Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

I'd like to drag this off of Ray's thread.

Views: 1230

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Roger,

"Erwin, forget the harpsichord. It is beyond the dinosaurs. meaning extinction.

Thank God and human inventiveness that musical instruments moved on."

That's what you said. No explanation. No citations. You say you were just expressing you opinion. Expressing your opinion would include words like "I think that....". But no, you state a fact. And even so, you don't get to decide what instruments people write for.

And now you state that it's our fault for not interpreting your words correctly. And your back to your old " we're brain washed and too stupid to understand what you are saying". 

But you can't just say some obtuse thing and then blame the listener for not "getting it". 

Tnx Bob, for the help. :) I appreciate it.

May be I start writing something for a lute. ;)

But seriously, I agree, Bob. Some people always seem to have to bring their opinion as a fact. Sadly.

you guys enjoy your little bubble of illusion.

Bob, you really do like to make mountains out of molehills.

The fact that there are no citations or explanation should be

clue enough that it is an opinion. Regardless of the sophistication

of the opinion.

It's fine that you moved this, but you should have moved it to the sandbox.

But you can't just say some obtuse thing and then blame the listener for not "getting it". 


 Bob, why not? Einstein stated that E= mc2    how many people got that  lol

 Obtuse you say, by golly there's a word. This is getting serious now.

I do apologize to Erwin, I had absolutely no idea that his life was a shamble and

that he was so thin skinned. That stuff just doesn't show up in writing.

And, so what if I think the harpsichord is the Edsel of musical vehicles.

Like I said, I'm not fond of accordions either. That's 1 opinion on the NAY side of

the board. So what?

I know, why don't you and Erwin and dave get together and compose a concerto

for harpsichord and accordion?  Or would that be a waste of your time.  RS


Bob Porter said:

Roger,

"Erwin, forget the harpsichord. It is beyond the dinosaurs. meaning extinction.

Thank God and human inventiveness that musical instruments moved on."

That's what you said. No explanation. No citations. You say you were just expressing you opinion. Expressing your opinion would include words like "I think that....". But no, you state a fact. And even so, you don't get to decide what instruments people write for.

And now you state that it's our fault for not interpreting your words correctly. And your back to your old " we're brain washed and too stupid to understand what you are saying". 

But you can't just say some obtuse thing and then blame the listener for not "getting it". 

Apologies accepted

Erwin, best wishes towards what ever you chose to write in the future.

Life is short, chose well.   Peace

Oh, is that how it works? When someone dislikes what you've said it's not because of WHAT you've said but because they're thin-skinned? It's their fault?

In that case, Roger, I apologise for you being too thin-skinned and sensitive to deal with me calling you a thick cunt. All this time you've complained at my words, but it was YOUR fault for being annoyed by them! This makes so much more sense.

Roger,

"And, so what if I think the harpsichord is the Edsel of musical vehicles."

Nobody said you have to like it. But this sentence makes no sense. The Edsel was an ugly car that nobody liked. The harpsichord has been popular for hundreds of years. Try for an accurate metaphor. We are trying to understand what you are talking about.

Bob, I offer this as an "accurate metaphore" of what I like about harpsichord in post-baroque usages :-)

It is orchestral, from 1963, quite long (10 separate items) very famous, with very big commercial success, and it employs harpsichord quite successfully in depicting quite a few emotions of the given situation, imo, in various pieces.

It refers to an unknown woman that the composer observed in New York at a 5th avenue parade in autumn 1963 and the pieces narrate her story.

"I know, why don't you and Erwin and dave get together and compose a concerto for harpsichord and accordion?  Or would that be a waste of your time."

Thing is, we actually could. Perhaps you're forgetting Erwin already wrote a piece for harpsichord, you pranet.

Socrates, this actully works. Not bad. This is not the harpsichord as a 'stand alone' instrument though.

In this piece, with the mix, it sounded more like a steel string guitar, to my ear.

Is this piece popular in European circles? I have never heard of it... here in the west.

It has that- Mediteranean(sp) flavor. The accordion, as well, probably works better in Europe.

Would you advise someone to pursue either of these instruments as a worthwhile endeavor?

As a solo instrument, I find the harpsichord to be tinny and grating on my nerves.

The piano/forte was an exponential improvement. as always... IMO         RS


 
Socrates Arvanitakis said:

Bob, I offer this as an "accurate metaphore" of what I like about harpsichord in post-baroque usages :-)

It is orchestral, from 1963, quite long (10 separate items) very famous, with very big commercial success, and it employs harpsichord quite successfully in depicting quite a few emotions of the given situation, imo, in various pieces.

It refers to an unknown woman that the composer observed in New York at a 5th avenue parade in autumn 1963 and the pieces narrate her story.

Yes Roger, “The Smile of Mona Liza”, was very successful in the USA and Europe in the 60s & 70s and one of the most famous collections that M. Hadjidakis ever wrote. It surely is Mediterranean to my ear also and more specifically Greek as its composer. It was recorded in the states and the mix is typical of that time for this sort of music imo.

It uses guitars and mandolins in many places but also quite nice in the WW and strings I think. The harpsichord is used as solo and as accompanying instrument in various places, and as you say it works/blends well.

Regarding the second part of your question, well I believe that as long as music written for harpsichord lives, the instrument will live also, but I’m a bit of a conservative (many may say) in that I am abhorred by falseness when I listen to the 48 or other music written for Cembalo but done on a piano. It is a plucked instrument and the clarity of the counterpoint was conceived with that fact in mind, so to my ear it gets mangled/unclear on a piano, but naturally enough never on a guitar. (In fact I prefer many Scarlatti sonatas on the guitar rather than the Cembalo, and it is proven now a days that Scarlatti was only imitating a guitar when he was writing his sonatas, because he admired the sounds of his everyday musical life when he was in Spain).

Regarding the accordions and similar instruments, to me they are all small portable organs, and although I very much regret the fact that in certain folk traditions they replaced the violin due to their harmonic capabilities, still they offered a lot of admirable new material. And when I think of composers like Astor Piazzola and the music they wrote just by experimenting on similar instruments, what can I say? In general, I have to live and play with accordeonists all my working life, and they are all good guys and very capable musicians. So, to round off, I respect anything that produces a musical sound (even instruments that don’t exist anymore or have not yet existed), because I respect/admire the music and the humanity involved. I hope that all instruments will continue to exist and enhance our musical experiences.

Socrates, that is an interesting thought regarding clarity of line/counterpoint.. to me, it is much harder to hear (thick) counterpoint on the Harpsichord..(so many overtones as well).. (perhaps, this is why there is much rolling of chords, as it doesn't sound so great (imo) in large rhythmical unison.) So i prefer fugues especially on the piano, as on can layer the volume, (and tone quality) and have great control over articulation. (imo) It is much easier to bring out the voices.

But in baroque chamber music, a lot of the time i think that the harpsichord is preferable to the piano..It has been mentioned that Bach had a preference for the clavichord, (although it couldn't be used in performance - as it is sooo quiet.. but is quite unique in its qualities…the string is struck with a brass tip, and if held, one could even wiggle out a vibrato, and can even create (on a small scale) a crescendo, as it responded to intensity of touch.. And we know he loved organs, and did in fact offer advise (after having played) for a budding piano maker - Silbermann.. He Was interested in the evolution of the keyboard, ..On the 48 (or 24), it clearly states 'clavier'..

here is a link to the (orig) image of title page of the '24'..

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/96/88/6596883491190acb...

Clavier, which is simply any keyboard instrument…of course, the most common used Was the harpsichord (but they were easier to come by - when outside the church…. But yes, i can't imagine  an organ or clavichord as soloist in Brandenburg  concerto 5 for orchestra.. But i definitely  prefer the piano  for his other keyboard concertos..especially in D minor, (and C minor, And E major,…and f minor…)

Thanks for the link - i'll take a listen.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Chris Merritt.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service