Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Harpsichord (Read 10629 times) previous topic - next topic

Harpsichord

Recently I had the chance to go to a barroque concert. I got more than impressed with the live sound of the harpsichord.
The question is:
How can I transfer a piano concerto that I wrote to harpsichord? How does the harpsichord differs from the piano, and more specifically I would like to know about its range and what the scores look like?
I know that the harpsichord does not support dynamics, but how else it differs¿?
Thanks

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #1 –
Harpsichord and piano music are generally interchangeable... I assume the only difference is the speed that an individual note can be played (harpsichord plucks the strings, taking more time than the percussive hammer-action of a piano)

-j

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #2 –
> I know that the harpsichord does not support dynamics

That's true for 'authentic' harpsicords but recently, dynamic sensitive and pedalled harpsicords are built, as well.

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #3 –
> Harpsichord and piano music are generally interchangeable.

Some harpsichords, like organs, have multiple manuals or evan a pedalboard. Music written for these may be difficult to play on the piano if the composer took advantage of these features.

> I assume the only difference is the speed that an individual note can be played.

Also the fact that notes can't be sustained on the harpsichord as they can on the piano, by holding keys down or by using the pedals. (Imagine, if you will, Debussy on the harpsichord.)

> recently, dynamic sensitive and pedalled harpsicords are built, as well.

IMHO, the fact that something can be done doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done.

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #4 –
OK, I see piano and harpsicord music are interchangable. So, on the ground that the harpsichord I write for doesn't have pedals, What is its range and what do the scores look like?

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #5 –
I can't comment on range, but there are pedals and there are pedals. Almost all harpsichords have at least two manuals (keyboards) and two or three "pedals". These do various things, such as shift the octave of one of the manuals, or invoke the so-called "lute stop", in which softer, usually leather, plectra (is that the plural?) are used instead of hard, originally goose quill, plectra. Many will also allow doubling of the notes, so that two strings an octave apart are sounded with a single key.

Cyril

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #6 –
Thanks, but my question still stands...
However, what Cyril mentions about the octave shifts with the pedals sounds baffling. How do I notate that on score?

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #7 –
<Grant wrote>
IMHO, the fact that something can be done doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done.
</Grant wrote>

So you're against modernised harpsicords? May I ask why?

Regards

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #8 –
You ask:

"So you're in favor of modernized harpsichords? May I ask why?"

and answer -as if- for me:

"I'd see a better argument for modernized harpsichords as vehicles for new music written specificially for them <snip>"

I'm not on the side of Early music to be played on modernised instruments. I preferably go after performances with authentical instruments. I don't ever respect a harpsicord piece played on a piano. Scarlatti Sonatas make me headache, for instance. (Remember the latest Händel thread.) So, there is no problem.

Btw, I've been thinking for years, about writing a piece for modern harpsicord, other instruments and -maybe- continuo. But I don't know when to handle.

Regards

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #9 –
I don't have a problem with authenticity for its own sake, if that's what you want. However, I'd much prefer hearing Baroque string music (for instance) performed on modern instruments (i.e. developed in the Classical era) than those screechy, metallic-sounding baroque violins.

Advances are continually being made in instrument construction (as in other human endeavors) and some changes become accepted, whereas others don't. However, even amongst those that fall by the wayside, there is a compelling reason for their existence; the example that comes to mind is the Arpeggione, for which only one significant piece was written; but what a beautiful piece it is, and had the arpeggione not existed it may have never been written.

So just as I don't have a problem with using antique harpsichords, I also don't have a problem with designing modern ones with dynamics capabilities. Who know, perhaps someone will write a sonata that would not exist otherwise, /or/ (just as valid, IMO) someone will perform a Baroque piece with more feeling and "character" than ever could be possible on a conventional instrument.

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #10 –
Have you come across the expression 'Flogging a dead horse'?

AS for Monty's question, I would imagine that you don't notate such things, but write for a generalised harpsichord which is then interpreted appropriately on the available instrument.

Apropos reply #1, my impression is that the harpsichord is the quicker instrument, where much more intricate ornaments can be played. Again these would not be written out but left to the improvisational skills of the performer.

Peter

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #11 –
> So you're against modernised harpsicords? May I ask why?

So you're in favor of modernized harpsichords? May I ask why?

Seriously, what's the point? The harpsichord music we have today was written for an instrument with a certain set of characteristics, which does not include control of dynamics (except through coupling of stops), by composers who were aware of the limitations.

If a performer wants to play this music on an instrument with dynamic control, there's always the piano. At least with the piano there's a presumption that the performance is "inauthentic" and may not agree with the composer's intentions. Modernized harpsichords might lead to performances that are every bit as inauthentic but that nonetheless project an aura of authenticity. While I'm not a hard-liner, I respect the achievements of the HIP (Historically Informed Performance) movement and wouldn't like to see them jeopardized.

I'd see a better argument for modernized harpsichords as vehicles for new music written specificially for them, with the intention of taking advantage of the modernizations - but is there really any serious pent-up demand for such instruments on the part of modern composers? I doubt it.

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #12 –
Ertugrul,

The answer to the harpsichord vs piano, or antique vs modern harpsichord, question shouldn't be dogmatic. The important thing is that it sounds good.

IMO, 99% of J.S. Bach pieces and a good part of Rameau's ones, for instance, sound way better on the piano. On the other hand (and still IMO), Händel's and most of all Couperin's music sounds very insipid if not played on the harpsichord.

Probably just a matter of taste, but try to listen to Bach on the piano without prejudice.

Yves

PS: I may be biased, since I went to a concert last Sunday where Christian Zacharias (at the piano) and the Lausanne Chamber Orchestra played one of Bach's harpsichord concerto, and that was great! ;)

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #13 –
[Peter] "Apropos reply #1, my impression is that the harpsichord is the quicker instrument, where much more intricate ornaments can be played. Again these would not be written out but left to the improvisational skills of the performer."

I was referring to the speed that a single note can be repeated on the harpsichord vs. piano. I seem to remember a snipper of music history class that mentioned how the piano was faster in this aspect because of the hammer action.

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #14 –
Yves,

I'm not dogmatic. I confess being a little 'rigid' and -now, in a more liberal mood- I can say that the performance strictly depends on the performer, whether instrument used.

Regards.

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #15 –
[Joe] I see what you mean about a repeated single note in that the hammer is already back in position while the plectrum is still on the wrong side of the string. But my memory snippet says that the harpsichord was capable of more ornamentation. I'm no expert - can any knowledgeable person throw light on this.

Actually I'm not a fan of the harpsichord, especially when it is being used as a continuo instrument in an orchestra, producing weird clanking noises seemingly having little to do with the music being played. But the player always gets a special bow at the end!

Peter

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #16 –
> But the player always gets a special bow at the end!

It's because he stopped playing... :-P

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #17 –
In the case of ornaments, I think the misconception of them being easier on the harpsichord than on the piano probably arose from the fact that harpsichord music is very much more ornamented than the bulk of piano music. There was a very good reason for this. The Harpsichord is incapable of sustaining notes, so to avoid having huge blank gaps after playing a long note, the player would twiddle around the given note to fill out. You will notice it especially at the end of sections where there is a great flourish in the final bar, generally arpeggiating the final chord. You will also notice the frequent ornamentation in the pieces recently posted from the Fizwilliam Virginal Book.

Ornamentation in the late 18th century started to take on a different meaning - being applied to the piano, and also to other instruments, it became very much of a decorative nature - enhancing the melody rather than "filling a space" This reached a kind of high point in the works of Chopin and Liszt - far removed from the contrived necessity of the earlier Renaissance and Baroque ornamentation.

I play the spinet -4 1/2 octaves - C two 8ves below mid C to third F above. With only one manual, virtually no dynamic variation is possible at all, and certainly no sustaining.

In the case of Harpsichords (usually 5 octaves) and usually 2 or 3 manuals, a modicum of loudness variation is possible by using the different manuals with the various register stops, but basically Piano and Harpsichord are not interchangeable - Whereas it is no problem to play harpsichord music on a modern piano, it is virtually impossible to play much classical and later works on a plucked instrument - the performing techniques are so very different eg. pianistic music exceeds the range, no pianistic dynamics are possible, no sustaining power using held notes, no sustaining pedal. One of the biggest drawbacks to performing most music beyond the Baroque, I find is the actual depth of the keyboard. The Spinet I play has a depth of less than 2/3 that of a usual piano depth, making it extremely difficult to play some chord clusters without spreading them (hand is permanently in a very cramped position)and the attack of the fingers is quite different. Add to this the black and brown keys which you can't see to play if the lighting is bad, and performing becomes a tad nightmarish sometimes unless one is performing straight baroque continuo-type work!

Hope this clarifies things a bit!

- Ann

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #18 –
Thanks for the explanation. Would it also be the case that florid ornaments on the harpsichord could appear to be cleaner than on a piano, precisely because they can't be blurred together since they don't sustain?

Peter

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #19 –
(Peter), Possibly ornaments might appear cleaner, although this depends on the touch of the performer. The whole manner of playing the plucked instrument is very different from the piano - one has to lift one's fingers from the notes sooner, and precisely to avoid the tongue with the plectrum hovering around the still vibrating string. Certainly if the pedal is used heavily in piano music to sustain harmonies, any ornamentation of the melody can be quite blurred. I think generally clarity is produced not so much by the instrument as by the performer though. Some harpsichords produce more noticeable overtones, depending on which which register is being used, which would blur the ornamentation a bit I suppose. Are there any experts here who could explain this better?

- Ann

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #20 –
It seems to me as if you wanted some fairly specific information. I'll try. I don't play harpsichord myself, but I've been in a lot of ensembles with harpsichord.

It's best to write something for a specific player, who will tell you about his or her instrument; they're not as standardised as pianos. That said, here are the two most common models. A good player will likely prefer an authentic-style instrument, even for modern music. Some of Bach's music (the Well-tempered Clavier, for instance) is written for the smaller range, which is the same as the organ keyboard, but his suites and the Goldbergs all need the five-octave, two-manual instrument.

A small harpsichord intended mainly for accompanying will have two ranks of strings and a range of C to e"' (two leger lines below bass clef to three leger lines above the treble clef. The player has a lever to add the second register, or sometimes the second register can be played separately, with a slightly different sound. You can mark sections p or f and the player will play on one or two strings, but he needs a rest to pull the stop lever.

A solo harpsichord usually has a range of five octaves from the G three leger lines below the bass clef. If you are thinking concerto, you're probably safe writing for this range, and you can assume the instrument has two keyboards and three stops. One of the stops will be a "4-foot stop", which will play an octave higher than written. If this is played together with a stop at regular pitch (an "8-foot stop", you don't really hear it as an parallel octaves, more as added brightness. The 4-foot stop can be played separately, but it's usually not very loud.

How it's usually set up is that one of the keyboards (the lower one, I think) is for one of the two 8-foot registers and the 4-foot register, and the upper manual only has one 8-foot. You can couple the registers so all three are played from the lower keyboard, but I don't remember if you can play the upper one separately when they're coupled. I think you can, so you get a big contrast in sound by hopping betwen the keyboards, or playing one hand on each level. For equal contrapuntal voices, it can be nice to play one hand on each keyboard with just the 8-foot stops on - the sounds of the two registers are usually set up to sound a little different. There's usually a "buff" or "harp" sound, which puts felt pads against the strings for a sound like pizzicato strings or a guitar with palm muting, and there's sometimes a "lute" stop which plucks the strings closer to the bridge for a sound like a guitar plucked right at the bridge, bright and snappy. These stops are usually on the lower 8, and as a composer you can expect the buff to be on any solo harpsichord, but not necessarily the lute stop. Some people CALL the buff stop the lute stop.

The big advantage of two manuals is that you can switch quickly from one sound to another. You can specify "lower 8+4" or "lower:8+8+4" or "buff" and be reasonably sure of getting it. You can specify "upper" or "lower" manuals and expect to get two contrasting sounds, depending on what's on the lower. You can write dynamics, sticking probably to three levels like p, f, and ff, and let the player deal with the specifics. If you don't specify anything, most people will play everything on the lower manual with whatever registration balances the ensemble they're playing with, or that they feel suits the music, and use the upper manual if at all for the occasional echo effect.

By the way, a good player on an authentic well-regulated harpsichord can create enough dynamic range with his or her hands to shape a phrase expressively, but not to get the big contrasts and shading possible on other instruments.
For that you need registration and, ideally, two manuals.

A difference between well-written harpsichord and piano music is that harpsichord music has the dynamics written into the texture to some extent: if you want a lot of noise, play a lot of notes. The best way to get a crescendo is to keep adding notes to chords. So you might modify your piece a bit with that in mind.

Is that any help?
 

Re: Harpsichord

Reply #21 –
At last a good reply to my question. Thank you very kindly, John.