[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: GG: influence of harpsicord
How nice that this has prompted so many thoughtful comments.
Here is a follow-up question: have any of you ever heard of
an instrument called a "fretted harpsichord?" The reason I
ask is that harpsichords tend to go out of tune very quickly
(because the pins and frame will not hold tension as well as
a modern piano). But I seem to recall reading about a
"fretted harpsichord" with fewer strings and an internal
fretboard. And the interesting thing about that is that
with a fretted instrument, you just tune the fewer strings
to a single pitch and all the other notes are tuned by the
mathematics and geometrics of the fretboard. Have you ever
heard of such an instrument?
Jeff Dod (musician/chemist on this mailing list) recently
sent me some very interesting tapes that mention this
concept: the lecturer talks about the various temperaments
in use in the 18th century not being what we call "equal"
temperament, but he notes that many lutes and other fretted
instruments were tuned to what we would call equal
temperament, this being so easy to do and being strictly a
function of mathematics and not hearing (except to tune the
six lute strings to a single pitch which is quite easy).
With respect to the harpsichord, I am less interested in the
temperament on which the fretboard would be based than I am
in the possibility of quickly retuning an instrument that
may need to be tuned as often as once a day.
If you have any useful tidbits, pass them on. Perhaps my
memory is failing me, but it would be mechanically possible
to build such an instrument using 18th century technology:
there would only be one quill which would be activated by
the depression of any key, and each key would be connected
to depress a particular string at a particular place on the
fretboard (and that string would be depressed momentarily
before activation of the quill). You would not be able to
play an unlimited number of notes at one time, however . . .
Mark