic to Bach's original conception, a modern piano version will let most listeners access the music more directly.

Anyway, I don't think Bach would have minded people playing his music on a modern piano.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Which was the piano recording they liked so much?


I can't remember to be honest.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> Most people have heard pianos their whole lives. In contrast, harpshichords are somewhat alien and harsh-sounding. In this case a HIP recording will put up something of a barrier to an average listener, and even though it may not be authentic to Bach's original conception, a modern piano version will let most listeners access the music more directly.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think Bach would have minded people playing his music on a modern piano.


People should make their own minds up then, not discouraged from listening to the harpsichord version. They'll never know whether they'd enjoy the HiP version if they aren't encouraged to listen to it. They may love it! That's like when people say "all black and white films are rubbish 'cos they're old".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

apricissimus said:


> Anyway, I don't think Bach would have minded people playing his music on a modern piano.


No you're wrong about that.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Wolfgang Rübsam is an organist and harpsichord player who has been involved with authentic performance all his life. He has recorded Bach Suites and partitas on modern piano. He said this in his defence (in the booklet for his recording of CU1)



> This recording was produced to communicate, stimulate and encourage the interpretation of Bach's keyboard works on the modern piano. It is based upon recognized fundamental elements of performance practices of early music.
> 
> The interpretation of Bach's music on the modern piano remains a confusing issue in light of the fact that the instrument basically evolved with the romantic period. It is, therefore, no surprise that attempts frequently result in romantic readings, a direction which can be most musical at times but may be stylistically confusing if not actually foreign to the score. Musical preferences also favor a clean, mathematical and metronomic realization - a safe but somewhat noncommittal solution to the communication of Bach's artistry.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> In contrast, harpshichords are somewhat alien and harsh-sounding.


I'll admit that I have never particularly enjoyed the sound of a stand alone harpsichord, and perhaps as you suggest that is because I am just used to the sound of the piano. However, I wonder if the whole-hearted adoption of the piano as the keyboard instrument of choice is because there was a preference even at the time for the sound of the piano- and not just because of the technical improvements that the piano made over the harpsichord!

Do we have any first person accounts of people in this transitional period comparing their preferences on the sound of the piano vs. the sound of the harpsichord?


----------



## rspader (May 14, 2014)

For some people (me) it is simply a matter of preference. The sound of a harpsichord must raise my blood pressure 30 points. I do love Bach's music on the piano, though. It's not about what makes Bach happy but rather what makes me happy. I'm the one doing the listening.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

rspader said:


> For some people (me) it is simply a matter of preference. The sound of a harpsichord must raise my blood pressure 30 points. I do love Bach's music on the piano, though. It's not about what makes Bach happy but rather what makes me happy. I'm the one doing the listening.


I can cope with that, an informed decision is good. However, I would rather they gave the listener lots of options and didn't prioritise a modern piano version over a HiP. It was something like 5 modern piano recommendations to 1 harpsichord rendition.

P.S. I just couldn't live without the harpsichord, if it didn't exist I'd have to invent it.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

classical yorkist said:


> I can cope with that, an informed decision is good. However, I would rather they gave the listener lots of options and didn't prioritise a modern piano version over a HiP. It was something like 5 modern piano recommendations to 1 harpsichord rendition.
> 
> P.S. I just couldn't live without the harpsichord, if it didn't exist I'd have to invent it.


A reader of a magazine with a broad audience (relatively speaking) probably doesn't want _lots_ of options. They want to know the "best" version, and maybe a few others. And I'm sure they're taking into account that most of their readers will probably prefer a piano version to a harpsichord version.

It could be that you are not squarely in their target audience.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> A reader of a magazine with a broad audience (relatively speaking) probably doesn't want _lots_ of options. They want to know the "best" version, and maybe a few others. And I'm sure they're taking into account that most of their readers will probably prefer a piano version to a harpsichord version.
> 
> It could be that you are not squarely in their target audience.


I dunno, I only started listening to baroque music about three weeks ago. I do tend to take a fairly rigorous and scholarly approach to things I become inspired by or interested in.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

classical yorkist said:


> I was browsing the latest issue of the BBC Music mag and thought I would see which recordings of the _Well Tempered Clavier_ they recommended only to discover, to my horror, that the top choice was a modern piano version. In fact, all the recommended versions were piano with just a small, one piece recommendation for a HIP Harpsichord version. This makes me unhappy, I think primacy should be given to instruments from the period of composition and the modern piano versions relegated to a small box out. Piano versions have a place but not at the top of the list surely? Please tell me I'm not alone here.


I completely agree. Bach sounds all wrong on piano. It cannot transmit the intentional spikiness and incredible trills that can be achieved on harpsichord that Bach was writing for.

I only listen to Bach's keyboard works on harpsichord. It is the sound Bach wrote for.

My favorite versions of the complete WTC are by Gustav Leonhardt, Kenneth Weiss and Luc Beauséjour.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I completely agree. Bach sounds all wrong on piano. It cannot transmit the intentional spikiness and incredible trills that can be achieved on harpsichord that Bach was writing for.
> 
> I only listen to Bach's keyboard works on harpsichord. It is the sound Bach wrote for.
> 
> My favorite versions of the complete WTC are by Gustav Leonhardt, Kenneth Weiss and Luc Beauséjour.


I'm sceptical about this. Taken to its logical end this argument would mean that things written for a particular instrument could never be successfully or legitimately interpreted on another instrument. So something written for a symphony orchestra mustn't be arranged for a wind band or brass band, but this happens all the time and the results are often fantastic. The section of Dvořák's 'new world' symphony arranged for brass band is probably more known than the symphonic version and different colourings of tone are discerned.

This insistence that Bach MUST be played on the harpsichord is purism gone mad. What about Bach's solo _Cello Suites_? Bach was writing for an instrument that was not equal to the modern cello, but also not a viola da gamba. Some of the suites are clearly for a violoncello-piccolo, but others require low notes that wouldn't work on that instrument. So what to do?

Some people interested in this have played them on the viola da gamba with transpositions. Some have tried using a variety of instruments between suites and also getting specially-made instruments to get closer to the ones Bach was writing for. However, in the end these are experiments that are aside from the majority of the performances; worth listening to, but not imperative. There's not nearly as much complaint about these suits being played on the cello than there is when WTC or other keyboard works are played on a piano. Of course, the entire sound reproducing mechanisms of a piano and harpsichord do differ, but the basic idea is similar enough.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'd just like to point out that most performances/recordings of Bach's keyboard works are on piano because most professional keyboardists play the piano. Pollini recorded the WTC I on piano because he's a piano player.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

My argument isn't with piano performances per se, I enjoy listening to _The Art of Fugue_ as small string ensemble as well as harpsichord or organ, rather it's limiting the choice to piano selections over harpsichord selections. If I had written that greatest recordings piece, apart from picking a harpsichord version as best due to personal preference, but I would have given a more equal weight to different interpretations. One of my favourite versions of the Brandenburg concertos is played on modern string instruments and harpsichord.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I'd just like to point out that *most performances/recordings of Bach's keyboard works are on piano* *because* *most professional keyboardists play the piano.* Pollini recorded the WTC I on piano because he's a piano player.


Off with their heads!! Kenneth Weiss and HIP, forever.....ewig.....ewig....ewig.....ewig.....


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

While it may not be totally relevant, in his later years Bach became a sales agent for Silberman pianos. He had some success and at least one bill of sale survives. However, IIRC, there were no pianos among his instruments when he died.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I completely agree. Bach sounds all wrong on piano. It cannot transmit the intentional spikiness and incredible trills that can be achieved on harpsichord that Bach was writing for.
> 
> I only listen to Bach's keyboard works on harpsichord. It is the sound Bach wrote for.
> 
> My favorite versions of the complete WTC are by Gustav Leonhardt, Kenneth Weiss and Luc Beauséjour.


I'd like to poke a small hole in that theory. Bach was constantly transcribing his works for different instruments and ensembles which makes the idea that he had the sound of a harpsichord solely in mind somewhat dubious. We must also take into account Bach's title for the '48 'Well Tempered Clavier'. A clavier, in Bach's day, was any keyboard instrument such as organ, harpsichord, clavichord or even a lute keyboard. Some of the P&F would lend themselves to organ quite well and some would definitely not. The same could be said for the harpsichord and other keyboard instruments.

Bach was introduced to the Cristofori pianoforte by organ builder Gottfried Silbermann and was said to have been very happy with what he heard when he played his own music on it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Holden4th said:


> Bach . . . was said to have been very happy with what he heard when he played his own music on [a Cristofori pianoforte].


Where is that from?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Johann Friedrich Agricola wrote of Silbermann's fortepianos (based on Cristofori's design): "One of them was seen and played by the late Capellmeister, Mr. Joh. Sebastian Bach. He praised, indeed admired, its tone; but he complained that it was too weak in the high register and too hard to play". Silbermann took offense at the criticism but eventually made changes, and "Mr. Silbermann also had the laudable ambition to show one of these instruments of his later workmanship to the late Capellmeister Bach, and have it examined by him; and he received, in turn, complete approval from him". (This is quoted by Christoph Wolff in his _Bach: The Learned Musician_.)

I suppose technically speaking we don't know from that whether Bach ever heard his own music played on the fortepiano, but surely if he was testing the instrument himself he'd improvise or play something of his own.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Here's some of András Schiff's thoughts about performing The Well-Tempered Clavier on Piano:






And a short excerpt of Glenn Gould's discussion on the question of instrument (the rest of the videos can be found on youtube):






I think both make some convincing and legitimate points.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Johann Friedrich Agricola wrote of Silbermann's fortepianos (based on Cristofori's design): "One of them was seen and played by the late Capellmeister, Mr. Joh. Sebastian Bach. He praised, indeed admired, its tone; but he complained that it was too weak in the high register and too hard to play". Silbermann took offense at the criticism but eventually made changes, and "Mr. Silbermann also had the laudable ambition to show one of these instruments of his later workmanship to the late Capellmeister Bach, and have it examined by him; and he received, in turn, complete approval from him". (This is quoted by Christoph Wolff in his _Bach: The Learned Musician_.)
> 
> I suppose technically speaking we don't know from that whether Bach ever heard his own music played on the fortepiano, but surely if he was testing the instrument himself he'd improvise or play something of his own.


Indeed, the ricercar à 3 from opfer maybe,

Thanks for finding the quote, I really should buy that book!

I wonder if anyone's recorded any Bach on one of these Cristafori pianos.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> No you're wrong about that.


I doubt that very much. Bach, who - in his old age - extolled the virtues of the pianos of his day, doesn't for one minute strike me as someone who would have turned his back on new developments.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Indeed, the ricercar à 3 from opfer maybe,
> 
> Thanks for finding the quote, I really should buy that book!
> 
> I wonder if anyone's recorded any Bach on one of these Cristafori pianos.






Ok, ok, that's a Silbermann piano copy, not a Christofori!





Quaerendo invenietis


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I doubt that very much. Bach, who - in his old age - extolled the virtues of the pianos of his day, doesn't for one minute strike me as someone who would have turned his back on new developments.


Oh I agree about that, and so does Bach himself, I contacted him via the ouija board.

But it's not quite what you said. Bach told me that you were completely out of order to suggest that



> Bach [w]ouldn't have minded people playing his music on a modern piano


because the music he had in mind when he wrote his compositions is easily harmed by the sort of things you can do on them - like the extreme dynamic range for short passages, and the relatively dull timbres.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

bioluminescentsquid said:


> Quaerendo invenietis


Fabulous asperities. I wasn't aware of the Ghielmi CD, I'll listen to it tonight if I can.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

... I also recall a few Musical offering recordings on Silbermann pianofortes. I think Ghielmi also has an art of fugue partly on one.
The Robert Hill recording was incredible - I've been slowly warming to his youtube recordings, a veritable treasure trove.
A fun one here: Bach on a romantic fortepiano! 




I remember reading somewhere in the Versuch something along the lines that CPE Bach thought that the Fortepiano was essentially just a louder clavichord that could be used in ensemble (sort of like how he regarded the harpsichord, better for ensemble than solo) but without the bebung and direct touch of a clavichord. I have a entirely uninformed hunch that the older Bach also thought the same way, why cash out on a new Silbermann piano when a clavichord could do the same things (but better) at home?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Listen to Ghielmi playing the G major fugue from WTC 2 - 884 - on that CD. There must be some sort of stop/pedal. 

I've noticed Hill's YouTube channel before because of a chromatic harpsichord build by his bro which he uses for some Bull.

Ghielmi plays some sort of piano for the ricercar a 3 - it's just not a performance which has ever much inspired me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

One of the ridiculous notions of HIP purism is that we must produce the work as Bach did. But baroque composers like Bach and Handel were far from purists with their own music. They adapted it to what was available. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't play on original instruments but it does mean freedom to perform them on modern instruments


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Listen to Ghielmi playing the G major fugue from WTC 2 - 884 - on that CD. There must be some sort of stop/pedal.
> 
> I've noticed Hill's YouTube channel before because of a chromatic harpsichord build by his bro which he uses for some Bull.
> 
> Ghielmi plays some sort of piano for the ricercar a 3 - it's just not a performance which has ever much inspired me.


I think that's the "cembalo" stop on the piano -- sort of a funny stop that tries to imitate (surprise) a harpsichord. Or was it a pantaleon?
Be careful, though - the Ghielmi made two recordings of the Gamba sonatas, but only one is on spotify. The g-minor sonata is played on harpsichord, not fortepiano, on the spotify version.

I just remembered Genzo Takehisa's Fortepiano Bach Partitas. Really cool and quirky recordings.




 (live performance, not the recording)

I think Bach on Silbermann fortepianos is a good idea. Clavichord too. Well, more Bach in general.

Edit: listened to a bit of Takehisa playing the WTC; although it is indeed very beautiful, there's still the impression that the notes don't exactly sing as they do on a harpsichord or even a modern piano. Could be the recording, but again, that makes me think (very uninformedly) that the fortepiano was more of a novelty rather than workhorses like harpsichords and clavichords were.

Edit #2: added more links, as Yorkist seems to like it.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

If I remember rightly none of these recordings on clavichord, fortepiano and other various keyboard instruments of Bach's time, or just after, are recommended in the article. That's still my issue; the lack of variety and exposure to different interpretations, whether they be HiP or not. I'm definitely going to listen to the links in this thread.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> One of the ridiculous notions of HIP purism is that we must produce the work as Bach did.


Why concentrate on the pronouncements of a few musical bullies? What's important is that we have a wide variety of types of keyboard and other instruments to select from. I make my picks, you make yours - everyone is happy. I know that I'm a happy camper.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The day I need BBC Music Magazine and even worse, Gramophone, to help me choose recordings, it's time for me to give up on life.

I take pride in relying on my own musical instincts and my musical instincts tell me: 

Bach + keyboard = harpsichord.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> One of the ridiculous notions of HIP purism is that we must produce the work as Bach did. But baroque composers like Bach and Handel were far from purists with their own music. They adapted it to what was available. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't play on original instruments but it does mean freedom to perform them on modern instruments


''Hallelujah'' and well said Mr. David.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

For those who are interested the top recommendation is Andras Schiff from 2012 on the piano. The harpsichord performance is by Gustav Leonhardt, of course.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I'm not allergic to Bach on the harpsichord, but judging by my CD collection I prefer Bach on the Piano. Fwiw My 2 favorites in the 48 are Russian Pianists that may send the OP screaming from the room (Richter and Sergei Schepki).$


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

My favorite set of the 48 recordings is by Edward Aldwell (piano) on Nonesuch:

http://www.nonesuch.com/artists/edward-aldwell


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

Triplets said:


> I'm not allergic to Bach on the harpsichord, but judging by my CD collection I prefer Bach on the Piano. Fwiw My 2 favorites in the 48 are Russian Pianists that may send the OP screaming from the room (Richter and Sergei Schepki).$


But you have heard Bach on the harpsichord? If you've tried it a don't like it fair enough. I tried it on a fortepiano and didn't enjoy it. Once again, it was providing 4 piano recommendations vs. 1 harpsichord rendition tucked away at the end next to the avoid this one box that annoyed slightly. The introduction to the choices says something along the lines of 'Bach might have played these on the harpsichord, clavichord or organ' then recommends a piano version, it just seemed a bit confused.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

classical yorkist said:


> But you have heard Bach on the harpsichord? If you've tried it a don't like it fair enough. I tried it on a fortepiano and didn't enjoy it. Once again, it was providing 4 piano recommendations vs. 1 harpsichord rendition tucked away at the end next to the avoid this one box that annoyed slightly. The introduction to the choices says something along the lines of 'Bach might have played these on the harpsichord, clavichord or organ' then recommends a piano version, it just seemed a bit confused.


I think there's a sort of music lover, I suspect it's a generation thing, who believes that the piano represents progress over harpsichord or clavichord. And music lovers of this ilk often have no time at all for organ, which they think is unrecordable, they say the recorded sound is execrable, unspeakable, like a Wurlitzer.

These people are quite confident that even J S Bach would have much preferred to hear WTC on a Steinway because, they say, it sounds so much better that way. No one, in their opinion, can make the harpsichord sound soulful: the notes go plink and plonk, and there's no dynamic variation so how can you possibly be expressive? Furthermore the short life of each note means that you can't play with ravishing legato / cantabile/ long phrases like a violin. And how on earth can anyone highlight the best tunes in a polyphonic texture?

And they think the clavichord is just a joke - you can't hear it if a fly buzzes in the room, and it goes out of tune if you so much as look at it. Anyway, it sounds like a toy piano.

They consequently have no qualms about ignoring all things on old, "inferior" instruments, and they would certainly never recommend them to the general public. Possibly such things are of interest to a small group of intellectuals, historians, but normal people should keep well away.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I think there's a sort of music lover, I suspect it's a generation thing, who believes that the piano represents progress over harpsichord or clavichord.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


As it happens I think none of those things. I do like the sound of the harpsichord, especially the Italian ones and small Ruckers models and I actually own a reproduction table-top clavichord (unfortunately in need of some repair). The clavichord has some characteristics of the piano, but its mechanism is quite crude in comparison.

I don't think any of that conflicts with an opinion that finds some of Bach better interpreted on the piano. I have a copy of the Goldberg Variations played on harpsichord by Ralph Kirkpatrick (1960) and there are days when I just can't listen to it. It sounds harsh and jangly. Other times I think it is marvellous. I get this variation in feeling much less from piano interpretations. I already wrote a post about the issues with period accuracy, so no point reproducing that here.

In any case


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> As it happens I think none of those things.


I can assure you that I have come into contact with people who would subscribe to most or all of the views I mentioned there, at least if they were being sincere. I hope I didn't set up a straw man.



eugeneonagain said:


> I do like the sound of the harpsichord, especially the Italian ones and small Ruckers models


Yes, Italian harpsichords, with their muscular sound, are really very good. Colin Tilney's recordings were what made me appreciate them.



eugeneonagain said:


> The clavichord has some characteristics of the piano, but its mechanism is quite crude in comparison.


I think what happened to me when I started to listen to clavichords and old pianos is that I started to devlop a taste for asperities -- for instruments with marked differences in timbre between different registers and rich and complex resonances, tuned in a way which makes for more dissonances. Clavichords can sound very "romantically" beautiful, Siegbert Rampe always seems to make them sound beautiful. Rene Clemencic seems to relish the asperities.



eugeneonagain said:


> I have a copy of the Goldberg Variations played on harpsichord by Ralph Kirkpatrick (1960) and there are days when I just can't listen to it. It sounds harsh and jangly.


Isn't that one on a revival instrument? If so, it's hardly fair to bring him into the picture. It always sounds harsh and jangly to me! Most of what I've heard from Kirkpatrick I don't much like.



eugeneonagain said:


> I get this variation in feeling much less from piano interpretations.


I don't know if I have the same responses, I'd need to think. I know that in 17th century music I've enjoyed the harpsichord players more -- but that may be because they're better at playing it rather than the sound of the instrument.

I'll just report that the most beautiful instrument I've ever heard was a Ruckers (Asperen in Paris). The most special piano sound I've ever heard was unforgettable (Sokolov in Lyon) but not beautiful -- noble and imposing yes.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Once every few months I attend the house of a couple (it's for political meetings) who have a ruckers harpsichord. It's completely and beautifully decorated, even inside the lid. She often plays it for us and I've had a go on it myself. Playing a harpsichord in person is a marvellous thing and it's exciting to hear pieces you've only previously seen played on a piano.

However... this doesn't stop me enjoying some pieces as much or more on the piano. I like Italian Concerto on both instruments.

What is wrong with revival instruments? There are makers now (that America/Canadian fellow who lives in Eastern Europe, I can't remember his name) and especially clavichord makers. These makers are meticulous to historical accuracy.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

And just to show how versatile and amenable to modern music the clavichord really is, here's Autumn Leaves played ona clavichord. It works so very well:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

One of the ridiculous notions of HIP purism is that we must produce the work as Bach did. But baroque composers like Bach and Handel were far from purists with their own music. They adapted it to what was available. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't play on original instruments but it does mean freedom to perform them on modern instruments.

I wholly agree with DavidA. I have absolutely no use whatsoever for any limitations imposed by HIP purists... in spite of the fact that I easily have hundreds of HIP recordings of one sort or another. My favorite recordings of the WTC are almost all performed upon piano: Rosalyn Tureck, Glenn Gould, Angela Hewitt, and Andras Schiff. I'm not overly fond of any performance upon harpsichord... but I do quite love Ralph Kirkpatrick's recording on clavichord.

I also love the outrageously non-HIP recording of 19th century Mélodies Francaises performed by the counter-tenor, Philippe Jaroussky:


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

classical yorkist said:


> But you have heard Bach on the harpsichord? If you've tried it a don't like it fair enough. I tried it on a fortepiano and didn't enjoy it. Once again, it was providing 4 piano recommendations vs. 1 harpsichord rendition tucked away at the end next to the avoid this one box that annoyed slightly. The introduction to the choices says something along the lines of 'Bach might have played these on the harpsichord, clavichord or organ' then recommends a piano version, it just seemed a bit confused.


I think the only harpsichord version that I currently have is Leonhardt, although I have heard a few others. For me, the Piano is more capable of conveying a players individuality and personality in Bach, but of course there are many great harpsichordist around, so I probably should explore more


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> What is wrong with revival instruments?


The earlier harpsichord revival instruments weren't made in a traditional way, they had a metal or plexiglass frame to increase the loudness. They don't sound as sensual as harpsichords made in the old way, the sound is too metallic.

Kirkpatrick used a Neupert instrument for the Goldberg Variations. Later on he started to use instruments which I find more agreeable. His second Scarlatti recording uses a harpsichord by Rainer Schütze which sounds considerably better than the older Neupert. Schütze used materials and designs much closer to 16th and 17th century instruments than the earlier C20 factors.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I also love the outrageously non-HIP recording of 19th century Mélodies Francaises performed by the counter-tenor, Philippe Jaroussky:




Attractive voice and performance.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> Playing a harpsichord in person is a marvellous thing and it's exciting to hear pieces you've only previously seen played on a piano.


A good one to try is Mozart K 310, or maybe a Chopin mazurka.


----------

