|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: John Challis harpsichords- the hubris of wrong-minded engineering posted by Bambi B on September 14, 2008 at 08:09:07:
I know everyone is entitled to their own taste and opinion, but I couldn't disagree more with your scathing appraisal of the Challis harpsichord. Back in the 1960s, I studied harpsichord at Northwestern University under Dorothy Lane, and her instrument of choice was a Challis concert double; coincidentally, a few years ago I purchased that very instrument from the University since revival instruments are no longer in fashion. I love it. First, be aware that not all Challis instruments sound the same--NU also owned a single-manual model that I did not care for at all. As for the touch, the large Challis I now own has what I consider a perfect touch, light and not at all spongy the way you describe it. (Perhaps the instrument you encountered was not maintained properly.) But beyond that, Challis was not trying to slavishly duplicate the sound of historical instruments. My own feeling is that virtually no two harpsichords sound alike; a 16th-century Italian harpsichord does not sound like a 17th-century Flemish harpsichord, which doesn't sound like an 18th-century French harpsichord, which doesn't sound like an early-19th-century English harpsichord. Why shouldn't a 20th-century American harpsichord have its own sound? Good examples of what a Challis can sound like are the many Scarlatti recordings made for Westminster by Fernando Valenti, the set of 60 Scarlatti Sonatas recorded by Ralph Kirkpatrick for Columbia, and the recordings made on a Challis pedal harpsichord by E. Power Biggs. I also refer you to the section on Challis in Wolfgang Zuckermann's book "The Modern Harpsichord." Zuckermann had a real agenda with that book; he essentially hated revival instruments and lobbied heavily for only historical copies--and in making that point, his book was remarkably successful. Yet even he couldn't hide his reluctant admiration for Challis's instruments. I also own an historical copy of the 1665 Ridolfi instrument in the Smithsonian, but like many "authentic" harpsichords, it has to be tuned virtually every day, almost like a violin. As a result, it is virtually never played. My Challis, on the other hand, hasn't been tuned in 4 years and still sounds fully in tune; as a result, it gets played every day. To me, that's worth a lot.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: John Challis harpsichords- the hubris of wrong-minded engineering - John Schauer 14:50:58 05/15/13 (1)
- RE: John Challis harpsichords- the hubris of wrong-minded engineering - ars.esquilina@earthlink.net 20:27:30 07/31/15 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
