Talk:History of the harpsichord

Startup

I've made this a satellite article of Harpsichord. Since some of the Talk for that article is relevant here, I'm pasting it in below. Opus33 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not derived from the cymbalum

I'm moved this passage to the talk page:

In most European languages, the word for "harpsichord" is some variation of clavicembalo (Latin clavis "key" + cymbalum, an instrument similar to the psaltery). This word is also occasionally used in English, sometimes in the form clavicymbal or clavisymbal.

If you look at cymbalum, you'll find it says that it is a folk instrument of Eastern Europe. I have never seen it said anywhere that the harpsichord originates from the cymbalum, and I'd be very reluctant to put this in the Wikipedia without citing a reference source.

This edit, by Keenan Pepper, apparently derives from a wish to delete a former stub article on clavicembalo that merely defined what it is and redirected to harpsichord. But my impression is that clavicembalo is virtually never used in English. We don't normally provide a list of foreign synonyms (i.e. we don't include "pomme" in Apple or "uva" in Grape)), so it's not clear we should be discussing it at all.

I would also suggest that any further editing on this point be preceded by consultation of reference sources.

Opus33 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)\

My dictionary says that cembalo is derived from 'cymbalum (latin) from 'kymbalon (greek) from 'kymbe: ("container"). The harpsichord may well be derived from the cymbalum as it was an antique instrument, made as a container with strings attached to it. The strings were plucked by fingers. The instrument is depicted on several medieval paintings. See http://baptitou.free.fr/Estella/cymbalum/Index.htm . The folk instrument and the harpsichord have probably nothing in common, except that they both are derived from the medieval cymbalum. 80.164.17.212 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) E Kristiansen

Use in popular music

I added a brief note on the harpsichord's recent use by session musicuan Larry Knetchel. As Peter Isotalo said above, "It's always nice to have some connection to modern popular music." Since millions of people were introduced to the harpsichord by Knetchel's work, I would appreciate it if my reference to him were not vandalized again. Cranston Lamont 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor old italians?

The article gives the impression that Italian harpsi's went nowhere, either historically or musically after the Renaissance - can this be right? And as for being 'considered pleasing but unspectacular' ... by who, please, and why should we take that opinion seriously? Was Frescobaldi chopped liver?

While it reads nicely to have a grand narrative of the 'development' of the harpsichord moving from Italy to Flanders to France and England, this is obtained at the cost of throwing away at least three-quarters of history, for example what happened in the Netherlands after Ruckers, or in France before the ravalements happened, or in Spain or Germany at any point at all ;-)

... and what's with Baroque harpsichord composers being numerous in "Italy, Germany and, above all, France"? Has anyone counted 'em? --Tdent 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tdent, I wrote this long ago and herely list my source. It's Frank Hubbard (cited in article) who says those things about Italian harpsichords; I don't think he meant to imply that Frescobaldi was chopped liver. The "grand narrative" comes straight out of the chapter organization of Hubbard's book, though the original is more nuanced than the summary.

For work on more advanced Italian harpsichords, I have found the papers by Grant O'Brien to be very intriguing: http://www.claviantica.com/.

It's clear that we need more than just the outline history we have now, and I hope there are people with professional level expertise who can take this on. I am just a Hubbard fan/channeler.

Whatever gets changed, however, will involve major organizational problems, keep all those traditions straight. I believe that daughter articles linked from the main article would be the best approach. Cheers, Opus33 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cembalo's edits

I'm quite concerned with the edits that Cembalo has been putting in this article. I judge that they are very much in violation of the policy posted at Wikipedia:NPOV, and also that since they are not including any reference sources, they violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. Opus33 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits revised

My contributions to the German harpsichord section have now been revised, both to be in compliance with a neutral point of view and to be verifiable. The stipulation regarding the presence of a German harpsichord design in Frank Hubbard's book can be verified easily. It is more difficult to trace the entire output of Hubbard, Dowd, and their followers, but the stipulation that this group of builders made few German-style harpsichords seems hardly in question. I would doubt that anyone would seriously dispute that assertion. The stipulations regarding the increasing use of harpsichords of German Baroque design by leading harpsichordists (Staier, Hill, Parmentier, and others) can be verified by looking at the World's Encyclopedia of Recorded Music, Supplement. I would argue that these performers are "leading" on the basis of the prominent lables for which they record, the extent of their record sales, and their importance in discussions of new directions in harpsichord performance in the major trade magazines (Goldberg, Early Music, etc.).

Scope of this article

Unfortunately for us editors, the word "harpsichord" is ambiguous; it denotes both the general family of string instruments that produce sound with a keyboard, jacks, and plectra; and also the largest, wing-shaped member of this family.

I'd like this article to be about the whole family; I think this would be most useful to our readers. After all, many of the great builders built more than one kind of harpsichord, so it's natural to discuss the varieties all in one place. Thus, for now I think we ought to leave in the pictures of virginals, and a near-term task would be to add parallel discussion of the history of these instruments as well. I hope this seems reasonable. Opus33 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning Opus33, but don't really agree with it. By the same argument there should be pictures of muselaars, spinets and claviorganums too. I have added "Virginals" to the "See also" section. The history of the virginal is dealt with at length under that article, and I should have thought that the reader should be directed to the main article in question rather than including what are rather puzzling (for the reader) pics of not-harpsichords. After all, the term virginal" historically included harpsichords, but I've never seen evidence that the reverse was true. The sections where there are pics of virginals don't even have the word in the text. Still, leave the virginal pics in if you insist - I wish someone would post a better pic of the English virginal, which is of shockingly bad quality. Is there not a copyright-free pic of the Player virginal in the Cobb Collection? Nick Michael (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick. I'm not trying to be pig-headed, it's just that if you read Frank Hubbard or Edward Kottick you will see that they treat all kinds of harpsichords, including virginals, as falling within the scope of the topic "history of the "harpsichord". Our own opinions actually count for nothing on WP; we are only transducers of the scholarly literature and we should transduce it as faithfully as we can.

So, I think this article ought actually to be expanded, covering, for instance, the gradual replacement of virginals in homes by bentside spinets. And indeed it should have pictures of all kinds of harpsichords.

Virginal is a nice article, b.t.w. Opus33 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Transducers eh? Speak for yourself Opus! As I said, I do see your point, but still don't agree with it. Well, not entirely, anyway. Kottick couldn't have published a book called "History of the Bentside Spinet" any more than Hubbard could have published one called "Three Centuries of the Muselaar" because of economics. So they incorporated these instruments into their "History of the Harpsichord" or whatever. But we on WP have the advantage over them, in that we can, easily and freely, publish an article if we wish, called "A History of the Muselaar Plectrum, from Crow Quill to Delrin". Or "The Incidence of Grand Ravalement in Harpsichords in the Paris Area from 1632 to 1725". Well, you see what I mean. I just would have thought that separate articles for each instrument are called for. Anyway, it's fun to argue over... Best wishes Nick Michael (talk)!

Merger

• Agree. --Kleinzach 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. No obvious reason for recent history to be in a separate article. --Deskford (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. The main Harpsichord article is already quite long, and moreover our coverage of the harpsichord is quite sketchy and needs more work (given the goals of WP, one ought to be able to learn as much here as you could by reading Hubbard's and Kottick's books). So we need an architecture that accommodates expansion. Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Followup: oops, sorry, I thought the proposal was to merge History of the Harpsichord into Harpsichord. I'm ok with this proposal, though I could go either way. Opus33 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Although I agree that the main History of the Harpsichord article is quite long, it makes more sense to me for a History to comprise up to the present day. If there were to be two articles, where do you make the cut-off date? It's too easy to say 1800 - or 1900 (for example) - there were harpsichordists around in the C19, however rare (my teacher pointed one or two out, but I can't remember right now, sorry!). BTW, I still think the physical length of the article should be shortened by omitting pics of virginals (although I once had a discussion with someone who justified them in the harpsichord article). Nick Michael (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I see it now: it was you Opus33, above! Still for virginal pics in the harpsi section? Isn't it like including Beethoven in the Bach article? Well, they all made sounds, didn't they? (Honestly, I don't feel that strongly about it, so don't mind me...). Nick Michael (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"(also because the plucking point was further away from the nut)"

This sentence (concerning the innovations of the Flemish harpsichord) is currently going back and forth (Anon deleted, Nick readded). My take on the issue is this: it's true that Anon gave no reason for removing it, so it looks like a "drive-by edit". Yet, if I remember rightly, it was originally added as a drive-by edit -- no reference source. The sentence worrries me because I don't recall seeing anything like this in the reference sources I've read (Hubbard, various Kottick). And often the choice of plucking point is not a matter of national style, but actually defines the difference in tonal quality between the various stops on a single instrument. So my current feeling is, yes, this sentence could go back in, but it should only go back in if it is supported by a good reference source. I hope this seems reasonable. Opus33 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just looked through Grant O'Brien to see if it came from that, but no luck. Agree with you Opus... Nick Michael (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Integrate Clavicymbalum?

There was some discussion on this 7 years back, but the Clavicymbalum is not just another word for a hammered dulcimer, there is documentation of an early instrument resembling a psaltery to which keys/jacks/plectra, but no dampening mechanism, were added. I just made a short article on the instrument based on the French WP article: Clavicymbalum. Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a link. Opus33 (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)