Hi folks! Michael Johnson wrote (of the human ear):
> Fallible they might be Peter but they are capable, as indeed are the
> eyes, of much greater subtlety! We must be very careful to not extend
> our own personal taste here, the fact that I choose to go down the
> Flemish road does not make those instruments better or worse than your
> friend Mr Kirckman!
I agree entirely - BUT - what one person hears might not agree with what
And as to Mr Kirckman's sound, it was the first old harpsichord I heard
working the way it ought - complete with real crow quills - and raven in
the bass. Leslie Ward of Dolmetsch's who used to look after the Fenton
House instruments used to get raven quill from the Tower of London. (Tom
Goff tried to use his connections to get a monopoly of raven quills, but
the National Trust succeeded in getting enough!) And since I never liked
painted harpsichords much, the veneered Kirckman was right up my alley -
and still is, apart from the awful framing.
As I see it, the object of the exercise is not to achieve a particularly
beautiful sound, but rather to come up with the EXACT sound that would
have been heard in the eighteenth century, for good or ill. If we're not
trying to accomplish this, there doesn't seem to be much point in the
> M, who tries to make Flemish harpsichords:-)
(Sigh!) Flemish ones are all right I suppose . . .
Harpsichord and Spinet maker