# Why most recent harpsichord recordings sound lackluster?



## Ariasexta

I like harpsichord music, I find the recording engineering very important to feel the sound of the instrument, however, some recordings simply are badly engineered, sounds repressive in the environmental resonance. Like all Richard Egarrs harpsichord recordings from the french label HMF, his Purcell suites and Well-Tempered Claviers all sound lackluster, I really do not understand why people prize such lackluster sound engineering, I think they are not predisposed to the sound of harpsichord so find it difficult to listen to the instrument in natural sounds. But do not blame the instrument, I know if it is the instrument sounds bad or the recording engineering, I know the sound characteristics of almost all famous workshops, and most of the playable antiques, when the engineering is poor, it is very obvious to me.

Some more badly engineered recordings:

All Kenneth Weiss harpsichord recordings on *Satirino*

Some labels are tended to have the best sound engineering for harpsichord recording:

*Astree, Philips, Hyperion, Meridian, DG, DECCA, DHM, MDG, Erato, Alpha, Naxos, EMI, Dorian..*

I blame the sound engineers who do not know how to appreciate the instrument and try to experiment their immature ethics on the cost of music.


----------



## Weston

DG, really? My first complete set of the Well Tempered Clavier was the Ralph Kirkpatrick clavichord set on DG. It sounds as if someone stuck a mic directly into the workings of the instrument so you hear every click and rattle. It's horrible and so disappointing. Of coarse that was recorded in the late 1960's. Maybe they have improved since then, but it put me almost completely off of solo clavichord, harpsichord, virginal or whatever and just enjoy these piece on piano.


----------



## Ariasexta

Weston said:


> DG, really? My first complete set of the Well Tempered Clavier was the Ralph Kirkpatrick clavichord set on DG. It sounds as if someone stuck a mic directly into the workings of the instrument so you hear every click and rattle. It's horrible and so disappointing. Of coarse that was recorded in the late 1960's. Maybe they have improved since then, but it put me almost completely off of solo clavichord, harpsichord, virginal or whatever and just enjoy these piece on piano.


You do like piano over the old instruments. The tolerance of "noise" is a part of enjoying the old keyboard instruments, the noise is what distinguish the harpsichords from other instruments, it make them peculiar and beautiful. Kirkpatricks harpsichords were bad copies, blame the instrument, but DG recording from Kenneth Gilbert and Trevor Pinnock are among the best.


----------



## haydnfan

I dislike close micing and bright recordings. Live, harpsichords sound lively, yet rich and complex. On recording they often sound tinny, assaulting my ear drums with their pinging sounds. Weston try Hogwood's The Secret Mozart on clavichord. Good sound quality, and it has that dark, recessed sound the clavichord is known for. Oh yeah, also excellent performances.


----------



## Ukko

There is no need to include the mechanical sounds in a harpsichord recording. The 'intended' sounds are loud enough so that close micing is unnecessary. The clavichord is best heard from a distance of about 3 feet, e.g. from the floor underneath it, so mechanical noises are part of the aesthetic. The hammered dulcimer is another story.


----------



## Carlitos

I agree that the Kenneth Gilbert and Trevor Pinnock sound so rich and full without being excessively strident. I have 2 of the Rafael Puyana disks and strongly dislike the excessive brightness and instrument noise. They sound harsh and shrill to me. I was raised on the Fernando Valenti Westminster recordings sound, who I still regard as the most masterful interpreter of Scarlatti. The Scott Ross recordings seem a decent middle ground sonically between the old Westminster technology and the superb Pinnock and Gilbert recordings. The harpsichord sound of the Igor Kipnis recording for Chesky in the 90's are certainly worthy of mention, but still overly bright compared to Gilbert or Pinnock. I would think the latter are what Valenti would sound like in modern recording circumstances.


----------



## Pestouille

Here are some examples of very well recorded Harpsichord and very honnestly, I prefer recent recordings than earlier. Today, most of the time harpsichord are recorded with several microphones, which sounds more intimate and give more presence, as if you were next to the harpsichord. In the past, it was most of time recorded with 1 or 2 mics (focussed), which delivers a less blooming sound. For the noises, I agree that they are part of the instrument...
There were always bad sound engineers... and good ones. I don't know the recordings you refer to from Kennet Weiss. I have his Goldberg Variations which are very high level and recording is good. Concerning Egarr, Good recording or bad recording doesn't matter, I switch off.. (of course a matter of taste)


----------

