- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
I didn’t need proof myself, but I suppose it’s comforting nevertheless to have it mathematically confirmed.
I didn’t need proof myself, but I suppose it’s comforting nevertheless to have it mathematically confirmed.
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.
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.
Harpsichord always seems so frilly and thin. Piano has more depth and range of emotion, more dynamics.
I do love a lot of his music. It’s just difficult to hear the shrill of the harpsichord, for me.
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.