On Fri, 4 Nov 1994, Joseph Spencer wrote:
> Dave K's posting reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask.
> There are very few modern recordings of Pleyel harpsichords around; in
> fact, I can't think of a single one that I would regard as a good
> _recording_ (there are some of stellar performances, but the sound seems
Which are you referring to? STereo recordings of Pleyels have been done
by Robert Veyron-Lacroix (Erato, var. US licensing), Ruggero Gerlin (lic.
to Nonesuch), and Irma Rogell (Titanic, I think), among others. The
series done by Rafael Puyana for Mercury in the early '60s was
spectacularly recorded for its time. Some of these are beginning to
trickle out on CD now.
> always to be miserable.) My question is, how many of you out there are
> familiar with the Pleyel and its role in the harpsichord revival, how
> many of you are familiar with its particular sound, and how many would
> be interested in a digital recording of a similar harpsichord, complete
> with 16', pedals, lightning mid-phrase stop changes, and all the other
> perks that come with the breed?
Well, as you can no doubt tell from previous posts, it is a sound I grew
up with, and am rather fond of--at least as heard on recordings. I
understand that it is not a successful instrument in the "flesh," and that
it is nothing like historical instruments. Yet, it is a unique
sound--the true sound of the haprsichord in the first 1/2 of this
century! Particularly under the fingers of the High Priestess, it can
produce a spectacular (and musical) effect. I would be interested in the
recording you propose, but would suggest that today's harpsichordists
have better things to do--and play!