On 1 Sep 2009 at 20:05, Ray Horton wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > ... > > > > ajr > > who still thinks that Landowska's Bach is some of the best on record > > I suppose the point, about Landowska's metal harpsichord, is that it > was at least heard before it is judged.
While I'm glad Landowska had something built to play, as it she was such a compelling proponent of playing Bach on something other than the modern piano, she didn't have the benefit of all the research that was done after her pioneering work in the history of the instrument. Given that, I can't see how you'd want to pursue the analogy, since it's quite clear that a lot more is known about the historical ophecleide(s) today than Landowska knew about historical harpsichords. To me, that leaves no real excuse for taking the Landowska route of inventing a new instrument that vaguely resembles the historical model you're aiming for. > I am sure there are some real differences in piano construction between > the late 1700s and now, yet even Mr. Fenton allows the name to persist. Er, no. It is conventional to use the term "fortepiano," as they did at the time, to refer to the instrument of Mozart's period and beyond. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
