I should be doing real work, but Gordon's last post demands a clarification
and response. When Boris and Gordon say it is reprehensible willingly to
choose an inappropriate instrument (although the use of "reprehensible" in
a violent and terrible world, is hyperbole) I agree.
But my ORIGINAL point was that Gordon is free to prefer a double for the
Toccatas, sure, but he is wrong to insist that they NEED a double or that
the double is the only responsible choice for the pieces. We can disagree,
but he's being awfully absolutist and dogmatic about insisting on resources
which are trivial, superficial, silly and marginal to the spirit and
execution of these pieces.
I REPEAT: IF YOU CANNOT ACHIEVE COLOR ADEQUATE TO THESE PIECES WITH A GOOD
SINGLE-MANUAL INSTRUMENT, YOU WILL NEVER SUCCESSFULLY DO SO WITH A DOUBLE.
This is because the expressivity demanded on the single will STILL be 98%
of the that needed on the double. If this is not understood, you merely
have gimcrackery and not music. The whole concept of obsessing on the
so-called "expressive" double or instruments with lots of "stops" comes
from two places: (A) the modern piano world, which thinks that the whole
point of harpsichords is that they lack the only meaningful resource for
expressivity, viz.: LOUD and soft. This is what, in the transitional
period, led to so much silliness in late English harpsichords, and (II) the
organ-influenced heritage (see Hubbard on this issue) which informed some
schools of historical German harpsichord making, and completely dominated
the mid-20th-century German factory revival instruments.