Trills, Pianos, and Harpsicords

[Glyptodont]

I was listening to a pianist playing some Scarlatti today while driving in my car, and it occurred to me--

Some of this music was originally written for harpsichord, right?  Even some of the Bach keyboard music.  (Although probably much of it was originally for organ.)

Does this explain why some of this music has so many trills, and long trills at that?  Because the only way to sustain a tone on a harpsichord is to trill?

Do you suppose the period when both the pianoforte and the harpsichord were popular concert instruments also explains some of the character of 17th and 18th century music?  Because some of the composers were treating the piano as though it were a harpsicord, or   -- to tone that down a little -- perhaps failing to appreciate some of the potential of the piano?

Marshall MacLuhan once wrote, "we drive into the future with our eyes on the rear view mirror." 

I hope this doesn't seem too dumb a post, but as I play some of the music of this period I can't help but wonder   . . . . .

[c18cont]

About trills,

Your take is one I was taught in my freshman college year...

John Cont

[xvimbi]

I hope this doesn't seem too dumb a post, but as I play some of the music of this period I can't help but wonder   . . . . .

It is not dumb a question at all, and kudos to you if you figured this out by yourself. However, you should indeed get informed about the role of ornaments in Baroque music and what the harpsichord and its limited features have to do with it. Yes, ornaments have mainly been used to overcome those limitations and to "spice things up." They are often the only means to accentuate a particularly important melody note. Consequently, it shouldn't be too surprising that there are people out there who would like to do away with ornaments altogether and instead use the capabilities of the modern piano for articulation.

There are tons of threads on this forum about ornamentation. What are you waiting for?

[theodopolis]

Also if you've ever tried a harpsichord action; trills, mordents, ornaments of every kind are simply irresistible. The crispness of the action and the crunch of the strings makes even the most ridiculously florid trills sound dramatic and profound.

... you also find yourself arpeggiating every chord you play.

[keyboarder]

Hello, I'm a newcomer to this site. I used to study harpsichord. To answer some of the original questions: Scarlatti and Bach were certainly written with the harpsichord in mind. They did not specify what instrument because it was a given that it would be played on the only keyboard instruments of the day, either harpsichord or organ. The use of trills and ornaments were included not so much because the instruments couldn't sustain sound (organs certainly can), but because that was simply the style of the day. Like jazz artists, it was expected that a keyboard player would improvise. Fortunately, harpsichordists and a lot of the good pianists today know that it's perfectly valid to add a few trills and ornaments to Bach and other composers of that era, so we get to hear this music in a new and more personal way.
In regards to keyboard composers "treating the piano like a harpsichord"--in fact, pianos of that era sounded more like harpsichords than modern pianos. They weren't triple-strung; they didn't have metal bracing in the frame, and you couldn't subject a wooden frame to all that pressure; consequently, the sound was light and decayed quickly. Did you know that the sustain pedal is supposed to be held down for the entire opening movement of the Moonlight Sonata? You could never do that with a modern instrument.
Since you're playing music of this era, it would probably help to go to a few harpsichord concerts or even take a few lessons if you can find a good instrument and teacher.  Murray Perahia did so, and it clearly shows in his Bach recordings.

[c18cont]

Hi Friends,

I wonder that none have related to the clavichord..(It is said that Bach constantly had a problem with his clavichord due to the wonderful possibilities of expression, that caused him to weep into the instrument..(Quoted by several auth..tho' I can recall none....)..)

Perhaps overstated; however I have played clavichord for a very small audience when I was studying early keyboard techniques in university..(I assume all know why the audience was small)l...It can indeed be expressive..where to accomplish such an effect with the harpsichord depends on ornamentation...AND the actual literature...

I never cared much for harpsichord; it seems limited to me, a person given to extreme romanticism, but I recall the instruction I was required to take, and still believe it's content.

While ornamentation certainly expressed the style of the day, and was first and last a PART of the keyboard of that day, the simple truth is that the sustain time on the harpsichord is somewhat short, and at least in part, long trills aided in a connected and sustained line where need, (Which was not often, given the literature of the harpsichord...),and was surely a part of the purpose of long trills. Also recall the rather large change in touch required when additional registers were added..(actually rather uncommon on most instruments for much of the era...)

Of more interest may be the possibility of extreme expression on the clavichord, as mentioned above. It is a fact that fine instruments are available today and are worth some time in study...I did in fact sell mine, for cash for another instrument, soon out of college I can say that none relates to the piano anyway; a completely different technique comes into play for piano...

John Cont