Don Cameron wrote:
 
>the article in the August 1994 _Early_Music_ by Wm. Kroesbergen
 
I saw that article and agreed 100%. When I got my Dowd (a 1730 Blanchet built
in 1976), Bill asked me if I wanted it voiced for "home" or "concert" use. He
recommended "home" for a beginner like me, thinking no doubt of Couperin's
instruction, and that's what I got. Later, when Leonhardt played the
instrument in concert , he adjusted the registers for a little more volume. I
wonder if that's what Bill would have done if I'd said "concert" but somehow
I doubt it; I imagine he would have voiced the instrument differently. The
tone of the instrument (which GL liked very much) was coarser when it was
overplucking, which you would expect.
 
Still later, I studied with a fellow who had one of the '60s Dulckens by
Skowroneck (he'd studied with GL for a few years and got one before the list
got long, as recently mentioned here). All the things mentioned in the _Early
Music_ article pertained; the instrument was much lighter, the action heavier
(and balky), and the volume _much_ louder. Except for my total lack of
technical ability, I could imagine I was hearing the same instrument GL used
in those wonderful Das Alte Werk recordings which originally got me so
excited about the harpsichord. I kicked myself for not reserving a place on
Skowroneck's list at the same time I got on Bill's (waiting time for Bill was
four years, for Skowroneck, ten, at that time).
 
That instrument was bought by M. Poirier (sp?) in Canada, who is a subscriber
to this list, I believe, and was restored by him with new wire, etc. Last I
heard, it was for sale at Glenn Giutarri's. Perhaps the restorer could
provide us with more details on what he did. I corresponded with him on
Compuserve last year about it, but can't remember all the details. I'd have
bought it long since if finances allowed.
 
For another point of view, I had the opportunity to play a beautiful Dulcken
copy by Jerry Prager, who built my de Perticis virginal. The case was much
heavier, and the action much smoother, than the Skowroneck Dulcken, but the
tone was quieter. Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to hear it in a
proper hall, so it's hard to say how it might have come off. Jerry felt
strongly that the thin case walls of the Skowroneck would lead to structural
instability. Jerry's Grimaldi copies (with very thin walls, of course) are
the most impressive Italian instruments I've ever played, and again I kick
myself for not having gotten one while he was still making them.
 
Don's comment about antique harpsichords being described as "wimpy" is
interesting. I've played a lot of them, and find that some are, and others
definitely not! A lot depends on how the restoration was done. For example,
the 1745 Dulcken at the Smithsonian (I'm told) was restored by Bill and Frank
Hubbard fairly early on, and a plywood bottom was used. My teacher said that
was the reason it was much quieter than his instrument (who knows?), and it
did seem quieter to me. The Stehlin at the Smithsonian also is quiet, but it
has a lute-like tone which probably is suited to quieter voicing anyway. Both
instruments are excellent, of course; I'm only speaking of volume.
(Disclaimer: my teacher was not known for his veracity.)
 
OTOH, the Ruckers muselaar and the Hemsch double at Boston, and GL's
Lefebure, are louder. They have the "bloom" which Keith Hill talks about, in
abundance.
 
I've been very lucky to have met all these nice people and played all these
wonderful instruments in years past (sure wish I could play them well!), and
I hope to get back to it someday.
 
Jay McCarty
Fort Worth, TX
[log in to unmask]
"Scientia non habet inimicvm nisi ignorantem"