Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:45:04 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi folks! Bill J wrote:
>With regards to comments such as Beecham's; remember that these
>people
>had probably never ever heard, let alone played a real hpschd.
>
Dunno about that! There were still many playable Kirckmans and
Shudis around in England at the time. A rather late (1789) Kirckman,
for instance was used for all the bicentennial performances of the
Beggars' Opera in London in the 1920s. And plenty of private people
were still playing originals: in 1940, as a kid, I encountered an
elderly lady who still played her Shudi, and the following year (OK I
know this is irrelevant but it shows that original instruments had
not been abandoned) I had my first lessons on a 1780s Broadwood
square piano.
What I cannot for the life of me understand is why peoples' ears
cannot hear just how superior the old instruments are: in 1960 (I
believe) I actually heard Tom Goff claim how much better his
harpsichords sounded than the 1770 Shudi and Broadwood at Fenton
House!!! The truth is of course (with apologies to Nick) they don't
sound anything like a real harpsichord! Their tone has been
described as "organ-like" and ths may well be true, but it doesn't
bear much resemblance to the sound our ancestors heard, and surely,
that is the sound we ought to be seeking! If we're not, then we
might as well settle for one of those electronic thingies since
they're much cheaper and don't need tuning!!!
Best,
Peter Redstone
http://www.ctg.net/redstone
|
|
|