# Is harpsichord an undervalued instrument?



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

The harpsichord was widely used in Renaissance and Baroque music. One of the advantages of this instrument is the versatility in its use as solo instrument and as basso continuo accompanying other instruments, voices, and being a part of a orchestra.

I am surprised about how many people are listening Bach played with a modern piano and not only Bach but also Scarlatti and other baroque composers. Bach keyboard works were composed to play them on harpsichord and also organ but never on piano. Personally, harpsichord is one of my favourite instruments, I adore it especially in italian operas recitativos but also as solo instruments. I still remember how amazing was my first experience listening harpsichord some years ago, Buxtehude harpsichord works.

Yet, we have a lot of composers to listen them on piano: Chopin, Brahms, Liszt, ... why we need to listen Bach in an instrument that he never used?


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Yes. I look forward to the day that the harpsichord takes center stage again and the piano is relegated to firewood duty. Ok, I'm joking, but only a little bit. Baroque music sounds much better on the harpsichord to me than on the piano.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Because to many people Bach, and the other Baroque composers, sound better on piano.

By the way OP, why do you feel that you *need* to listen to Baroque on piano? There are lots of HIP choices available to you


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love the Harpsichord! I have a collection of solo Harpsichord pieces by CPE Bach which I love!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Have mixed feelings betwen harpsichord and piano. The piano has a much larger dynamic range which adds a lot more nuance, while the harpsichord has the colour in keeping with other period insturments. So in a baroque piece with keyboard and orchestra together i prefer the harpsichord with period instruments, but found on solo pieces by Bach and others, i prefer the piano, for a greater expressive range.

Ps. A question I have is whether Bach would have appreciated the piano version of his solo keyboard works. I think YES!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Only by the people who don't value it highly.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Have mixed feelings betwen harpsichord and piano. The piano has a much larger dynamic range which adds a lot more nuance, while the harpsichord has the colour in keeping with other period insturments. So in a baroque piece with keyboard and orchestra together i prefer the harpsichord with period instruments, but found on solo pieces by Bach and others, i prefer the piano, for a greater expressive range.


As for the first point, I agree. As for the latter point, obviously we have differing tastes there. That's fine, fortunately harpsichord and piano recordings both exist. In the case of Scarlatti, there are even the guitar versions which some might enjoy. Anyway, I find the harpsichord to be a beautiful instrument when under the condition that it is recorded properly. That condition is not always met though. When it is, I find a certain elegance and class to harpsichord music that I don't find with the more "ordinary" piano that makes Baroque music so rewarding. Maybe I'd feel differently if the harpsichord was used more frequently in the latter part of the classical era and romantic era, but it is what it is.

I find that listening to too much music with a solo instrument can become a grating experience after a while (perhaps within listening to 1 CD). I have different limits with different instruments though. I feel that I can listen to good harpsichord music longer than I can listen to good piano music. I can listen to good organ music for longer than either. It depends on the musician too though. Someone like Gould can keep things interesting for longer than some others who don't play as fast. Then again, sometimes Gould is too fast for the music. It just depends.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Is harpsichord an undervalued instrument


It's as much undervalued as you want it to be, I don't like the sound but plenty of people do.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ps. A question I have is whether Bach would have appreciated the piano version of his solo keyboard works. I think YES!


If Bach had the modern piano at his disposal, would he have written the exact same music?


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Some of the pieces work on the harpsichord. Say those from the WTC. Though I can only stand it for so long, there is a reason why it isn't popular any more.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> If Bach had the modern piano at his disposal, would he have written the exact same music?


That is a separate tough question. Maybe his works would have "improved", which I see as totally possible, but Bach idolaters may hear this as blasphemy.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> That is a separate tough question. Maybe his works would have "improved", which I see as totally possible, but Bach idolaters may hear this as blasphemy.


Tough? More like impossible! There are a lot of "what ifs" that could be thrown around. What if Beethoven could have composed with a Casiotone with amplified hearing aids? Would his music have been different? Better? Of course, as we're discussing in another thread, what is "better" is subjective.

The "what ifs" spurs a lot of speculation and that can be fun to discuss. The use of pianos in Baroque music is a "what if" of sorts. But, anyway, all composers lived within a certain context and that is in part what makes each composer and era unique.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Klassik said:


> Tough? More like impossible! There are a lot of "what ifs" that could be thrown around. What if Beethoven could have composed with a Casiotone with amplified hearing aids? Would his music have been different? Better? Of course, as we're discussing in another thread, what is "better" is subjective.
> 
> The "what ifs" spurs a lot of speculation and that can be fun to discuss. The use of pianos in Baroque music is a "what if" of sorts. But, anyway, all composers lived within a certain context and that is in part what makes each composer and era unique.


Yep! Well put.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Klassik said:


> Tough? More like impossible! There are a lot of "what ifs" that could be thrown around. What if Beethoven could have composed with a Casiotone with amplified hearing aids? Would his music have been different? Better? Of course, as we're discussing in another thread, what is "better" is subjective.
> 
> The "what ifs" spurs a lot of speculation and that can be fun to discuss. The use of pianos in Baroque music is a "what if" of sorts. But, anyway, all composers lived within a certain context and that is in part what makes each composer and era unique.


What if the harpsichord was invented after the piano? :lol:


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Because to many people Bach, and the other Baroque composers, sound better on piano.
> 
> By the way OP, why do you feel that you *need* to listen to Baroque on piano? There are lots of HIP choices available to you


You would be surprised, if you check the historical pianos. 
Beethoven and Mozart sound completely different.
I'm not sure that Baroque music sounds good on modern pianos - there is too much action down there and it will often sound muddy.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I don't think it's undervalued. It's just not a very nice sounding instrument and the vast majority of music composed for harpsichord doesn't do much for me.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> What if the harpsichord was invented after the piano? :lol:


Quite clearly Billy Joel would have been the Harpsichord Man!

But, seriously, has any professional harpsichordist performed later classical pieces on the harpsichord? The closest I could come on a quick YouTube search is Scott Joplin on harpsichord:






Here's one on a pedal harpsichord:






It seems like it would be easier to dance to that than the piano version. It kind of has a polka feel to it.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I agree. Bach wrote for the harpsichord, intended to be played on the harpsichord, and sounds better than piano. Why would we mess around with his original choice of instruments? It was already perfect.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Richard8655 said:


> I agree. Bach wrote for the harpsichord, intended to be played on the harpsichord, and sounds better than piano. Why would we mess around with his original choice of instruments? It was already perfect.


Yes, the harpsichord is a perfect instrument.

The piano is a perfect instrument too, but was made for other kinds of music.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Thank you for your replies but I have to disagree with some comments. Bach composed his keyboard works to play them on harpsichord, alternatively on organ and there is no need to use a modern instrument. 

What if Bach had a piano or composed his keyboard works for piano? Well, this is pretty much the same as saying what if in 18th century warfare instead of using muzzle-loaded muskets with terrible loading times, even worse accuracy and being exposed to enemy fire due to the short range, close distance and loading the musket standing up, it would be better to use breech-loading rifles with trenches? Imagine that, you want to watch a film about a 18th century battle and you see grenades, automatic guns or just a film about american civil war with tanks, planes, battleships,... would it not be even offensive? would you pay to watch such hypothetical film in movie theatres? To our modern minds, 18th century military tactics can be absurd but make sense with the technology available of that times. Even in 19th century no army would march in big line formations to be at 100 yards against another enemy line formations and fire volleys with 15% of success to hit somebody in the best case, but was the better strategy for infantry according to the technology available. I understand is similar in terms of music, Bach composed his music accordingly with the instruments he had and harpsichord was really popular as an instrument even for solo compositions. Yet I have noticed that just by only to see how many paintings are of this period of people playing harpsichords. 

Fortunately, there are many recordings playing harpsichord for those who claim authentical performances but I am simply astonished, even dissapointed, to see how many recordings are playing Bach with modern pianos. As I previously said, there are plenty of good piano composers, surely more than baroque harpsichord composers.

PS. Sorry to carry the things to military field for my convenience.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Not anymore, thanks to expert reconstructions of harpsichords employed in Bach's day. They sound terrific, and thanks to great players like Trevor Pinnock and Kenneth Weiss using those instruments, for me, there is no other way to listen to Bach's keyboard music.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

When it comes to Baroque keyboard music, I decidedly prefer harpsichord to piano. I can deal with Bach played on piano, but then, Bach sounds good on any instrument.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Likely said before, HiP may not necessarily be better, that is the old debate of taste. I 'll use the example of Coca Cola, if you tweak an ingredient, is it possible that it can taste better? Bach was not God, what he didn't intend could theoretically be better. Another example is Rachmanninov when he heard Horowitz play his Piano Concerto No. 3, compare to his own playing, he said he never dreamed he could hear it played as such on Earth. Could Bach have dreamed his music being played on an instrument as a modern piano? Even if not, if he was around to hear the recordings with modern piano he could still be impressed, possibly more than with the limitations of the instruments of his own time?

i think HiP is interesting to me because i want to hear music played as it was then, or closest ot, out of curiosity, and at the same time like the cases I mentioned before, sounds better to me. But I don't think music should be limited that way.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

premont said:


> Yes, the harpsichord is a perfect instrument.
> 
> The piano is a perfect instrument too, but was made for other kinds of music.


Exactly........

My theory is how we're wired in which we prefer. The piano is a more romantic instrument with a softer, emotional sound. The harpsichord is more of an analytical and precise sound. So the romantics among us will prefer Bach on piano. But for me, historical accuracy is also important.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Likely said before, HiP may not necessarily be better, that is the old debate of taste. I 'll use the example of Coca Cola, if you tweak an ingredient, is it possible that it can taste better? Bach was not God, what he didn't intend could theoretically be better. Another example is Rachmanninov when he heard Horowitz play his Piano Concerto No. 3, compare to his own playing, he said he never dreamed he could hear it played as such on Earth. Could Bach have dreamed his music being played on an instrument as a modern piano? Even if not, if he was around to hear the recordings with modern piano he could still be impressed, possibly more than with the limitations of the instruments of his own time?
> 
> i think HiP is interesting to me because i want to hear music played as it was then, or closest ot, out of curiosity, and at the same time like the cases I mentioned before, sounds better to me. But I don't think music should be limited that way.


Violins with gut strings and harpsichords were the predominant instruments of Bach's time (leaving out the organ for this discussion). When I listen to Trevor Pinnock play a Bach keyboard Partita on harpsichord and John Holloway playing the unaccompanied Chaconne on baroque violin, this is as close as I will ever come to hearing these works as originally intended and heard by Bach and listeners of his time.
For me, this is endlessly fascinating!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Oh but the piano, modern piano, can make beautiful poetry out of Bach's music. Just think of Wolfgang Rübsam in the French Suites for example. I'd say what he does there is more successful, in some senses more authentic even, than most harpsichord recordings I've heard.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Well to me the harpsichord sounds very tinny and often annoying so I'm sure grateful most of the great pianists have chosen to play Bach as part of their repertoire. Does the piano muddy some of the details because it's not as crisp as the harpsichord? Yes but not to the point that you cannot hear them, especially when you listen to the great pianists, Gould being one example. 

Don't get too stuck up on the fact that Bach didn't write his music for piano and therefore it should not be played on piano. If it sounds great, and it clearly does to many people, then that's all that matters.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

BabyGiraffe said:


> You would be surprised, if you check the historical pianos.
> Beethoven and Mozart sound completely different.
> I'm not sure that Baroque music sounds good on modern pianos - there is too much action down there and it will often sound muddy.


I was only referring to historical harpsichord, not pianos; I'm not a fan of historical instruments in general. I think modern instruments sound much better.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Well, I guess Bach on the kazoo is fine if we think it sounds better on modern instruments. There are no limits!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> Well, I guess Bach on the kazoo is fine if we think it sounds better on modern instruments. There are no limits!


I love Bach on the kazoo!

I said(or meant to say) that modern instruments sound better than their historical counterparts. Now the piano isn't exactly the modern version of harpsichord but they are very similar and clearly works for one are easily transcribed for the other.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I love Bach on the kazoo!
> 
> I said(or meant to say) that modern instruments sound better than their historical counterparts. Now the piano isn't exactly the modern version of harpsichord but they are very similar and clearly works for one are easily transcribed for the other.


He does sound great on that . But you make a good point. I was being a little facetious.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Oh but the piano, modern piano, can make beautiful poetry out of Bach's music. Just think of Wolfgang Rübsam in the French Suites for example. I'd say what he does there is more successful, in some senses more authentic even, than most harpsichord recordings I've heard.


So you do not think that he would be able to make equally poetic interpretations of the French suites on harpsichord, clavichord or lute-harpsichord?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Discovering the beauty and "rightness" of the "sound" of the modern reconstructions of the great harpsichords of the past, has been the most significant and yes, "priceless" discovery of my musical explorations of the past 20 years.

Bach's solo keyboard works (WTC, Keyboard Partitas, Goldberg Variations, etc) "spoke" to me for the first time.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Discovering the beauty and "rightness" of the "sound" of the modern reconstructions of the great harpsichords of the past, has been the most significant and yes, "priceless" discovery of my musical explorations of the past 20 years.
> 
> Bach's solo keyboard works (WTC, Keyboard Partitas, Goldberg Variations, etc) "spoke" to me for the first time.


And that's what it's all about.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> And that's what it's all about.


Indeed it is!!!


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it may be an acquired taste (it was for me) but I love the harpsichord. It has a clarity that i've come to appreciate very much. The music reveals more to me.
Who cares whether it is undervalued, classical music is undervalued. Embrace elitism !


upload a picture


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I listen to Bach more often on the piano, but I have harpsichord recordings of all his major keyboard works (excluding organ). I even have clavichord recordings of some of them (and I just picked up a transcription of the first three English Suites for two guitars). I like them all. I figure if Bach was happy adapting violin concertos for the keyboard or a cello suite for some lute-like instrument, he would be happy hearing his harpsichord music on piano. He might have tweaked it a bit if he had the chance.

And the same for Scarlatti, by the way. No clavichord though.

One thing I noticed while ripping my music to lossless. Harpsichord music is very hard to compress. When I compress piano recordings, the I can get almost a 3->1 compression (about 500 kbps). For harpsichord it's about 3->2 (about 900 kbps). These results are fairy consistent from recording to recording. Using the Prelude in C from WTC I as an example:

Schiff (ECM) - 454
Gould - 608
Hewitt - 374
Richter - 441

Van Asperen - 884
Verlet - 926

Tilney (Clavichord) - 738

I don't know enough about the theories of compression to draw an informed conclusion, but in my naivete I think it reflects on the complexity of the harpsichord's sound (especially as regards overtones).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is a tough question, where there is no answer to. Bach wrote his music with a quill, does that mean the sheet music should be reproduced by quill only?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a tough question, where there is no answer to. Bach wrote his music with a quill, does that mean the sheet music should be reproduced by quill only?


Where there's a quill, there's a way!


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a tough question, where there is no answer to. Bach wrote his music with a quill, does that mean the sheet music should be reproduced by quill only?


Good argument. But I'd say the reproduced music is the intended art form, not the writing method. We would all be sitting in church pews maybe wearing wigs in carrying this out completely. (Hey, maybe not a bad idea!)


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a tough question, where there is no answer to. Bach wrote his music with a quill, does that mean the sheet music should be reproduced by quill only?


In a similar vein, in Bach's time the only way to experience music was in live performances. So should we all throw away all of our recordings and only go to concerts playing Bach on the harpsichord?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In a similar vein, in Bach's time the only way to experience music was in live performances. So should we all throw away all of our recordings and only go to concerts playing Bach on the harpsichord?


Only if the concert hall is the same one in Leipzig or somewhere he performed historically.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Only if the concert hall is the same one in Leipzig or somewhere he performed historically.


Hmm, even that won't do. All the people that performed during Bach's time are dead now so we would have to listen to historically inaccurate people of today.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Hmm, even that won't do. All the people that performed during Bach's time are dead now so we would have to listen to historically inaccurate people of today.


Yeah, thought of that too. Maybe one of his descendents, even if they are only in Grade 3 harpsichord, at least it is a more authentic experience that these recordings with modern piano.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Hmm, even that won't do. All the people that performed during Bach's time are dead now so we would have to listen to historically inaccurate people of today.


Yeah, you can make fun. But some people find more enjoyment in HIP on original instruments. It's subjective to taste and preference, and I won't mock those who prefer modern instrument performances. Both are acceptable to me as to each his own.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> Yeah, you can make fun. But some people find more enjoyment in HIP on original instruments. It's subjective to taste and preference, and I won't mock those who prefer modern instrument performances. Both are acceptable to me as to each his own.


No mocking. Just pointing out that claiming something as inauthentic being a reason to dismiss it has its holes. I have no problem with people preferring the sound of harpsichord.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No mocking. Just pointing out that claiming something as inauthentic being a reason to dismiss it has its holes. I have no problem with people preferring the sound of harpsichord.


I do think it's inauthentic but never dismissed it as inferior. I respect both styles.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Oh but the piano, modern piano, can make beautiful poetry out of Bach's music. Just think of Wolfgang Rübsam in the French Suites for example.


I also think highly of Rubsam's recording of the French Suites. However, my strong opinion is that the performances do not owe their excellence to the piano; it's all about Rubsam. So I disagree that the piano or any other instrument can make beautiful poetry; it's the performer and composer who make the poetry.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

To me, it's not a HIP vs. non-HIP question fundamentally. I just prefer the sound of Baroque music on harpsichord. It gives the music a unique character that I find enjoyable. The fact that it is more historically informed is just a convenient truth. I do generally prefer HIP/semi-HIP recordings of Baroque music though, but things like gut strings vs. modern strings do not matter to me as much as the harpsichord issue.

I can understand the flip side. Some prefer the sound on piano. Ok, fine. Perhaps listening to Baroque music on piano allows one to compare it more easily to newer music. Fair enough. Bach's music is popular with casual classical fans and I'm sure a lot of the Bach records are purchased by less diehard fans. Perhaps these buyers are not familiar with the histories of the harpsichord vs piano so they want piano versions since that's what they know. I'm not saying that anyone who prefers Baroque on piano is a casual (I can't imagine that would describe anyone on this forum), but that casuals may prefer the piano because they may not even know about the harpsichord.

The funny thing is that the piano might become a HIP instrument at one point down the road. Won't that put some HIP haters in an interesting position! It may not be in our lifetimes, but it might well come in the next 100-150 years. As synthesizers and such become more popular and accepted both in modern classical music and music as a whole, I wonder if performances using synthesizers will become more popular. The precedent has already been set that one keyboarded instrument can be replaced by another more modern one, so why not? Will Wendy Carlos and Switched-On Bach become known as a definitive recording?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> ... does that mean the sheet music should be reproduced by quill only?


Yes. Harpsichord plectra of quill are much better than the nowadays more common plastic.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Richard8655 said:


> Yeah, you can make fun. But some people find more enjoyment in HIP on original instruments. It's subjective to taste and preference, and I won't mock those who prefer modern instrument performances. Both are acceptable to me as to each his own.


What are you doing here? That's a fine, wise post!! :lol::lol:


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Speaking about the *harpsichord*, I have a question. Usually when I buy a recording about solo sonatas of another instrument, typically violin, for example: Sonatas & Partitas of Johann Sebastian Bach, the violin is a baroque violin dating from 1750 (just as an example) but in most recordings of sonatas / pieces / works for harpsichord solo, the harpsichord is a copy after another harpsichord, typically after Ruckers (just as an example). Why there is a lack of performances with original / historical baroque harpsichords built in 18th century and restored? I have seen that some museums have historical harpsichords. What is more, I remember to have seen one here in Spain in a Royal Palace that I can't remember at this moment. Would be an amazing experience to listen to an historical harpsichord instead of copies.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

JSBach85 said:


> The harpsichord was widely used in Renaissance and Baroque music. One of the advantages of this instrument is the versatility in its use as solo instrument and as basso continuo accompanying other instruments, voices, and being a part of a orchestra.
> 
> I am surprised about how many people are listening Bach played with a modern piano and not only Bach but also Scarlatti and other baroque composers. Bach keyboard works were composed to play them on harpsichord and also organ but never on piano. Personally, harpsichord is one of my favourite instruments, I adore it especially in italian operas recitativos but also as solo instruments. I still remember how amazing was my first experience listening harpsichord some years ago, Buxtehude harpsichord works.
> 
> Yet, we have a lot of composers to listen them on piano: Chopin, Brahms, Liszt, ... why we need to listen Bach in an instrument that he never used?


The harpsichord is the backbone of all compositions, it is the very foundation of classical music performance after the human voice. There can be no modern piano without the harpsichord.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

They are complimentary, imo. Hearing and comparing Baroque music on piano v harpsichord can be a fascinating experience. I prefer piano, but I have several harpsichord recordings that are indispensable.
I am surprised that no one has cited the Beecham quip about harpsichords (that it sounds like 2 skeletons copulating on a tin roof).


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Harpsichord is an important instrument in earlier times, like the Baroque era. But, its limitation of sound volume and inability to make dynamic changes are severe disadvantages that hamper the instrument's suitability when working with an enlarging band or presenting music with greater sound contrast. These features are increasingly seen in later times, like the romantic period, making harpsichord largely neglected. It seems that the instrument regained some attention in modern time, but its limits are still obvious and beyond solution.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

I've listened to a number of quite worthwhile 20th/21st harpsichord concerti recently. A lot of great music to be found in such works by Poulenc, Martinů, de Falla, F. Martin, Gorecki, Glass ... and possibly many others that I haven't heard yet.


----------

