[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GG - more harpsichord
At 11:45 AM 7/19/2000 -0700, Jim Morrison wrote:
The Parmentier Partitas that I keep raving about are performed on a Keith
Hill instrument, "based upon harpsichords made in Hamburg in Bach's time by
Christian Zell. It is voice in genuine quill" the liner notes tell us.
I guess, though I could easily be wrong, that the quills don't pluck the
strings as close to the bridge as some harpsichords, thereby giving it a
warmer, fuller tone.
A good observation, and true. Another part is the quill voicing (as
distinct from Delrin plastic which is commonly used). Another part is the
extraordinary resonance due to Keith's soundboards and cases. And another
part is his philosophy of good tone as it goes into the design of the
instruments: check out the articles at http://www.dioptra.com/
I'm also guessing that the instrument doesn't have a 16 foot stop, so the
bass doesn't at times degenerate into that metallic muddle that I hear on
some recordings.
It doesn't. (Been there, played it regularly during five years of lessons
with P.) It's a remarkably responsive hpsi and has a big bass
tone! Because of the expressive range in the touch, the player has to
control every aspect of every note.
If GG had ever played this one, or another Hill instrument, he wouldn't've
made those comparative cracks about harpsichords. As I quoted earlier,
from GG's notes to the Bach Partitas: "(...) the harpsichord does not have
the variety of character in it that the piano does. The piano has so many
things that can go wrong that in order to get those many things to go
right, in terms of inner balances, one must be careful in a subtle way that
just isn't demanded by the harpsichord. (...) the piano can analyze, but
the analysis has to be very acute: you have got to know what every voice is
doing. You can get away with murder on a harpsichord or an organ, because
you can proceed for pages on end just living on that marvelous clarity
which they give you. The moment you sit down at the harpsichord it says, 'I
will present your digital qualities as clearly as any instrument can do for
you.' Well, the piano does not do this. It says, 'I will make them as muddy
as possible unless you present me with an analytical account so clear that
I know exactly what you want.' And everything on the piano, therefore,
becomes a very special, inquiring proposition. I don't mean to be
deprecating about the harpsichord, but everything does not on the
harpsichord. It does not impose quite the same analytical
question-and-answer session that you must hold with yourself."
On a Hill hpsi voiced in quill, the player certainly DOES have to know
every analytical point and the meaning of every note, because the
instrument responds to that preparation (or lack of it). Every player
sounds different from every other player on a harpsichord as good as
these. (That's of course true also on good pianos, good violins, good
organs, good recorders, etc.: the instrument gives the player an expressive
range to work with, and every player brings something different to it.)
Incidentally, another good builder of responsive harpsichords is David
Sutherland. With his, as with Hill's, the instrument itself teaches the
player new things about the music: aspects not at all visible on the page.
Performance on a good instrument is a collaboration with the instrument,
listening to its expression and putting it to good use rather than fighting
it. Or at the other end of the spectrum, if the instrument doesn't give
much to work with, one can impose a mental interpretation and ignore the
instrument (as GG did on the Wittmayer, or on bad pianos on tour).
Simple principle: if you're preparing food with a good knife, you have a
lot of options and can produce whatever you can imagine (if you've learned
how to use a good knife). But if the knife is terrible, there's not much
range available to you, and it takes some luck to get halfway decent
results at all.
And if I can be so demanding, what are some other good recordings that use
Hill harpsichords? I love the sound of this instrument.
Quite a few (and these are just the ones I can think of at the moment...):
Of Parmentier recordings, he's recorded on at least three different Hill
harpsichords: the discs of Bach Partitas, 17th century German, 17th century
French, English virginal music, and the Corelli trio sonatas (with
recorders and cello). All those are on Wildboar, a terrific label based in
Berkeley CA. http://www.musicaloffering.com/cklist.htm The other P discs
are on different instruments.
Of Robert Hill recordings, there are also quite a few on Keith's
instruments, especially of Bach: the Goldbergs, the five miscellaneous
suites, the Art of Fugue early version, the Art of Fugue late version, the
works for lute-harpsichord (Lautenwerck), and other recent issues in the
Hanssler series. See also
http://www.dioptra.com/earmus/texts/discog97.html for RH.
In Robert's tenure as one of the Musica Antiqua Koeln's harpsichordists
(mid-1980's), and in the years after that, the MAK used at least two of
Keith's harpsichords: in the Bach violin sonatas, Brandenburgs, Art of
Fugue, others.... Also, the CPE and WF Bach double concertos played by MAK
with RH and Andreas Staier. I don't know to what extent other Staier
recordings are on KH instruments, but there might be some.
There's also the collaborative "Magnum Opus" that KH built with Philip
Tyre; there are some Anthony Newman recordings (e.g. Scarlatti) on that
one. It's not really a representative KH instrument though, more a
curiosity. (16-8-8-8-4, three manuals, and it plays and sounds like no
other instrument on this planet...really distinctive!)
Apologies for the relatively low percentage of GG content here, though I
hope this was also interesting. Anybody want to talk about the series of
recordings made by GG and Bill Evans on GG's CD 318 Steinway?
Bradley Lehman
Dayton VA
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl