NationStates Jolt Archive

that's right folks, Harpsichord vs. Piano. Which sounds better? I personally prefer the harpsichord, it has a nice, clear sound to it, very royal, if you will. So denizens of NSG, what do you think?


Oh, and I was invited to NS2, suckers!:p

that's right folks, Harpsichord vs. Piano. Which sounds better? I personally prefer the harpsichord, it has a nice, clear sound to it, very royal, if you will. So denizens of NSG, what do you think?
Depends on the occasion, I'd imagine. Maybe Harpsichord for royal occasions, and piano for plebian occasions.

Oh, and I was invited to NS2 suckers!:p"NS2 suckers", is that one of those new forum social groups?

Depends on the occasion, I'd imagine. Maybe Harpsichord for royal occasions, and piano for plebian occasions.

Mm. I believe that the Harpsichord is better for a wide arrange of occasions. It can do everything the piano can do, and sound better while doing it.

"NS2 suckers", is that one of those new forum groups?
Comma added.:D

I like the sound of the Harpsichord, and find it more suited in some situations than the piano, but overall I feel the piano has a greater overall range of suitable music.

It depends on what sound one is going for.

Harpsichords have quite a limited expressive range, I think. Try finding a Jazz harpsichord work and you'll see what I mean. Pianos, on the other hand, span a huge range of musical genres. You just couldn't do something like the Grieg Piano Concerto in A minor with a harpsichord.

i prefer an electric piano that has a harpsichord setting available.

The piano is, in my opinion, the second most versatile instrument in the world. Harpsichords are lovely, but they have a more limited stylistic range.

It depends on what sound one is going for.

WWKDD, or What Would King Diamond Do.

WWKDD, or What Would King Diamond Do.

Awesome.:hail:

It can do everything the piano can do,

This is incorrect. The harpsichord has no way to sustain notes longer than their default decay time. It has a much smaller range, notes cannot be played in as quick succession, and the player has no control over how the note sounds.

The piano is, in my opinion, the second most versatile instrument in the world. Harpsichords are lovely, but they have a more limited stylistic range.

Voice is first presumably? And I'd agree :)

Harpsichord is great for Bach and others of his time, but just doesn't suit other styles and playing methods. There have been successful uses of it in different eras (Frank Martin's Petite symphonie concertante for example), but it is rather rare. Judging simply by numbers of pieces or duration over which they have been dominant, piano wins considerably. Even in the sphere of popular music, piano is ubiquitous; I can think of few pieces that use a harpsichord (Golden Brown by The Stranglers for one) and probably less people know actually what one is.

Piano. Harpsichord lacks dynamics.

Voice is first presumably? :)

Indeed. :)

Piano, naturally. Any instrument that can be effectively used in both a carefully written concerto and a hard rock song is easily the best.

Piano for versatility, harpsichord for historical accuracy and balance.

Also, "which instrument is better"? Really? Bad enough we get false genre comparisons, let alone something as inane as Instrument Idol. :rolleyes:

Piano, much better in my opinion. And Conserative Morality, we all know you wanted ot brag about NS2. :p

The piano, because I'm pretentious and also not into harpsicords.

that's right folks, Harpsichord vs. Piano. Which sounds better? I personally prefer the harpsichord, it has a nice, clear sound to it, very royal, if you will. So denizens of NSG, what do you think?

It depends entirely upon the music being played.

Oh, and I was invited to NS2, suckers!:p

:mad:














So was I.

(The following post will be unintelligible to most people.)

In my cricket team, we have assorted 'sledges', that is, taunts to try to unnerve the opposing batsman. A favourite is 'bowl him a piano and let's see if he can play'.

So I vote piano, because 'harpsichord' would totally fuck up the literary resonance of our cricket team.

that's right folks, Harpsichord vs. Piano. Which sounds better? I personally prefer the harpsichord, it has a nice, clear sound to it, very royal, if you will. So denizens of NSG, what do you think?
Piano. Nothing against harpsichord, but I couldn't imagine listening to that every day, whereas to the piano, I could.
Oh, and I was invited to NS2, suckers!:p
Who wasn't?

Harpsichord can be a very good accompanying instrument. But the piano is way better solo. In fact, the harpsichord sucks solo, it can get pretty obnoxious.

The reason? Harpsichords have no ability to be played at different dynamic levels. The only way to demonstrate virtuosity on a harpsichord is by playing extremely difficult fast technical lines. This can get old very fast.

The piano(forte) on the other hand, as its original name suggests, is suited to wide ranging dynamics, from gentle and barely audible playing to thunderous sounding fortissimos. Hence, there are many more options available for solo playing.

I'll go with the Harpsichord

that's right folks, Harpsichord vs. Piano. Which sounds better? I personally prefer the harpsichord, it has a nice, clear sound to it, very royal, if you will. So denizens of NSG, what do you think?


Oh, and I was invited to NS2, suckers!:p

The piano can be used in essentially ever genre of music ever invented. The harpsichord cannot.

Ergo, the piano is superior.

As for sound...I don't know. I like them both.
(And I eagerly await the many posts I'll get trying to show my claim about the harpsichord wrong. ;) )

I like the Piano and CM it's about time you got invited only behind about 1000 other people myself included.

The piano can be used in essentially ever genre of music ever invented. The harpsichord cannot.

Ergo, the piano is more versatile.

As for sound...I don't know. I like them both.
(And I eagerly await the many posts I'll get trying to show my claim about the harpsichord wrong. ;) )

Fixed.

You all do realize, don't you, that you're comparing an old technology with something that replaced it, right? The piano was an advancement on the harpsichord. It wasn't like they were invented at the same time and they had to duke it out in the court of public opinion. Honestly, this is a bit like asking which of the telegraph or cell phone is better.

The whole obsession with ranking things that cannot possibly be fairly compared is beyond pointless and verging on inanity.

Fixed.

You all do realize, don't you, that you're comparing an old technology with something that replaced it, right? The piano was an advancement on the harpsichord. It wasn't like they were invented at the same time and they had to duke it out in the court of public opinion. Honestly, this is a bit like asking which of the telegraph or cell phone is better.

The whole obsession with ranking things that cannot possibly be fairly compared is beyond pointless and verging on inanity.

You're right. I apologize for using the incorrect word. Versatile it is.

Piano for versatility, harpsichord for historical accuracy and balance.

Also, "which instrument is better"? Really? Bad enough we get false genre comparisons, let alone something as inane as Instrument Idol. :rolleyes:

Balance? I have to say--I hate playing harpsichord. I absolutely, utterly loathe it. Which I suppose makes a lot of sense, as my preferred style is late era and "experimental" Romantic music. [Chopin hated to be called a Romantic. :) ]

I agree with you that some scores require a harpsichord rather than a piano. Can you imagine a Mozart opera with piano accompaniment?

But balance? There is no balance. You have no control over what keys, or even which hand, is louder than the other. It's absolutely obnoxious. It makes me feel helpless as a performer.

But then, maybe that lack of balance control was what you meant?

I just started playing the piano, so I don't sound that great.. But played correctly it's beautiful.

So because all of you think the piano is great, I should too? Pfft.

Sorry what has my quote got to do with what you wrote? You asked me a question and I answerd it, and the rest was just saying welcome to NS2.

Unless what you wrote is a joke, in which case means it has gone over the top of my head.

i also prefer the sound of a harpsichord. though my favorite musical instrument of all is an audio frequency sinewave tone generator.

Sorry what has my quote got to do with what you wrote? You asked me a question and I answerd it, and the rest was just saying welcome to NS2.

Unless what you wrote is a joke, in which case means it has gone over the top of my head.

No actually I misread your quote. *Curses sleep patterns*:$

Somehow a harpsichord being dropped onto the head of a cartoon cat from fifty storeys up isn't as funny as a grand piano.

Somehow a harpsichord being dropped onto the head of a cartoon cat from fifty storeys up isn't as funny as a grand piano.

i've seen harpsichords that look exactly like grand pianos excapt for have two keyboards, so how could you tell? just because anything shaped like that, where you can't actually see the keybords, is generally CALLED a piano, which come to think of it, in that context, there is a certain irony in the origen of the name piano (which the last i checked, ment "soft"!)

Harpsichord can be a very good accompanying instrument. But the piano is way better solo. In fact, the harpsichord sucks solo, it can get pretty obnoxious.

The reason? Harpsichords have no ability to be played at different dynamic levels. The only way to demonstrate virtuosity on a harpsichord is by playing extremely difficult fast technical lines. This can get old very fast.

The piano(forte) on the other hand, as its original name suggests, is suited to wide ranging dynamics, from gentle and barely audible playing to thunderous sounding fortissimos. Hence, there are many more options available for solo playing.

Do you dislike bagpipes for the same reason? Or some organs?

Balance? I have to say--I hate playing harpsichord. I absolutely, utterly loathe it. Which I suppose makes a lot of sense, as my preferred style is late era and "experimental" Romantic music. [Chopin hated to be called a Romantic. :) ]

I agree with you that some scores require a harpsichord rather than a piano. Can you imagine a Mozart opera with piano accompaniment?

But balance? There is no balance. You have no control over what keys, or even which hand, is louder than the other. It's absolutely obnoxious. It makes me feel helpless as a performer.

But then, maybe that lack of balance control was what you meant?

Harpsichords are by nature much quieter than pianos i.e. they are much more adept at accompanying instruments, especially authentic Baroque instruments that were quieter than their modern counterparts.

Do you dislike bagpipes for the same reason?

I think we all know that there are many, many reasons to hate bagpipes...

that's right folks, Harpsichord vs. Piano. Which sounds better? I personally prefer the harpsichord, it has a nice, clear sound to it, very royal, if you will. So denizens of NSG, what do you think?


Oh, and I was invited to NS2, suckers!:p

I like pie more than either of them... But if given the choice I'd choose the piano. You can make many different genres of music with a piano (classical, jazz, rock, easy listening, etc) whereas a harpsichord is more restricted.

You just couldn't do something like the Grieg Piano Concerto in A minor with a harpsichord.

Because then it wouldn't be a PIANO concerto.

No actually I misread your quote. *Curses sleep patterns*:$

lol, fair enough mate.

i also prefer the sound of a harpsichord. though my favorite musical instrument of all is an audio frequency sinewave tone generator.

The theremin is the way to go. If you really insist on actually touching the instrument as you play it, the pyrophone is the best.

I chose piano, but only because organ (B3 electric)was not a choice, and let's face it, "tulips on your harpsichord," makes for a lousy punch-line...

Do you dislike bagpipes for the same reason? Or some organs?
I don't dislike harpsichords. They have a very nice sound and are great as an accompanying instrument. I just said that I like the piano better, because of its dynamic range. The bagpipe (and organ) on the other hand, excels at something that both the harpsichord and the piano to a lesser extent, lack in.
Sustain.


Harpsichords are by nature much quieter than pianos i.e. they are much more adept at accompanying instruments, especially authentic Baroque instruments that were quieter than their modern counterparts.
Indeed. But then again, I don't care that much for a lot of baroque music. Some I like, but I find that in general I'm more fond of Romantic era compositions.

i've seen harpsichords that look exactly like grand pianos excapt for have two keyboards, so how could you tell? just because anything shaped like that, where you can't actually see the keybords, is generally CALLED a piano, which come to think of it, in that context, there is a certain irony in the origen of the name piano (which the last i checked, ment "soft"!)

Nobody uses its full name "Pianoforte" anymore.

I hate the harpsichord. It's like nails on a chalkboard.

Balance? I have to say--I hate playing harpsichord. I absolutely, utterly loathe it. Which I suppose makes a lot of sense, as my preferred style is late era and "experimental" Romantic music. [Chopin hated to be called a Romantic. :) ]

I agree with you that some scores require a harpsichord rather than a piano. Can you imagine a Mozart opera with piano accompaniment?

But balance? There is no balance. You have no control over what keys, or even which hand, is louder than the other. It's absolutely obnoxious. It makes me feel helpless as a performer.

But then, maybe that lack of balance control was what you meant?

No, I said balance. When a piano accompanies a small vocal ensemble or an ensemble of authentic early-music instruments, it's often too loud in the former case and both too loud and inauthentic in the latter. Were I to direct a choir in a performance of any of the oratorios or operas from Monteverdi (1598) to Bach or Handel (1750+), I would do my best to find a harpsichord for the continuo part, because that's the instrument that suits the ensemble best.

The piano also introduced even temperament, which, while convenient and best for playing in all keys, robbed each key of its perceived uniqueness. For more on that idea, Google the "doctrine of the affections" from the Baroque era, and look for articles related to the characteristics each key was believed to have. See also the excellent book How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care (http://www.amazon.com/Equal-Temperament-Ruined-Harmony-Should/dp/0393062279/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222143248&sr=1-2).

i've seen harpsichords that look exactly like grand pianos excapt for have two keyboards, so how could you tell? just because anything shaped like that, where you can't actually see the keybords, is generally CALLED a piano, which come to think of it, in that context, there is a certain irony in the origen of the name piano (which the last i checked, ment "soft"!)

When last you checked, you didn't check very hard. Next time, sound a little less pretentious when you're blatantly incorrect. When Bartolomeo Cristofori developed the pianoforte, as it was first known because it was able to achieve contrasts of volume unlike the harpsichord, he wanted it to be called the "arpicembalo", literally "harp-harpsichord". The modern word for the piano is the result of first a combination of che fa' il piano, e il forte, a' due registri principali unisoni (produces soft and loud, with two sets of strings at unison pitch) to pianoforte, and then a gradual clipping over time to just piano. The instrument itself wasn't remotely popular until about 1760, as it was prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest people. Ironically, Cristofori's pianos were actually not as loud as the era's harpsichords.

Harpsichords are by nature much quieter than pianos i.e. they are much more adept at accompanying instruments, especially authentic Baroque instruments that were quieter than their modern counterparts.

Bingo.

I could imagine Liberace playing on a harpsicord, but Jerry Lee Lewis?

Pipe organ!

I think we all know that there are many, many reasons to hate bagpipes...

And the hymn "Amazing Grace" is the very top of the list. That song on bagpipes is proof that gods minions hate us.

Only filthy communists dislike bagpipes. "Amazing Grace" is to blame here. It's nasty maudlin mush.

Only filthy communists dislike bagpipes. "Amazing Grace" is to blame here. It's nasty maudlin mush.

Please. Bagpipe music is the reason so many Scots drink.:p

Edit: I am neither filthy, nor communist. Nor am I hearing impaired, hence my dislike of bagpipes.

I think we all know that there are many, many reasons to hate bagpipes...

Well, we all know about the fearful mismatch of Scots and music....

I don't dislike harpsichords. They have a very nice sound and are great as an accompanying instrument. I just said that I like the piano better, because of its dynamic range. The bagpipe (and organ) on the other hand, excels at something that both the harpsichord and the piano to a lesser extent, lack in.
Sustain.

This is all true. All instruments have their strengths and weaknesses (as my old oboe teacher said, "Playing loudly isn't really your forte, is it?" :tongue:), and as Inta said, comparing instruments to find which is 'best' is rather meaningless.

The piano also introduced even temperament, which, while convenient and best for playing in all keys, robbed each key of its perceived uniqueness. For more on that idea, Google the "doctrine of the affections" from the Baroque era, and look for articles related to the characteristics each key was believed to have. See also the excellent book How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care (http://www.amazon.com/Equal-Temperament-Ruined-Harmony-Should/dp/0393062279/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222143248&sr=1-2).

I will have a gander at these links/suggestions in a few minutes (thanks for those), however those with perfect pitch and synthaesia 'suffers' still retain a sense of each key having its own special qualities. No doubt this would have been more pronounced before, influencing everyone, but surely something like the 48 could not have been written (or at least sound satisfactory) before equal temperament? Or, is it more than now our ears cannot cope with different 5ths sounding different as we've become so accustomed to equal temperament?

Depends. I like the harpsichord more than the piano on the whole, and I believe that harpsichord is better for baroque performance than piano is. That said, I think that the piano is a better instrument for most other genres of music performance. After all, who would want to hear Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No. 2 on Harpsichord? I know I wouldn't.

I voted harpsichord, by the way.

I will have a gander at these links/suggestions in a few minutes (thanks for those), however those with perfect pitch and synthaesia 'suffers' still retain a sense of each key having its own special qualities. No doubt this would have been more pronounced before, influencing everyone, but surely something like the 48 could not have been written (or at least sound satisfactory) before equal temperament? Or, is it more than now our ears cannot cope with different 5ths sounding different as we've become so accustomed to equal temperament?

Equal temperament does allow for compositions to modulate to the composer's heart's desire. Synaesthetes and perfect pitchers still have their perceptions, yes. Modern ears would perceive music from after about 1800 on authentic Baroque instruments as being out of tune, yes.

Equal temperament does allow for compositions to modulate to the composer's heart's desire. Synaesthetes and perfect pitchers still have their perceptions, yes. Modern ears would perceive music from after about 1800 on authentic Baroque instruments as being out of tune, yes.

I am right in thinking 'well-tempered klavier' does refer to equal temperament, or is it something else?

Even though I don't have either of those auditory conditions, I still perceive keys and thus pieces in that key as having a certain character. But, I'm not sure whether this is a holdover from previous tuning systems where the keys were more different, or whether the perception is simply that people believe the keys have different characters so have written pieces following the tradition. Certainly transposing pieces to another key does have ramifications on how I hear something and it effect.

Please. Bagpipe music is the reason so many Scots drink.:p

Edit: I am neither filthy, nor communist. Nor am I hearing impaired, hence my dislike of bagpipes.

I am neither filthy, communist nor hearing imparied and I don't mind bagpipes.

I am right in thinking 'well-tempered klavier' does refer to equal temperament, or is it something else?

Even though I don't have either of those auditory conditions, I still perceive keys and thus pieces in that key as having a certain character. But, I'm not sure whether this is a holdover from previous tuning systems where the keys were more different, or whether the perception is simply that people believe the keys have different characters so have written pieces following the tradition. Certainly transposing pieces to another key does have ramifications on how I hear something and it effect.

To me they have the same emotional feeling moderated by being at a different pitch - but is the pitch not the key. The funeral march played a couple of octaves higher does not have the same effect.

This is incorrect. The harpsichord has no way to sustain notes longer than their default decay time. It has a much smaller range, notes cannot be played in as quick succession, and the player has no control over how the note sounds.



Voice is first presumably? And I'd agree :)

Start at 4:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkz83VFEk1A

Best of both worlds Piano and Voice.

I am right in thinking 'well-tempered klavier' does refer to equal temperament, or is it something else?

Even though I don't have either of those auditory conditions, I still perceive keys and thus pieces in that key as having a certain character. But, I'm not sure whether this is a holdover from previous tuning systems where the keys were more different, or whether the perception is simply that people believe the keys have different characters so have written pieces following the tradition. Certainly transposing pieces to another key does have ramifications on how I hear something and it effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_Tempered_Clavier#Composition_history

Tuning is a concept that has a long and contested history.

To me they have the same emotional feeling moderated by being at a different pitch - but is the pitch not the key. The funeral march played a couple of octaves higher does not have the same effect.

Octave change is rather larger than I was meaning, but does illustrate possible transformations of character. Sometimes changing by, say, a tone or minor third can significantly change the character, more so than I would expect from just the simple difference of high and low.

Some people I know have quite distinctive descriptions of keys, such as E major being 'noble' or something, but I'm never sure if the key of E has any inherent noble quality or just that there are many pieces of a noble character written in this key.

Start at 4:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkz83VFEk1A

Best of both worlds Piano and Voice.

Lol :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_Tempered_Clavier#Composition_history

Tuning is a concept that has a long and contested history.

Ah, thanks for that.

Intangelon, if I ever decide to take a class on music, I will seek you out. You obviously know your stuff.

surely something like the 48 could not have been written (or at least sound satisfactory) before equal temperament?
In each of the 48 keys, certain of the intervals would have been near perfect, others of them not so; thus, Bach wrote a different type of piece for each key, but showed that each key had enough "good" intervals to be usable.

Octave change is rather larger than I was meaning, but does illustrate possible transformations of character. Sometimes changing by, say, a tone or minor third can significantly change the character, more so than I would expect from just the simple difference of high and low.

Some people I know have quite distinctive descriptions of keys, such as E major being 'noble' or something, but I'm never sure if the key of E has any inherent noble quality or just that there are many pieces of a noble character written in this key.



Lol :)



Ah, thanks for that.

I find it hard to imagine that with an even tempered instrument this is possible. So I tend more towards the idea that it is an association between particular pieces and keys. While pondering this I was completely stumped as to how to design an experiment to test the idea.

Octave change is rather larger than I was meaning, but does illustrate possible transformations of character. Sometimes changing by, say, a tone or minor third can significantly change the character, more so than I would expect from just the simple difference of high and low.

Some people I know have quite distinctive descriptions of keys, such as E major being 'noble' or something, but I'm never sure if the key of E has any inherent noble quality or just that there are many pieces of a noble character written in this key.

The Doctrine of the Affections (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/baroqueideal.html) helped explain some people's perceptions of emotional properties of certain keys.

For example, In Handel's Messiah, the movement in which Christ dies is in D minor, and the Hallelujah Chorus (resurrection) is in D major. In a mass, when the Trinity is being invoked, the key is usually A major or E-flat major: both have three accidentals (3 sharps for A, 3 flats for Eb). Lots of symbolism in Baroque music.

I find it hard to imagine that with an even tempered instrument this is possible. So I tend more towards the idea that it is an association between particular pieces and keys. While pondering this I was completely stumped as to how to design an experiment to test the idea.

The Doctrine of the Affections (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/baroqueideal.html) helped explain some people's perceptions of emotional properties of certain keys.

For example, In Handel's Messiah, the movement in which Christ dies is in D minor, and the Hallelujah Chorus (resurrection) is in D major. In a mass, when the Trinity is being invoked, the key is usually A major or E-flat major: both have three accidentals (3 sharps for A, 3 flats for Eb). Lots of symbolism in Baroque music.

This does boil down to whether emotions are inherent in musical phrases or some product of our prior experiences, or a combination.

That link says rising thirds would always be perceived as euphoric, but I see this as simplistic. Put into the bass or with octatonic accidentals, it would be more nervous and fearful. Put into a whole tone scale, placed on french horns rather than low clarinets, all would have differing 'affects'. There are far more variables than answers.

In the Baroque it was clearly the thing to assign keys to certain characters or events, but in the twentieth century there is no such pressure, yet people will perceive pieces in certain keys having character, and may write music in certain characters deliberately. Personally, I find the weight of previous music in certain keys more influential, in the same way my tonal memory works by remembering the pitch of certain pieces and producing the central pitch without reference.

I’m going to have to go with the piano (or the pianoforte) for two important reasons.

The advantage of the pianoforte (literally soft/loud) is the ability to on a key by key basis produce volumes from soft to loud. This can be duplicated on other types of instruments (for example harpsichords with multiple keyboards) but for sheer variety of dynamics nothing can beat the power of the piano. Even standard player pianos could not capture the dynamic possibilities of the instrument. Several special types of player pianos were created that could do this but they are extremely rare and currently in museums.

The second advantage is that the piano can sustain a note longer than the harpsichord. Thus it is a bridge in some ways between the harpsichord and the organ. The lack of sustain in the harpsichord is one of the reasons why keyboard of the baroque era is constantly moving; you have to press a lot of notes on a harpsichord if you want to have a full sound experience.

(Note that in this era, until the era of advanced organ keyboards it was difficult to get a rapidly moving melody line in the organ.)

The piano is a musical instrument played by means of a keyboard that produces sound by striking steel strings with felt hammers. The hammers immediately rebound allowing the strings to continue vibrating at their resonant frequency. These vibrations are transmitted through a bridge to a soundboard that amplifies them.

A harpsichord is a musical instrument played by means of a keyboard. It produces sound by plucking a string when each key is pressed.

As a Piano player...I'm going with Piano.

Harpsichords are silly.

This does boil down to whether emotions are inherent in musical phrases or some product of our prior experiences, or a combination.

That link says rising thirds would always be perceived as euphoric, but I see this as simplistic. Put into the bass or with octatonic accidentals, it would be more nervous and fearful. Put into a whole tone scale, placed on french horns rather than low clarinets, all would have differing 'affects'. There are far more variables than answers.

In the Baroque it was clearly the thing to assign keys to certain characters or events, but in the twentieth century there is no such pressure, yet people will perceive pieces in certain keys having character, and may write music in certain characters deliberately. Personally, I find the weight of previous music in certain keys more influential, in the same way my tonal memory works by remembering the pitch of certain pieces and producing the central pitch without reference.

True, we don't hear music except in the context of all the other music we have already heard.

Not only did I get invited, I got invited 4 times!!

Depends. When the piece was written for cembalo, I prefer to hear it on the cembalo. It sounds better. On the other hand, works written specially for the pianoforte sound much better on the pianoforte than they would on the cembalo. Works that could go with either one (such as the keyboard suites of J.S. Bach) to my ear definitely sound better on the pianoforte, but then I am a pianofortist and thus somewhat biased.

<.<

This does boil down to whether emotions are inherent in musical phrases or some product of our prior experiences, or a combination.

That link says rising thirds would always be perceived as euphoric, but I see this as simplistic. Put into the bass or with octatonic accidentals, it would be more nervous and fearful. Put into a whole tone scale, placed on french horns rather than low clarinets, all would have differing 'affects'. There are far more variables than answers.

Uh...what Baroque composer can you name was composing in the whole-tone scale? Also, no clarinets in the Baroque era. And what the hell are "octatonic accidentals"? I'm a music prof, and although I've never heard of them, I Googled that pairing in quotes and found only this thread.

In the Baroque it was clearly the thing to assign keys to certain characters or events, but in the twentieth century there is no such pressure, yet people will perceive pieces in certain keys having character, and may write music in certain characters deliberately. Personally, I find the weight of previous music in certain keys more influential, in the same way my tonal memory works by remembering the pitch of certain pieces and producing the central pitch without reference.

Relative pitch (as opposed to perfect pitch).

Uh...what Baroque composer can you name was composing in the whole-tone scale? Also, no clarinets in the Baroque era. And what the hell are "octatonic accidentals"? I'm a music prof, and although I've never heard of them, I Googled that pairing in quotes and found only this thread.



Relative pitch (as opposed to perfect pitch).

Different music schools sometimes refer to the same things by different names. I know that there are some terms used in the UCSC music department that are by no means universal.

Uh...what Baroque composer can you name was composing in the whole-tone scale? Also, no clarinets in the Baroque era. And what the hell are "octatonic accidentals"? I'm a music prof, and although I've never heard of them, I Googled that pairing in quotes and found only this thread.

I wasn't referring to the Baroque era.

(Though to be the smart arse, D. Scarlatti used some whole-tone modulations: one piece I've seen where it's in, I think, Bb major, then in the B section a sequence takes it up in tones to E major. 'Twas an odd piece.)

I was meaning making a scale conform to the octatonic scale. It was a poor way of expressing it, sorry.

Relative pitch (as opposed to perfect pitch).

Indeed.

If you want to be able to play loud and soft and sustain your notes, the piano is the way to go. If you don't, then have fun with your harpsichord.

Pianoforte

I was meaning making a scale conform to the octatonic scale. It was a poor way of expressing it, sorry.

Well, it really all depends on context. A rising octatonic scale in thirds, played slowly and quietly by (say) a pair of clarinets, legato, under sustained violin harmonics, punctuated on occasions by rhythmic figures on the temple blocks, will sound appropriately eerie and atmospheric. Played quickly by the same pair of clarinets, staccato, with the accompaniment of pizzicato strings and dissonant snap chords in the brass, the effect will be more grotesque or "scherzando".

Of course, nobody worried much about things like this in the Baroque era, because conventions regarding writing music were somewhat more strict and thus sequences of ascending thirds were generally written in the major scale, which is rather difficult to make "nervous" or "gloomy". (Ascending thirds in minor, especially when extending a dominant seventh to a ninth, are decidedly non-euphoric, but I also don't recall them being used much before the time of Mozart.)

I wasn't referring to the Baroque era.

(Though to be the smart arse, D. Scarlatti used some whole-tone modulations: one piece I've seen where it's in, I think, Bb major, then in the B section a sequence takes it up in tones to E major. 'Twas an odd piece.)

I was meaning making a scale conform to the octatonic scale. It was a poor way of expressing it, sorry.

Octotonic = Eight pitches. Usually known as diminished scales where I was taught, starting either on the half-step or whole step and alternating from there until the octave is reached. [C, D, Eb, F, F#, G#, A, B, C] or [C, Db, Eb, E, F#, G, A, Bb, C]

Vojvodina's talking about arpeggiating diminished triads in thirds. Nothing inherently eerie about that. The fact that V has to add other instruments kinda emphasizes my point.

Scarlatti wasn't the only one. Check out some of Carlo Gesualdo's madrigals. That guy had no regard for secunda prattica rules. Then again, he murdered his family and was so badly constipated, he had to have a couple of guys literally beat the shit out of him. That doesn't mean that they were deliberately composing in the whole-tone scales. Before Rameau in 1722, much of what we know as music theory was just handed down or local custom and wasn't set down as "law".

Vojvodina's talking about arpeggiating diminished triads in thirds. Nothing inherently eerie about that. The fact that V has to add other instruments kinda emphasizes my point.

Well, mine was that "meaning" in music depends on a lot of different elements, so you can't really isolate just one and assign it a meaning (because that one element in a different context might mean something different). I'm not entirely sure which of you I'm agreeing with, though.

Anyway, back to keys: part of the reason one key may be more effective than another is because of register. For instance, one could argue that Chopin's funeral march (mentioned earlier) is in B-flat minor primarily because it is low enough on the piano to be lugubrious, without being so low as to sound muddy; and that the choice of B-flat minor allows the melody to rise into a differently-timbred register of the piano only to fall again, et cetera. The question would then be whether it loses any of its character if transposed into a nearby key (such as A minor).

Likewise, the traditional use of D major as the key of "ceremonial brilliance" could be because D and A are open strings on all stringed instruments, giving it resonant power, and brass instruments in D (especially trumpets) are higher pitched and thus brighter. On the other hand, D major does also sound fairly brilliant on the piano, so maybe the Baroques were on to something.

(Do let me know when I stop making sense.)

Well, mine was that "meaning" in music depends on a lot of different elements, so you can't really isolate just one and assign it a meaning (because that one element in a different context might mean something different). I'm not entirely sure which of you I'm agreeing with, though.

Anyway, back to keys: part of the reason one key may be more effective than another is because of register. For instance, one could argue that Chopin's funeral march (mentioned earlier) is in B-flat minor primarily because it is low enough on the piano to be lugubrious, without being so low as to sound muddy; and that the choice of B-flat minor allows the melody to rise into a differently-timbred register of the piano only to fall again, et cetera. The question would then be whether it loses any of its character if transposed into a nearby key (such as A minor).

Likewise, the traditional use of D major as the key of "ceremonial brilliance" could be because D and A are open strings on all stringed instruments, giving it resonant power, and brass instruments in D (especially trumpets) are higher pitched and thus brighter. On the other hand, D major does also sound fairly brilliant on the piano, so maybe the Baroques were on to something.

(Do let me know when I stop making sense.)

Why stop now when we're having so much fun? :p Excellent observations, by the way.

Why stop now when we're having so much fun? :p Excellent observations, by the way.

I have an excellent observation that you have TG. *nods*

Well, it really all depends on context.....

Octotonic = Eight pitches. Usually known as....

I fear my original point was misunderstood in focusing on one part of it. I was saying how a device such as rising thirds can be transformed to express different things with small changes in pitch/instrumentation/other variables. I wasn't saying octatonicism = nervy, merely that it was a possible way of achieving it, or, indeed, other emotions.

Moods in music are a combination of a huge number of variables. Generalisations can be made about what certain transformations do to the mood, but to say one equals the other is too simplified. This was my criticism of the 'Doctrine of Affects' which made out that rising thirds necessarily meant euphoria. However, this doctrine made sense to the Baroque composer, and in the weakening of musical rules over the centuries the ways of creating different moods have considerably grown (though, of course, the greatest composers found ways around the constraints of their era).

(Hopefully, I've been more clear than I was.)

Scarlatti wasn't the only one. Check out some of Carlo Gesualdo's madrigals. That guy had no regard for secunda prattica rules. Then again, he murdered his family and was so badly constipated, he had to have a couple of guys literally beat the shit out of him. That doesn't mean that they were deliberately composing in the whole-tone scales. Before Rameau in 1722, much of what we know as music theory was just handed down or local custom and wasn't set down as "law".

Gesualdo is certainly odd to sing, and to read his biography, though I do like his music, 'O vos omnes' especially. The same thing as before, I wasn't saying Baroque composers had anything really to do with the whole-tone scale, my comments were far more broad in chronology.

I cannot choose. I like them both! The piano for the passion I derive from it, and the harpsichord for it´s haunting sound.

I fear my original point was misunderstood in focusing on one part of it. I was saying how a device such as rising thirds can be transformed to express different things with small changes in pitch/instrumentation/other variables. I wasn't saying octatonicism = nervy, merely that it was a possible way of achieving it, or, indeed, other emotions.

Moods in music are a combination of a huge number of variables. Generalisations can be made about what certain transformations do to the mood, but to say one equals the other is too simplified. This was my criticism of the 'Doctrine of Affects' which made out that rising thirds necessarily meant euphoria. However, this doctrine made sense to the Baroque composer, and in the weakening of musical rules over the centuries the ways of creating different moods have considerably grown (though, of course, the greatest composers found ways around the constraints of their era).

(Hopefully, I've been more clear than I was.)

Gesualdo is certainly odd to sing, and to read his biography, though I do like his music, 'O vos omnes' especially. The same thing as before, I wasn't saying Baroque composers had anything really to do with the whole-tone scale, my comments were far more broad in chronology.

I got it. Sorry about that. I sometimes get territorial on music threads. BAD me! *smacks own head with his Ashura chain*

I got it. Sorry about that. I sometimes get territorial on music threads. BAD me! *smacks own head with his Ashura chain*

No worry. I know I'm not the best at explaining my thoughts out loud. And don't worry about your conduct in music threads, I always expect to find some interesting facts in your posts in these threads. You are a professor after all.

My music craze at the moment is Pérotin, especially when sung by the Hilliard Ensemble. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to study it specifically in my papers this coming year.