GG - harpsichord dynamics

[Bradley Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>]

At 07:36 PM 4/16/01 +0200, Juozas Rimas wrote:
> > > The
> > > piano's bland tone (few harmonics), uniformity across registers, and
> equal
> > > temperament all make Bach on the piano sound (to me) like a
> > > transcription.
>
> I'd like to talk a little more on this topic if you don't mind. Correct me
> if I
> wrong but you can play the harpsichord only at ONE VOLUME LEVEL ON ONE
> HAND. Is
> it so? My mediocre English will need more explanation: if you hit a key on the
> harpsichord, a sound of x volume will be produced. If you hit another key, the
> sound will still be at x volume. The third sound at x volume and so on.
> You can
> play softer with the other hand as I understand but there seems to be little
> overall control of the sound intensity on the instrument.

That would be true if listeners were merely microphones and meters,
measuring the volume of each sound scientifically.  However, the art of
playing the harpsichord is in making the listener *perceive* dynamics from
moment to moment.  A good harpsichordist (like a good organist) can make
musical lines have a huge variety of expression within them.

There are many techniques, all to be used together very subtly (so subtly
that the listener does not think about them, but hears a natural dynamic
effect).  It is an art of context, not simply producing different amounts
of volume:

- If a single note is to seem louder than the others around it: play it
slightly late or slightly early, or play it slightly longer than the other
notes, or shorter.  Or, release the previous note in its line more abruptly
than normal, creating a hole in the texture to draw the listener's
attention to that register and the entrance of the note that is to seem loud.

- For a crescendo, play a group of notes with a slight acceleration, or
make them more sharply articulated (shorter), or make them progressively
longer!  The change draws the listener's attention to the motion of that
melodic line.

- If the section of music has chords, one can make a particular chord
louder or softer by spreading its notes more briskly or more slowly, or
playing them all together, in a style different from that of the next
chord.  One can also play more or fewer notes, or even add dissonant
passing notes in the process of rolling a chord, releasing them immediately
while holding the rest of the chord.

- One can stagger the attacks of simultaneous notes (having nothing to do
with being "chords") to affect the sound of the overall texture, or to
highlight particular voices.  Sometimes the higher note plays first,
sometimes the lower note plays first, sometimes the harpsichordist can even
allow some randomness to it to keep the texture lively and unpredictable.

- There is a percussive sound at the beginning *and end* of every note: as
the plectrum plucks the string, and as it touches the string on the way
down before the dampers stop the string.  An expressive harpsichordist pays
attention to all these sounds in the way a good singer shapes the
consonants of words.  There can be a large range of variation on a good
instrument, especially if the quills are real bird quill rather than
plastic or leather.

- The attack of the note affects the tone, too.  If the key is pressed more
slowly or more quickly, the plectrum touches the string for a different
length of time while plucking it, and this affects the resonance and tone
of the note.  (Most non-harpsichordists don't know this.)  On a good
harpsichord a player can get a fuller tone by playing the keys slowly: this
is the opposite of a piano.

- Tempo affects dynamics, too.  Tempo choice depends on the sustained tone
of the notes, and the room's acoustics, and other factors.  A slower tempo
typically seems quieter since fewer note-attacks are heard.

- Notes within measures and phrases can be considered in a hierarchy from
"good" notes (strong) to "bad" notes (weak).  This affects the basic pulse
of the music, the note values at which the performer (and listener) focus
attention, and the articulation.  It is possible to play the same passage
at the same tempo but make it feel like 2/2, 4/4, or 8/8 meter (as I
described yesterday comparing Gould and Feltsman)...it all depends on the
level of the performer's attention to the notes.

- As on any instrument, the music can speed up or slow down, or the
different parts of the texture can be taken out of alignment.  (For
example, the left hand might play in strict time while the right hand plays
ahead of or behind the beat, as a singer such as Frank Sinatra or Barbra
Streisand would sing it!)  This is basic control of tempo and melodic phrasing.

- One can choose many different types of unequal temperaments (tunings)
according to the period and style of the music to be played, also according
to one's own personality and mood.  It is useful to know the amount to
which each note and each common chord is in-tune or out-of-tune in the
temperament, since this also affects the dynamics of the music.  A note
that is more obviously out of tune will seem louder and more dissonant than
the other notes in context.  This knowledge can be combined with all the
above techniques.

- Every harpsichord is different.  Some respond well to all these
techniques, while others have a more limited range of expression.  Some
have a different tone in every octave of the keyboard, while others have
more uniformity (like a piano).  This too affects the ways that individual
melodic lines can be brought out with clarity.

All those things can be done having both hands on the same manual, with a
single set of strings.  (And most harpsichords have only one manual.)  On
some harpsichords one can also engage a second or third set of strings to
sound together, or use a second manual to contrast the sections of the
music, or play with one hand on each manual.  But that is only in addition
to the basic techniques above.  Naturally, if more strings are engaged the
tone is different and the keys feel different...one can also play
expressively with the slight delay between the times when the separate
strings are plucked!

Some early 17th century harpsichords were built with two manuals where the
manuals play at different pitches a fourth or fifth apart!  This
convenience was for accompanying different groups of instruments or
singers.  The manuals were never of course both played at the same
time.  It was like having two different harpsichords together for
convenience in the same body.  Most of these were then converted in the
18th century so both manuals play at the same pitch and can be coupled
together.

Does this help to clarify why I say Bach on the piano is (to me) relatively
uninteresting?  A pianist *could* make use of most of those techniques, but
most typically don't...they simply play louder or more quietly, or change
the articulation from phrase to phrase.  The other subtleties of timing and
phrasing are ignored, and no subtlety of intonation is available.  It takes
somebody with the imagination and daring of a Gould to make the pianistic
texture lively beyond dynamics.  (And, of course, Gould learned some of
this as an organist.)

> Ok, I'm carefully listening to the first Ricercare from the Musical
> Offering on
> the harpsichord. And what do I hear? A voice starts at one volume level and
> continues in the same fashion throughout the piece. Gosh, I would expect a
> quiet, soft beginning (like Gould starts the first contrapunctus of the art),
> then louder, louder - the culmination is coming, the music is flowing,
> BREATHING
> as a live organism. And on the harpsichord I hear the ricercare as a rigid,
> austere story told by a very restrained person. The piece is wonderful - it
> sounds great on the harpsichord due to the divine polyphony but there is no
> melodic dinamism, excuse me. No tide end ebb of the interior energy of the
> music. We feel the culmination only because that place in the composition
> itself
> forces us to think so - the merit of the performer is little.

If you're not hearing much, it could be that Moroney is not playing very
interestingly.  Or it could be that you're not yet accustomed to listening
to the harpsichord's world of subtleties.  Or it could be that the
recording isn't very clear: if the microphones are too far away, it won't
matter much what Moroney does.  Or it could be a bad harpsichord.  Or all
the above.

> If it is really so, this one point is well enough to keep the piano
> versions and
> listen to the harpsichord renditions only if you care about authenticity
> or want
> to explore some new colors of music, speaking in an abstract way.

I would say the opposite.  The main reason (for me) to listen to piano
versions is to get some new ideas about the pieces.  Because pianists don't
use the normal harpsichord techniques of expression, they analyze the music
in different ways and bring out different ideas.  As I said, it's a
transcription.

I don't think all this has much to do with "authenticity" (a loaded
word!).  It is about playing the music imaginatively and attentively,
creating a rich listening experience.  It is about making the music sound
good on whatever instrument is being used: being musically convincing.  I
would rather hear an imaginative piano performance than a dull and
thoughtless harpsichord performance any day, just as I would rather hear an
imaginative and expressive harpsichord performance than a lifeless piano
performance.  (And, to me, a pianist playing 16 notes in succession all the
same way sounds pretty lifeless, even if they are blazingly fast!)

Even the briefest glance at Bach's music for voices, strings, and winds
shows that he relished variety of articulation, even in unpredictable
ways.  The notes are grouped so that the texture is always changing,
organic.  It is a great adventure.  Much of his keyboard music is not so
thoroughly marked with variety; he didn't need to, as he would be playing
it himself or teaching it directly to his students.

So, what happens when a pianist such as Pogorelich or Perahia gets hold of
a plain-looking Bach keyboard score?  They just burn through all the notes
the same, adding their own creative ideas for variety here and there, but
not giving much inflection from note to note.  It sounds like a series of
artificial contrasts in tone color or articulation, like
orchestrations.  Some listeners like this.  I find it dull.  I'd rather
hear things change from note to note within phrases, not just in big
chunks.  And I'd rather hear about ten more levels of rhythmic subtlety:
when all the notes are exactly in time in a piano performance it's hardly
more interesting than sitting and *looking* at the score.  If the
performance doesn't add much beyond the notation, why bother?  I guess it's
just a matter of expectations in listening.

Worse yet, in fugues some pianists like to pound out the subject wherever
it appears, showing triumphantly that they recognize the notes and wanting
to make sure the listeners get it.  It's like turning a spotlight onto one
character on a stage and ignoring all the others.  OK, that's one way to
play it, but what about those of us listeners who are more interested in
the other notes in the texture?  (The interesting stuff in a fugue is the
countermelodies and rhythmic bits that happen *against* the subject,
enriching its life!)  The entrances of a subject are just a way of
organizing the composition, not the totality of the composition's value!

As GG's Teddy Slutz character would say, "It ain't subtle!"

Do any pianists try techniques of *concealing* the subject in a fugue,
letting the diligent listener pick it out like searching for hidden
treasure?  Some people do like to solve word puzzles and quizzes and math
problems for themselves, rather than just seeing the answer.  The fun of
contemplating something is figuring it out through repeated encounter,
seeing it gradually revealed rather than all at once, finding meanings
farther and farther beneath the surface.  If the music has *only* surface
effects, that doesn't show much faith in the listener's perceptive abilities.

Pianists work so doggone hard to play evenly in Bach, as if that is a
virtue.  Get all those notes the same, and the phrases seamless across
several measures!  Why?  WHY?!?!?!  Doesn't that reduce Bach to a technical
exercise?  Or Bach as an objective arranger of platonic patterns?  What
happened to the music, the breathing, the physical gesture?


> Do you think Bach would compose pieces at (in fact) one volume level if he
> could
> get his hands on a piano or at least a clavichord? Isn't it possible he wanted
> melodic dinamism but physically couldn't get it on the harpsichord?

No, I'd rather assume that Bach was a good harpsichordist than a bad
one!  As I attempted to point out above, melodic dynamism is definitely
available on the harpsichord.

And Bach did compose on the clavichord.  He just didn't bother to mark
volume changes into the music very often.  Like his contemporaries and
predecessors, Bach wrote keyboard music that can work well on whatever
keyboard instrument is available: clavichord, harpsichord, organ, even the
early piano.  Good performers learned to play all of the instruments, and
each instrument expresses the music's dynamism in different ways.  A
performer was expected to figure out which notes should be accented from an
understanding of the music; it didn't have to be marked.

This acquaintance with various techniques is different from the approach of
some modern pianists who play *only* the modern piano.  They might have a
fantastic physical technique and wonderful imagination, but they're still
encountering the music from only one angle among many.

> Did Bach want a choir sing all vocal parts of his cantatas at one volume
> level?
> The violin solo pieces?
>
> Sorry for my primitive writing but I can't write in a more sophisticated
> way due
> to linguistic limitations :) Anyway I'd like to hear a straight answer from a
> professional (biased, yes - impossible otherwise) but professional.

Juozas, you do write very well in English even if it is not your first
language!  I always enjoy reading your postings.

I hope this one of mine helps to explain the range available on harpsichord.



Bradley Lehman, Dayton VA
home: http://i.am/bpl or  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl
clavichord CD's: http://listen.to/bpl or http://www.mp3.com/bpl
trumpet and organ: http://www.mp3.com/hlduo

"Music must cause fire to flare up from the spirit - and not only sparks
from the clavier...." - Alfred Cortot