# Why did the harpsichord go out of style?



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The idea was you could get a little bit drunk and still bang out the driving major chords we all thirst for in Baroque music. Most pieces don't even have proper harpsichord sheet music, but was kinda just a "do whatever" kind of deal where you just had to be somewhere in the right key.

With the advent of the piano, suddenly a culture of technique and evenness of touch is required for proper playing (Brahms aside). Why was this, and can we bring back the harpsichord and make it sexy again?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The harpsichord went out of style when the powdered wigs and bejeweled gowns went out of style for the bouffant hairdo and miniskirts. Put sexy Lola Astanova on a lifetime retainer not to play the piano but the harpsichord, substitute Bach and Scarlatti for Chopin, and the wonders of the pluck-stringed instrument will undoubtedly make a comeback within the next 50 years like the frisbee and the hula-hoop. 






She's quite an outstanding pianist.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I hate, loathe, despise (take your pick) the sound of the harpsichord. I'd rather hear electric guitar with fuzz box - and I can't stand that, either. There's something about that sickening twang of the harpsichord that irritates me. How many movies have been ruined by the soundtrack composer using one - Hitchcock's Family Plot is unwatchable for me. I won't listen to a recording of a Haydn symphony if the conductor employs one. Anytime a Scarlatti harpsichord sonata is played (too often) on the classical FM station, I change it to classic country. I hope the infernal instrument never makes a comeback! It may not be historically accurate to play baroque music on a modern piano, but it sure sounds better!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Baroque music also sounds a lot better on the fortepiano than the modern piano for reasons stated in these videos


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Wha' th' 'ell 'appened t' th' 'arpsichord?

Well … the instrument hasn't _completely_ disappeared, but has rather been relegated to a less obvious place in music beginning around Mozart's time and continuing on today, most likely due to the nature of the "sound volume" capable from the instrument, which just didn't fit well into the "modern" larger sounding orchestras that began to spring up in the classical era and continued on. As well, improvements to the keyboard instruments which led to soft/loud instruments with greater dynamics and volume (aka the pianoforte) seemed to pass the harpsichord into a kind of oblivion, sort of like horseshoes in the coming age of the automobile.

In any case, I can still enjoy the instrument in recordings and find there is a great variety of sound available from various instruments, some sounding to my tastes better than do others. I still appreciate Scarlatti and Bach on harpsichord from time to time, and though I certainly prefer the sound of a modern grand piano to the clunk-donk of the harpsichord, I am not completely adverse to it. Which, I suspect, is good. (I actually prefer harpsichord in Baroque music to fortepiano in classical music!)

The good news for harpsichord fans (aside from the fact that so much is currently available in recorded format, both the great and the not so great) is that the harpsichord hasn't completely disappeared from the palettes of modern/contemporary composers. And so if you have a palate for the instrument, you might search out some of the modern works. There are concertos for the instrument by such notables as De Falla, Martinů, Górecki, Frank Martin, Philip Glass, Jean Françaix, and Michael Nyman. I'm sure there are many others. Too, I recall hearing the instrument prominently used in at least one Schnittke symphony -- No. 5 "Concerto Grosso". None other than Elliott Carter has written a Sonata For Flute, Oboe, Cello & Harpsichord _and_ the Double Concerto For Harpsichord And Piano With Two Chamber Orchestras; as well, György Ligeti penned the _Continuum For Harpsichord_, a piece worth checking out.

The instrument hasn't gone away … yet.















I'm sure our Forum members can reveal dozens of modern instances of the instrument. And if you enjoy this sort of stuff, all the better. That's why such a Forum as this can prove valuable.


----------



## Rach Man (Aug 2, 2016)

This is the exact time that the harpsichord became expendable!


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Plinkin' de Blooz Hard awn'uh HarpCkord is a cd I've had for years and not
listened to it until now .


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Couchie said:


> The idea was you could get a little bit drunk and still bang out the driving major chords we all thirst for in Baroque music. Most pieces don't even have proper harpsichord sheet music, but was kinda just a "do whatever" kind of deal where you just had to be somewhere in the right key.
> 
> With the advent of the piano, suddenly a culture of technique and evenness of touch is required for proper playing (Brahms aside). Why was this, and can we bring back the harpsichord and make it sexy again?


Just in case you were looking for a serious answer: The harpsichord went out of style because it isn't loud enough.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I won’t say where, but the harpsichord and the fortepiano have found their own level in public acceptance , though every once in a while one can hear an exceptional instrument. But it’s rare and they’re often recorded poorly as well. For me, it’s not it’s smaller volume of the sound, because they can be miked now, it’s the quality of the sound that lacks when compared to modern instruments. A tense harpsichord player and a metallic sound can make coffee nervous. It’s just a different experience when the string is plucked than when it’s hit with a felt hammer like in a piano. But still, every once in a while to hear how it may have originally been done …


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I blame:
1. Glenn Gould and his poster boy, Beethoven. 
2. Liberace and his candelabra. 
3. Lang Lang.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ligeti made it sexy again:

(There is even a comment under this video that states "Finally found a piece to play for my future girlfriend on Valentine's Day.")


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

tdc said:


> Ligeti made it sexy again:
> 
> (There is even a comment under this video that states "Finally found a piece to play for my future girlfriend on Valentine's Day.")


Of course, this is a fine performance by an '_arpsichordist_. One can experience a similar sound if one happens to be an _apiarist_ and riles up the little buggers.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Wha' th' 'ell 'appened t' th' 'arpsichord?
> 
> Well … the instrument hasn't _completely_ disappeared, but has rather been relegated to a less obvious place in music beginning around Mozart's time and continuing on today, most likely due to the nature of the "sound volume" capable from the instrument, which just didn't fit well into the "modern" larger sounding orchestras that began to spring up in the classical era and continued on. As well, improvements to the keyboard instruments which led to soft/loud instruments with greater dynamics and volume (aka the pianoforte) seemed to pass the harpsichord into a kind of oblivion, sort of like horseshoes in the coming age of the automobile.
> 
> ...


Poulenc's Concert champêtre is especially enjoyable. Hell, I think I'll play it tomorrow.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> I hate, loathe, despise (take your pick) the sound of the harpsichord. I'd rather hear electric guitar with fuzz box - and I can't stand that, either. There's something about that sickening twang of the harpsichord that irritates me. How many movies have been ruined by the soundtrack composer using one - Hitchcock's Family Plot is unwatchable for me. I won't listen to a recording of a Haydn symphony if the conductor employs one. Anytime a Scarlatti harpsichord sonata is played (too often) on the classical FM station, I change it to classic country. I hope the infernal instrument never makes a comeback! It may not be historically accurate to play baroque music on a modern piano, but it sure sounds better!


I suppose you don't listen to Mozart operas like "Don Giovanni" which employ recitative (spoken dialogue) with a harpsichord continuo?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

One thing to say about this is that if you’re not able to enjoy harpsichord, then you’re really limiting how much early music you have access to. There’s very few piano recordings of anyone apart from Bach. True a handful of pianists have had a go at François Couperin and Rameau and Handel, with arguable success, and clearly for reasons which I’m not clear about pianists seem to have enjoyed Scarlatti. But apart from that, next to nothing. 

Well, you are, basically, cutting yourself off from some the best music from Germany, Italy and France.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> for reasons which I'm not clear about pianists seem to have enjoyed Scarlatti.


Some reasons are the huge number of sonatas and their wealth of diversity from poignant, deeply felt slow pieces to the very difficult and unprecedented giant leaps and dramatic register changes in the virtuoso show-off sonatas. The originality and refinement of Scarlatti's harmony led Ralph Kirkpatrick to call him 'the most original keyboard composer of his time'. Pianists enjoy the raw, passionate earthiness that owes something to Scarlatti's immersion in the Spanish folk tradition. He was one of the first composers actually thinking in terms of a truly idiomatic keyboard texture. As pianist Benjamin Frith has noted, 'It's extraordinary how prescient Scarlatti was. So much of subsequent modern piano technique is contained in his sonatas.'


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> The originality and refinement of Scarlatti's harmony led Ralph Kirkpatrick to call him 'the most original keyboard composer of his time'.'


I think Kirkpatrick was going too far.



RICK RIEKERT said:


> He was one of the first composers actually thinking in terms of a truly idiomatic keyboard texture.


I don't believe that, but he may well have been one of the first composers to write things which fit better on piano than on clavichord, organ or harpsichord. I wait to hear the argument.



RICK RIEKERT said:


> As pianist Benjamin Frith has noted, 'It's extraordinary how prescient Scarlatti was. So much of subsequent modern piano technique is contained in his sonatas.'


I think Frith was going too far.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> I think Kirkpatrick was going too far.
> I don't believe that, but he may well have been one of the first composers to write things which fit better on piano than on clavichord, organ or harpsichord. I wait to hear the argument.
> I think Frith was going too far.


Care to expand? Do you have a counter argument?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I'm surprised no one has posted this:


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I think Kirkpatrick was going too far.
> 
> I don't believe that, but he may well have been one of the first composers to write things which fit better on piano than on clavichord, organ or harpsichord. I wait to hear the argument.
> 
> I think Frith was going too far.


You had asked for reasons why pianists enjoy Scarlatti. These were some among the many reasons given or cited with approval at a Scarlatti symposium attended by Konstantin Scherbakov, Peter Katin, Andreas Staier, Yevgeny Sudbin, Nikolai Demidenko, Richard Lester, Benjamin Frith and others. Of course, they are the pianists' opinions and were offered not as the 'truth' about Scarlatti but to explain why these noted pianists enjoy playing his sonatas.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Wait a second! The harpsichord went out of style? Someone forgot to tell Schnittke.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> Care to expand? Do you have a counter argument?


There's quite a bit of competition for the status of most original keyboard composer of his time: J S Bach, Francois Couperin . . . It's a mystery to me why Rick says that the texture in Scarlatti sonatas is more idiomatic for keyboard than what these composers wrote.

He may well have been one of the first composers to write for piano. And I wouldn't be surprised if there are some sonatas which come off very well on a piano. But to say he anticipates modern piano techniques is an extraordinary idea, it sounds very implausible to me. I can't find the booklet to Firth's recording on line, and listening to the recording, the first couple of pieces, it's not obvious.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> I'm surprised no one has posted this:


What really strikes me about the old-style harpsichords in this video is the expense it would likely entail to maintain one today. A wood frame rather than steel would mean that frequent tuning would be required - probably once a month at an absolute minimum. And the plectra, being typically either leather or feather quills, would wear out rapidly. Even before they wore significantly, some would wear more than others, interfering with playability (and listenability!) What do you suppose the harpsichord technician would charge to replace the entire set of plectra?

A decent steel-framed piano in the living room would seem pretty desirable by comparison. Tune it every year or so, replace the felts on the hammers - what? - every generation?


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> It's a mystery to me why Rick says that the texture in Scarlatti sonatas is more idiomatic for keyboard than what [J S Bach, Francois Couperin]wrote.


What I wrote was 'He was one of the first composers actually thinking in terms of a truly idiomatic keyboard texture', not that Scarlatti's keyboard writing is _more_ idiomatic than Couperin's or Bach's. In any event, I was giving the opinion of Russian pianist Nikolai Lugansky, another Scarlatti symposium attendee, an opinion that was seconded by the German pianist and harpsichordist, Andreas Staier who called Scarlatti a revolutionary in that respect.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I believe what Rick is saying by quoting other pianists about Scarlatti - who better to ask on what fits the keyboard well? - is that the Scarlatti sonatas are more idiomatic - they fit the hand better - and I believe that one can hear this in the music. It sounds more technically modern. Bach's music certainly wasn't. Bach can be played on a keyboard but it does not sound tailored to the keyboard. When I hear Scarlatti, he sounds light years ahead of Bach technically, far more modern and streamlined, more sophisticated and cosmopolitan. But I'm not saying that Bach is bad, though some pianists, such as Claudio Arrau had a great deal of ambivalence playing Bach on the piano and didn't for years, and I believe this is one reason why: it does not fit the piano technically as idiomatically... I believe Scarlatti was a genius because of how much he focused on writing for the harpsichord. He specialized and that gave him a great advantage. It was as if he was the Chopin of his time, though of course in an entirely different style - deliciously and wickedly inventive time after time, works of great variety, mood and beauty, in a much different, more idiomatic way technically than Bach, or just about anybody else. He was ahead of his time writing for the instrument. His 555 keyboard sonatas substantially expanded the technical and musical possibilities of the harpsichord. I believe that Scarlatti's advantage over Couperin is that he was more streamlined and straightforward in this approach with less use of embellishments that can sometimes over-ornament and clutter the music. His musical lines were stronger without the embellishments. His sonatas are like brilliant gems if they are not played so fast that the lines are blurred or sound nervous. I believe they need air and space to breathe, never rushed or hyper. Played with intelligence.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> some pianists, such as Claudio Arrau had a great deal of ambivalence playing Bach on the piano and didn't for years, and I believe this is one reason why: it does not fit the piano technically as idiomatically...


Arrau actually made his reputation playing Bach. He played practically all of Bach's keyboard works in a cycle of twelve concerts in Berlin in the 1935-36 season. When the seventeen-year-old Arrau gave his London debut in 1920 at Aeolian Hall, he performed the Goldberg Variations and several Scarlatti Sonatas. His only teacher, Martin Krause, ensured that Arrau could play all the preludes and fugues of _The Well-Tempered Clavier _in any key. According to Arrau, "In those days, of course, there was no doubt that it was correct to play Bach on the piano. It was the only way. Landowska hadn't appeared yet." Arrau recorded the _Goldberg Variations _before anyone else (except Landowska, who recorded it for HMV/EMI in 1933). He recorded it in 1942. In 1945 Arrau recorded Bach one more time at New York's Victor Studio 1, where he put down the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue in D minor and the Two-Part Inventions and Three-Part Sinfonias.

Arrau worshipped Landowska. He admired Landowska's Bach enormously and was beginning to think that Bach's keyboard works really belonged to the harpsichord. He slowly stopped playing Bach altogether, partly under her influence. At one point, it is said that Arrau even thought about taking up the harpsichord, just to get back to Bach but feel legitimate about it.

At the end of his life, after Arrau had gone from having made Bach his thing to playing no Bach at all, he changed his mind again. He recorded four Partitas for Philips in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland, which was in fact his last recording, and expressed the desire to record still more. Alas, it wasn't to be.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Arrau actually made his reputation playing Bach. He played practically all of Bach's keyboard works in a cycle of twelve concerts in Berlin in the 1935-36 season. When the seventeen-year-old Arrau gave his London debut in 1920 at Aeolian Hall, he performed the Goldberg Variations and several Scarlatti Sonatas. His only teacher, Martin Krause, ensured that Arrau could play all the preludes and fugues of _The Well-Tempered Clavier _in any key. According to Arrau, "In those days, of course, there was no doubt that it was correct to play Bach on the piano. It was the only way. Landowska hadn't appeared yet." Arrau recorded the _Goldberg Variations _before anyone else (except Landowska, who recorded it for HMV/EMI in 1933). He recorded it in 1942. In 1945 Arrau recorded Bach one more time at New York's Victor Studio 1, where he put down the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue in D minor and the Two-Part Inventions and Three-Part Sinfonias.
> 
> Arrau worshipped Landowska. He admired Landowska's Bach enormously and was beginning to think that Bach's keyboard works really belonged to the harpsichord. He slowly stopped playing Bach altogether, partly under her influence. At one point, it is said that Arrau even thought about taking up the harpsichord, just to get back to Bach but feel legitimate about it.
> 
> At the end of his life, after Arrau had gone from having made Bach his thing to playing no Bach at all, he changed his mind again. He recorded four Partitas for Philips in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland, which was in fact his last recording, and expressed the desire to record still more. Alas, it wasn't to be.


I didn't know about those early concerts with Scarlatti, where did you learn about it?


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I didn't know about those early concerts with Scarlatti, where did you learn about it?


Arrau mentions it in an interview with Joseph Horowitz in the latter's book _Arrau on Music and Performance_. A few weeks later Arrau played at Albert Hall on the same program with the great soprano Nellie Melba. According to Arrau, Melba objected that he had so many bows after Liszt's _Spanish Rhapsody_. She went up to him backstage and said, "That's enough, young man" and wouldn't let Arrau go on anymore.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> I won't say where, but the harpsichord and the fortepiano have found their own level in public acceptance , though every once in a while one can hear an exceptional instrument. But it's rare and they're often recorded poorly as well. For me, it's not it's smaller volume of the sound, because they can be miked now, it's the quality of the sound that lacks when compared to modern instruments. A tense harpsichord player and a metallic sound can make coffee nervous. It's just a different experience when the string is plucked than when it's hit with a felt hammer like in a piano. But still, every once in a while to hear how it may have originally been done …


No argument from me, but keep in mind that when the harpsichord and fortepiano went out of style, there were no microphones. And concert halls were getting bigger.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

That's right. At the end of his life, Arrau went back to playing Bach, but only after many years of not. Some pianists have very much questioned whether Bach should be played on the piano at all, for one reason or another. However, I'm more interested in what Scarlatti contributed technically and musically to the playing of the harpsichord and his music was an advance, imo, compared to other composers of his time. I find it fascinating that Bach, Scarlatti, and Handel were all born in 1685. Three giants. Scarlatti left behind a treasure trove of gems for the harpsichord that, to me, sound modern and technically advanced even today but others also made enormous contributions to the music.

If only more harpsichordists had the richness of sound on the instrument like Wanda Landowska did, the instrument might be far more popular, especially in the lower and mid range of the instrument, with the treble register clear and musical and not metallic. I've heard no one who can compare with her. I can listen to her for hours but I can barely listen to others for minutes. She played on a superior instrument and of course it was also the way that she played it like she was totally convinced that the way she played Bach she was right. I find it hard to argue that she wasn't. I can understand why some pianists would questioned themselves playing Bach on the piano after hearing her:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I suspect that the switch from harpsichord to piano occurred because the musical public switched out their own instruments. Harpsichords couldn't handle dynamic changes, were temperamental and expensive to own, and simply didn't make much noise.

The changeover had already begun in Bach's last years, and he certainly didn't resist it, even picking up a few bucks as a sales agent for Silbermann pianos.

Most keyboard music in those days wasn't written for the concert stage; it was written for people to play at home, in their living rooms. So publishers naturally wanted music they could sell to the increasing portion of families with pianos, which meant music with dynamic indications. Composers, always interested in making their livings, followed the demand from the publishers.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I find the piano renditions sound "muddy and sad" (good for Chopin et al but not Bach) while the harpsichord sounds "bright and enthusiastic".

Compare for instance this delight:






Made heavy and monstrous:






How the harpsichord sparkles and cries with joy! While the piano frumps and trods around. Anybody who prefers the piano rendition should be drawn and quartered.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> You had asked for reasons why pianists enjoy Scarlatti. These were some among the many reasons given or cited with approval at a Scarlatti symposium attended by Konstantin Scherbakov, Peter Katin, Andreas Staier, Yevgeny Sudbin, Nikolai Demidenko, Richard Lester, Benjamin Frith and others. Of course, they are the pianists' opinions and were offered not as the 'truth' about Scarlatti but to explain why these noted pianists enjoy playing his sonatas.


If you enjoy Scarlatti I'd be curious to know what you make of this recording by Marie Nishyama which I think is interesting and soulful









I stumbled across it by accident because I'm interested in an ensemble called Anthonello, they've done a Tobias Hume recording, and she plays with them. I can't find any information about the Scarlatti CD online - I don't know what sort of instrument she's using (Italian of some kind I think. Note from the image on the cover that it is two manual - I remember Kirkpatrick discusses this but I can't remember offhand what he says, I think not many sonatas really need two keyboards, but I'm not sure. )

A bit more generally about Scarlatti, anyone trying to make sense of the music has to face up to the repetitiousness of so many of the sonatas. One view is that the best way to really deal with it is to apply lots of colours, create lots of colourful noise, each repetition coloured differently, surprisingly. And the harpsichord, because of the overtones, is a better instrument for colour. This was Hantai's argument, though whether he can walk the walk is debatable.

There's a lot of good music coming out of Japan now - lute and viol and harpsichord.

That said, I have been listening to a piano recording recently by Francesco Cera, I'm not sure what to think about it. I think I just don't like piano or Scarlatti enough to be able to enjoy both together!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I suspect that the switch from harpsichord to piano occurred because the musical public switched out their own instruments. Harpsichords couldn't handle dynamic changes [for small phrases or individual notes] , were temperamental <snip>, and simply didn't make [as] much noise [as pianos].
> 
> The changeover had already begun in Bach's last years, and he certainly didn't resist it, even picking up a few bucks as a sales agent for Silbermann pianos.
> 
> <snip>; [Some m]usic was written for people to play at home, in their living rooms. So publishers naturally wanted music they could sell to the increasing portion of families with pianos, which meant music with dynamic indications. Composers, always interested in making their livings, followed the demand from the publishers.


This all sounds not totally unreasonable


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

I think the most important factor was the need for a louder instrument, capable of being heard in a larger concert hall. Managers, pianists and composers were able to earn more money in this way.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by KenOC but I often wonder just how long the harpsichord persisted in the salons of the middle and upper classes. For example, quite a few of Beethoven's keyboard works are published for 'fortepiano or harpsichord'. Im certain people just didn't throw out their extremely expensive instruments overnight but, on the other hand, staying up with the current musical trends for the aspiring classes must have led to some form of massive sea change.

This article: http://www.sjsu.edu/beethoven/research/beethoven_and_harpsichord/
Suggests that 1802-3 is the last score that Beethoven published for 'harpsichord or fortepiano. however, one must consider that the reason for the use of either instrument may be economic rather than artistic.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Well you can check for yourself









Fernando De Luca is an exceptional baroque musician I think, whatever you think of his Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

premont said:


> I think the most important factor was the need for a louder instrument, capable of being heard in a larger concert hall. Managers, pianists and composers were able to earn more money in this way.


Also, in the Romantic era, there was demand for pianos to be capable of handling long legato lines, bringing out individual voices, thus simulating the song-like qualities in the music of Romantic era pianist-composers who were inspired by 'bel canto',
as explained in this video from 14:00


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Well you can check for yourself
> 
> View attachment 120077
> 
> ...


I totally agree. Lots of his harpsichord work here: http://www.saladelcembalo.org/archivio/a2015_10.htm


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The harpsichord went out because the piano tuners guild was more powerful that the harpsichord tuners guild.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I suspect that the switch from harpsichord to piano occurred because the musical public switched out their own instruments. Harpsichords couldn't handle dynamic changes, were temperamental and expensive to own, and simply didn't make much noise.
> 
> The changeover had already begun in Bach's last years, and he certainly didn't resist it, even picking up a few bucks as a sales agent for Silbermann pianos.
> 
> Most keyboard music in those days wasn't written for the concert stage; it was written for people to play at home, in their living rooms. So publishers naturally wanted music they could sell to the increasing portion of families with pianos, which meant music with dynamic indications. Composers, always interested in making their livings, followed the demand from the publishers.


Yes that. ^ ^ ^

And then there's the obvious: Most of the good music was being written for the piano, which has capabilities harpsichord doesn't, and people like to play good music. The old stuff could still be played on the piano too, so not much lost and worlds gained.


----------

