LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2015

ARSCLIST April 2015

Subject:

Re: Harpsichord recordings

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:25:05 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

Hi Dave:

I think you're making a bunch of good points.

One thing I think you're saying is that older harpsichord recordings were made too close-in, which
leads to clipped percussives when the strings are plucked, especially if one is setting references
levels using VU meters, which don't respond quickly enough to account for those percussives.

In the older recordings, I think you hear a more natural harpsichord when it's used as an
accompaniment to a chamber orchestra, such as some of the recordings made in Vienna by Decca. When
the mics are stood off from the harpsichord, and it is playing as part of an ensemble, you don't
hear as much mechanical noise and it sounds more as a plucked-string instrument, which it is.

However, as a solo instrument, the big problem with harpsichords in the tape days -- especially the
days before low-noise tape and various NR systems -- was that many of the instruments (especially
the antiques) just didn't put out a lot of SPL in the part of their sound where the string is
ringing (ie the note is sounding). As you said, the plucking percussive is quite a bit higher SPL.
So if one were to stand off mics and keep levels low enough to get very clean percussives of a solo
instrument, one usually ended up with too much tape hiss or LP surface noise for the project to be
commercially viable.

What David Breneman is hearing in modern recordings is likely the very low noise and higher
available dynamic range of all halfway decent modern digital recording systems. I would say, given
an instrument that will stay in tune and is well-played, and given a good acoustic setting, you
could make a harpsichord recording today with my little Zoom H4n that would sound better (ie more
natural and less distorted) than most vintage efforts. However, you don't have Rafael Puyana and a
host of other greats to play it anymore, because they are all dead.

Also for what it's worth, that Puyana Soler album was recorded closer-in than his earlier Mercury
records. In fact, the big problem with the earlier records was picking a time to do them when
traffic noise and subway noise wasn't too noticeable, because the instrument is much quieter than a
piano, and 3 Schoeps M201 mics stood off a bit picked up quite a lot of noise outside the building.

Bottom line, the harpsichord is a difficult instrument to record but modern technology lends itself
to the task better than what was available 50 years ago. I think the harpsichord heyday in modern
culture was the late 60's and early 70's when electric and acoustic harpsichord playing infused
psychodellic and pop music and appeared in TV commercials and soundtrack scores. In more recent
times, it seems to have receded back into the realm of the solo-classical niche. Interestingly,
though, some sort of psuedo harpsichord sound is still a standard pre-set on just about any
synthesizer.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:04 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Harpsichord recordings


> After a recent posting, I was asked off line to explain why harpsichords were so difficult to
> record in the '50s. After I answered this person, he/she said I should post the explanation on
> line, (I won't reveal who it was but they'll be reading this and they can if they like).
> First, let me emphasize that this comment was NOT a criticism of Mercury records, the Puyana
> recordings are as fine as any harpsichord recordings of their day, (in fact, the tonal range of
> those recordings is astounding), the criticism was of the state of the art of harpsichord
> recordings in those days and earlier. As I think most people know, unlike a piano where the string
> is hit with a felt hammer, and hence it's name, (piano is short for pianoforte, soft-loud), the
> harpsichord's strings are plucked with a plectrum and is capable of very little dynamic range -
> depressing the key very slowly or hitting it very hard produces a note of virtually the same
> amplitude.
>
> Unlike any other instrument, when I first heard a real harpsichord, my first impression was how
> much it DIDN'T sound like a recorded harpsichord. Until the '70s, the standard level measuring
> device was the volume-unit, (VU), meter. The behavior of this meter was designed to simulate the
> response of the human ear. A "VU" is identical in intensity change to a "dB". In the '70s the
> Peak Program Meter, (PPM) was introduced which measured the peak value of an audio signal - peaks
> that a VU meter missed. The sound of every note on a harpsichord is preceded with a peak at the
> point of string plucking which can be as much as 20 dB higher than the body of the note. If you
> mike a harpsichord and measure the sound simultaneously with a VU meter and a PPM, you can set the
> volume of the sound so that it's reaching reference level on the PPM but the VU meter is barely
> moving. These peaks are very important in recreating the sound of a harpsichord but if you
> raise the level until the VU meter is responding at reference level, you'll be clipping off these
> high amplitude peaks, hence the usual sound of recorded harpsichords from the '50s and '60s and
> earlier. If you record a harpsichord using only a PPM as your level setting device, you'll be
> amazed how "real" the instrument sounds on the recording, (this assuming that you are listening to
> it at a level that simulates the level of an actual harpsichord and not at the level you would
> listen to Mahler's 3rd Symphony).
>
> There were some early exceptions, of course; in my experience, the earliest recording that did a
> good job of capturing the actual sound of a harpsichord was Bach's "Brandenburg Concerto No. 5",
> I've forgotten who the artists were, (and I'm currently in Florida away from my records), but this
> was a DGG/Archive recording in the old cream coloured jackets where each disc was initialed by the
> engineer and/or the producer. Each disc was also accompanied by an index card with all the info
> about the recording.
>
> db
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager