Re: unrecorded keyboard

[Jim Morrison <jim_morrison@sprynet.com>]

hi Juozas,

I hope you know I'm enjoying our conversation, and just because I bring out
certain of your comments at the expense of others doesn't mean I don't agree
with much of what you say.  I do.

okay, now onto the differences  :)
>
> The harpsichord lets us explore the authentic atmosphere and core of
Bach's
> clavier works and piano ADDS more.

okay, here's something I probably didn't make clear.  When I hear Bach on
the piano I do hear, in some sense, more, but I here superficial more,
irrelevant more, more that gets in the way of the music. But at the same
time that they are adding things like volume dynamics they are missing
opportunities to provide rhythmic vitally, things that Parmentier and van
Asperen (and gould) have in spades And until you (plural) work a little bit
to gain a better appreciation of the harpsichord, I don't think you'll be
able to hear much of the more they have.

>With piano's new capabilities we can use the
> musical text as a precious material to open a new world of interpretation
of the
> music.

yes we can and one reason I love gould so much is that he really seems to be
adding to the history of Bach recordings.  so many others make recording
Bach seem like something they do on the side while taking a break from
Beethoven, Schubert and Mozart.  There's no way I'd be a Bach fan without
Gould's playing it on the piano.  It's the keyboard instrument of my era and
I'm sure the only way I could get my foot into his keyboard works.  By all
means, pianists of the world, give us great Bach on the piano.  I'll rush
out and buy any Angela Hewitt new release.  If I could find Ricther's
Salzburg WTC I'd snatch it up in a heartbeat.

Pianists can also use *more" pedal that to my ears muddy the counterpoint.

See what I'm getting at.  Yes the piano can do some things better than the
harpsichord can.  However, when we're talking about compositions not written
for the piano but for the harpsichord, than I hope we become really careful
when we start using the word *more* in an evaluative sense that really masks
the word *better*  The piano use to sound better to me than the harpsichord.
But now, after listening to so much harpsichord music in the last year, and
some of it, to be quite honest, felt more like a kind of mild punishment
than listening to music, I've come to disassociate such evaluative
judgements from the comparison experience.  Perhaps some day I'll end up
like Brad and his wife and prefer the harpsichord, or maybe I'll remain in
this kind of neutral zone.  At any rate, the zone I'm now in is richer than
the piano side of the fence.






> Maybe the 1st WTC prelude really sounds better on the harpsichord? Jim,
name me
> the performer of the piece you liked most -

beyond any doubt or hesitation it's Bob van Asperen's version, like a said,
at budget price in some places.  14 pounds in the UK, for a four disc set,
no less, a steal.  That 1728 has nice glow to it.  Not quite as mellow and
kind on the ear as Gilbert's, but it has more color and clarity.  I'm trying
to track down a Leonhardt set that he made on the same instrument van
Asperen used.  Another favorite harpsichord disc, the Parementier partitas,
is made on a Keith hill copy of a Zell.

Jim