on 2/20/08 11:15 AM, Jack Peters at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I have almost no sympathy for the folks who think that owning or
> building an italian pentagonal spinet will produce a harpsichord. Those
> instruments were from another time an place than most literature (even
> virginal music) If you have no money, and want to learn to play, start
> like I did with a box with keys that go up and down (sometimes a lot
> better than a piece of furniture) Most everything Bill says is true and
> He's not stretching things. Out hear in Seattle I get to see old Hubbard
> kits that owners think are Dowds and kits that owners think are flemish
> harpsichords and lots of outright fakery but what's new. If people want
> to know I tell them.
Jack, I didn't say that my virginal was a good instrument--in fact, I
suggested the opposite. I find it very pleasing to look at, though, and it
fits where it is in a house full of stuff. I sure wouldn't want it to be my
Re Bill's comment about recordings: There is a world of difference between
listening to recordings on a very fine system and listening on an iPod or a
Bose Wave radio. A great sound system can produce a near-replica of an
instrument if the engineer knows what he's doing, and there are a lot more
who do nowadays than 20 years ago. I have recordings of the Colmar Ruckers
that bear no resemblance to it at all, and I have others that put it in the
room with me. A careful listener can learn to discriminate, but the sound
has to be on the recording in the first place, and the system has to be able
to reproduce it accurately.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
James R. (Jay) McCarty, MD
Fort Worth, TX
"Sine arte, scientia nihil est"