this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13015 readers
61 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I didn’t need proof myself, but I suppose it’s comforting nevertheless to have it mathematically confirmed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

He was! But he overused the harpsichord, in my very humble and unfounded opinion, and it hurts my ears to listen to a lot of his creation. I get why he did (the piano was still a very new creation, and the harpsichord could be more easily heard in concert halls), but it sure does pierce the eardrum these days.

[–] hakase@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

To provide a dissenting opinion, I've always preferred harpsichords to pianos, which is one of the reasons I love Bach so much.

Pianos somehow sound simultaneously harsher than harpsichords with the off-putting initial clunk of the keys, and boringly muted in comparison.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 3 points 9 months ago

Harpsichord always seems so frilly and thin. Piano has more depth and range of emotion, more dynamics.

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago

I do love a lot of his music. It’s just difficult to hear the shrill of the harpsichord, for me.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago

Hmm, what percentage of his stuff was written for organ, I wonder? Wikipedia says that was his claim to fame while still alive, and there's an instrument that still holds up.