Talk:Harpsichord

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Harpsichord received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Should we use material from the French Wikipedia?

If anyone can translate French to English, there is an excellent (huge) featured article on the French wikipedia which could usefully be translated to English in its entirety. The Italian one, while featured, is nowhere near as comprehensive as the French.

there are 2 copyright free harpsichord images on the french Wiki 212.234.182.154 15:53, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Harpsichord music

You might like to mention that the Harpsichord also gained some popularity in light Jazz music during the 60s, particularly in Britain. For example the theme tunes to the Avengers and Danger Man AKA Secret Agent TV programs from the 60s both feature Harpsichords. Also Lalo Shifrin sometimes featured harpsichords in his jazz recordings during the 60s.

Another influence from the 60's, at least for me, was the TV version of The Addams Family, wherein Lurch, the butler, was often seen to unwind by playing the harpsichord. I started a lifelong interest in this instrument because of this show. While this fact seems much too frivolous to put on the main page of this well done article, it is nice to be able to note it here in case it sparks the memory of other wikiuser of my age.MarnetteD | Talk 16:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about talk of harpsichord music today? I know I have heard use of harpsichord in songs by Tori Amos and Suzanne Vega -- but this is certainly not in the style most associate with the harpsichord. Perhaps this is of significance, perhaps not. --Jacqui M Schedler 04:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the instrument, not any particular style of music. Please add a line or two about it if you'd like to. It's always nice to have some connection to modern popular music.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My listening skills when it comes to the harpsichord are not their best, but can anyone confirm that a harpsichord is used in the Massive Attack song Teardrop? Bennity 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but very likely a sampled harpsichord. The chords are piano, but there's a little melody played on harpsi that plays throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.76.207 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Rameau (1681-1752), is another French contributor of harpsichord music during the 18th century. This includes trios for violin, harpsichord and viola da gamba. There are a number of recordings available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.113.112 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No More Modern References!!!

"In addition, the silver and small screen composer, Danny Elfman, often uses harpsichord in jazz and classic pieces in his composition, such as the soundtrack for Tim Burton's Corpse Bride which uses both genres."

It says classical. Start a new category for soundtracks if you want. Don't put modern references where it says classical!!! Why is it on Wikipedia there must be modern references for everything!!!

Certainly - harpsichord usage in a modern context is almost always by people who are using it simply as a sound effect or as a cheap way to create a centuries-old feel. This is a very musically insignificant area and only deserves a sentence or two of comment. In pop music it is just the harpsichord sound from an electronic keyboard and should be identified as such if it has to be mentioned at all. Perhaps just a little section on the occasional use of the harpsichord 'sound' in the regular musical context of pop music/jazz or whatever style. I certainly feel this topic belongs more in an article about the effects available by the player of an electronic keyboard - after all, using a midi violin sound would hardly constitute creating violin music, would it?

Re the name "virginal"

This is a short quote from the Discworld book "The Truth" by Terry Pratchett:

'Your friend Mr Tulip would perhaps like part of your payment to be the harpsichord?' said the chair.

'It's not a --ing harpsichord, it's a --ing virginal,' growled Mr Tulip. 'One --ing string to a note instead of two! So called because it was an instrument for --ing young ladies!'

'My word, was it?' said one of the chairs. 'I thought it was just a sort of early piano!'

'Intended to be played by young ladies,' said Mr Pin smoothly. '

While, of course, no authority on the subject, do you feel there might be something to this idea? Daniel Lindsäth 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginals are small harpsichords with their strings parallel to the keyboard. Having one string to a note is not a feature unique to virginals: many harpsichords only have one string to a note. As for whether they were intended to be played by young ladies, the answer is simply, no. They were small and suitable for home use so probably were played by young ladies a lot, but certainly not only by them, and that is not how they got their name.

hahahahahaha this is great! 169.233.52.4 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The singular term 'virginal' is incorrect. Like 'trousers', a single instrument of this type should be referred to as a 'virginals', as in a 'pair of virginals', which was the Elizabethan way of referring to both the instrument and its outer case.

Cembalo traverso and Cembalo verticale

At Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/7, it lists Cembalo traverso and Cembalo verticale, which I figure are probably types of harpsichords, possibly mentioned here but not under those names. (Or they might be other instruments; I'm not familiar with the terms). Can somebody identify them and, if appropriate, use the names here, so they can be linked? Rigadoun 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vertical harpsichord is a Clavicytherium (page on de: and fr: ) You can see such an instrument at [1] Gérard 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC) - At Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/9, it lists Clavecin vertical which is the same.[reply]

The New Grove tells us that "cembalo traverso" is an Italian term for "spinet." I'll try to put these in soon if no one else does first. Opus33 05:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice SVG graphics

The french version of this article has very nice SVG versions of the diagrams. Would it be an idea to transfer these over to the english article ?

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)\[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you sure "millions of people were introduced to the harpsichord by Knetchel's work"?

References to said work, please.

On the other hand, here's a couple TRULY VERY POPULAR songs featuring the clavichord (or its electronic equivalent):

Music / John Miles

Superstition / Stevie Wonder

These I am certain should be given as examples. Marius63 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even Lawrence Welk, always seeking a gimmick, put the harpsichord to use in his hit "Calcutta" -- before the 'rediscovery' of the harpsichord in baroque music was underway. Pbrower2a Pbrower2a (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)(talk) 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.).

Images

Hello, Why replace those images? I thought the ones we already had were clearer. Opus33 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controlling multiple choirs of strings

In this section there is a nice drawing of the push coupler system as featured by french and english harpsichords. Unfortunately the french system is to push in the upper manual, not draw the lower manual (I have heard about the latter but never seen it). Also the registers are in the wrong order, should be: a=8, b=4, and c=8.

As to the image: it is a modern instrument, which is not a correct historical copy (Zuckermann kit?). I think the article should be accompanied by a picture of a historical instrument too.

80.164.17.212 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) E. Kristiansen[reply]

Moving history out

Hello, anticipating growth in the history section, I have made it a separate article and inserted a brief summary with link to main article. This is a bit tricky, since in my experience it's hard to keep the summary section short. I will try to transfer detail edits on history to the satellite article, with the goal of a short summary in mind. If this strikes you as not good strategy please discuss and we can consider going back. Opus33 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern usage (again).

This is a quote from the above "No More Modern References!!!" section, that I decided to respond to in a new section:

Certainly - harpsichord usage in a modern context is almost always by people who are using it simply as a sound effect or as a cheap way to create a centuries-old feel. This is a very musically insignificant area and only deserves a sentence or two of comment. In pop music it is just the harpsichord sound from an electronic keyboard and should be identified as such if it has to be mentioned at all. Perhaps just a little section on the occasional use of the harpsichord 'sound' in the regular musical context of pop music/jazz or whatever style. I certainly feel this topic belongs more in an article about the effects available by the player of an electronic keyboard - after all, using a midi violin sound would hardly constitute creating violin music, would it?

Actually there are several contemporary artists who have used real harpsichords in their music. Kate Bush did on the song “Oh, England, my Lionheart”, Björk used it for live performances, MTV Unplugged, among others, where it was played by Guy Sigsworth. The most notable is probably Tori Amos who played it herself and who used it extensively on "Boys for Pele" and the following tour (she also included it for her MTV Unplugged performance). Joanna Newsom and Isobel Campbell have also played the harpsichord (and not keyboards). With the possible exception of the Kate Bush song I don't think the instrument was used to create an old-fashioned effect, it was played as an instrument in its own right (and usually as the song's main instrument), giving its own flavour to pieces of modern music or used to rework pop-songs acoustically.

I think the statement that it is a musically insignificant area and that all harpsichord sounds in pop music are produced by keyboards and then only to create an effect is extremely vitriolic and uninformed, verging on offensive. I get the impression the (unidentified) poster seems to think all of pop music is “an insignificant area”. I feel that a moderately sized section on the use of (real) harpsichords in popular music would be useful for those people consulting Wikipedia who never listen to classical music (and I’m sure there are plenty of those) and who, through modern references, can still be able to get a notion of what it sounds like.

If there is a section on its use in classical music, by both older and contemporary composers, why not one on popular music? It just seems that some people editing this article have decided, based on their own personal likes and dislikes, that pop music is not good enough to be included when in reality there are many artists who have written pop music directly for the harpsichord, music that is just as valid as Poulenc's or de Falla's. Nothingbutmeat 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NBM,

We did have an article with thorough coverage of the harpsichord in popular music. It was recently proposed for deletion ([2]), and the proposal succeeded, so it is now permanently gone.

I suspect that any future article on the harpsichord in popular music will have to be based on printed reference sources, rather than (as the old article was) the aggregated personal testimony of people who listen to popular music. Maybe you know some good sources? Opus33 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Opus33, thank you for the speedy reply,

I know there was such an article, it's a shame that it was deleted although I understand perfectly the motives for its removal. I wish I could have been part of the debate prior to the deletion; I still feel that this information has its place in the article alongside the other information on composers of harpsichord music. I fail to see why there should be a distinction where one type is considered relevant (and consequently included in the article) and the other is not.

As for the form of the article I can see how it didn't meet the Wikipedia standards, but surely that could have been resolved in a less drastic way. As for sources I would expect major dictionaries of pop music to carry such information either in entries on each individual artist or perhaps as a separate entry. Furthermore, the liner notes on album sleeves usually reveal if a harpsichord is played (as opposed to a keyboard). I am not 100% sure that counts as evidence on Wikipedia but I would imagine so (please, correct me if I'm wrong!). There is also interviews with artists talking about playing the harpsichord, if that's not a primary source I don't know what is.

So, the article could have been reworked instead of deleted but I suppose there is no point in arguing about that now. The question is: would a new article of higher quality be accepted or is there still some underlying resistance to including information about this use of the harpsichord? Nothingbutmeat 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NBM, Re. "underlying resistance": well, I personally like classical music better than I like popular music, but that's hardly a criterion for deciding what goes into an encyclopedia. The more important criterion is that whatever we put in be based on authentic reference sources, prepared by professional scholars. (There are such scholars for popular music; see e.g. Robert Walser).

The main reason the old article got deleted was that it was filled with bits like "[fill in name of favorite band here] used a harpsichord in [fill in name of favorite song]". I agree with the deletors that it was bad to have that sort of stuff; it's not scholarly or reliable.

So my two suggestions are (a) visit your local library and grab a good book; (b) cite what you find in the text, using WP format: <ref>citation here</ref>. This will make it show up at the end as a footnote. My experience is that stuff done with this level of care does not get deleted. Cheers, Opus33 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the form of the deleted article i.e "[fill in name of favorite band here] used a harpsichord in [fill in name of favorite song]", was in no way ideal, I'm simply saying that I feel that a section on pop compositions for harpsichord is not entirely irrelevant in an article about the harpsichord and harpsichord music. Whether anyone likes the music or prefers classical to pop or vice versa is, as you say, not a valid criterion for deciding what goes in. Nothingbutmeat 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Figure 1, item 13?

A recent anonymous editor said that the thing labeled 13 in Figure 1 is a four-foot hitchpin rail, and that this is an error, since the instrument (according to the anon's view) must be a 2 x 8' instrument.

I'm out of my depth here, and wonder if people with more harpsichord expertise can help. Here are my questions.

1) Why is the instrument necessarily a 2 x 8' instrument? Instruments with the disposition 1 x 8', 1 x 4' were built in the historical era.

because 4' and 8' choirs do not share the same bridge and usually not the same nut. In fact, 4' nut & bridge are lower than 8' ones, and the corresponding jacks are accordingly shorter. Gérard (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Why is #13 supposed to be a hitchpin rail? I would assume that any structural member strong enough to support a choir of strings would have to extend down to the bottom of the case; 13 looks pretty flimsy in comparison.

I draw the very first version of this picture and had in mind drawing a 4'+8' instrument. I realized that it would be simpler and easier to draw a 2x8' harpsichord. I forgot erasing the 4' hitchpin rail, and the user who draw a new version, probably not aware of the mechanism of the instrument, kept the hitchpin in place. It would be better to erase it, but I do not know how to do it. Gérard (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the only other likely possibility for #13 that I can think of is that it is a soundboard rib. Yet Hubbard and other people I've read are pretty emphatic that it's a bad idea to put a rib directly under the bridge, which is where #13 is located.

See above (not a soundboard rib) Gérard (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if anyone can offer a positive identification of #13, I think it would help our article.

In the long run, I would like to replace Figure 1 with a simpler figure, depicting a single-choired instrument. This would be the best introduction for beginners, and we do cover multi-choired instruments later on. Opus33 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the error. I have already commented on that on the french wiki. As to your questions:

1) A 2x8 instrument is regarded as a simpler instrument than one with 1x8 and 1x4. Historically the 1x8+1x4 is older. Almost all early italian had this disposition.

2) #13 must be a malplaced 4' hitchpin rail. This is a rail that extends from the cheek to the spine, and to which the soundboard is glued. The hitchpin passes between the 4' and 8' bridges. If it passed just under the bridge it would render the soundboard immobile. The hitchpin rail is "flimsy" and does not extend down to the bottom or connect to any other structural member. In some italian harpsichords there is *no* 4' hitchpin rail - rather the hitchpins are just fixed in the soundboard with a drop of glue!

Ribs sometimes cross the bridges (on some italians), but they are usually undercut where they pass the bridge to ensure the flexibility of the bridge (and soundboard).

On the french wiki #13 is called "boudin" which is hitchpin rail.

Maybe the best way to show the structure is a 3D view of an early italian harpsichord?

Erik Kristiansen 80.164.17.212 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See above the answers to Opus33 Gérard (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error fixed Gérard (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubus.

Removed this line from the popular music section: "Rock band Incubus uses a harpsichord for their song Aqueous Transmission on the 2001 album Morning View." The Aqueous Transmission page mentions the Chinese instrument pipa being used so it would seem the person who added the sentence mistook it for a harpsichord. I also suppose that this is the kind of information that is considered irrelevant. Nothingbutmeat 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shove coupler

Figure 4 is meant to show the french shove coupler. I have never seen a french (or any other historical) harpsichord where you draw the lower manual to engage the upper manual. Rather the upper manual is pushed to engage the dogs on the lower manual. Do anybody know a harpsichord with a draw coupler? Anyway the figure should be corrected, as the push-system is the typical featured coupler system. E. Kristiansen 80.164.17.212 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EK, Hubbard (1965) says both kinds existed, but the shove coupler was was more common. You're right, we should change the figure and I hope a person with the right expertise will take it on. Opus33 21:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

don't get me wrong, i love the harpsichord. but, does anyone know who it was said the harpsichord sounded like ' two skeletons copulating on a tin roof'?Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I think it was Thomas Beecham. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search certainly supports the idea that it was Sir Beecham. But it also introduces doubt as to the exact wording and as to whether he was the first to say it. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to this in The Collector. A woman who irritates the artist GP is viciously put in her place when she brings up the quote. First, the instrument being played on the record at the time was not, in fact, a harpsichord. Second, GP was no fan of Beecham. PDAWSON3 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I wonder whether "contemporary harpsichord" is a term in general use? (Googling casts doubts on it.) In any case, that article is only a few paragraphs, which doesn't seem to warrant splitting off the content from this article. I suggested a merge which I am happy to do myself if people agree. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a merge is definitely in order. --Jashiin (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a merge is not in order, but a renaming might be. This article (harpsichord) is quite long enough as it is, and there is much to say about the modern use of the harpsichord outside the period instruments movement. Even if the term "contemporary harpsichord" is not in common use, the concept is certainly worthy of its own article, whatever it's called. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "concept"? The article in question simply describes the history of harpsichord music in 20th century. I am not aware of any special, widely spread new playing techniques (i.e. analogous to string piano or prepared piano); if there are any, they may merit their own articles. But simply creating a separate article to describe the history of the instrument during a particular time... I mean, isn't that what this article and History of the harpsichord are? --Jashiin (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Merge is for sure not the way to go with this article, it is a very valid article given the number of performers who dedicate themselves to playing contemporary harpsichord these days (and books written on the subject, Larry Palmers Harpsichord in America springs to mind). Whilst it should be noted on the history of harpsichord page, of course, it merits its own page. I think the article should detail more information about the modern type of harpsichord, such as the Neupert & Pleyel. --24.203.229.110 (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon

I'm moving the list below from the article to here. I don't think WP generally does undigested lists like this; we ought to be covering everything in the list in the normal way, with verbal discussion in articles. Opus33 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added a few Portuguese items. But agreed. Also, the languages should be in alphabetical order. Marius63 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual harpsichord lexicon

Français	English	Deutsch	Italiano	Português
arc-boutant	upper brace	obere Gehäusestrebe	barra superiore
barre d’accroche	hitchpinrail	Anhängeleiste	corniche di attacco 8´
barre d’adresse	nameboard batten	Namensleiste	listello superiore tastiera
barre de balancement	balance rail	Waagebalken	barra di bilanciamento
barre de fond	lower frame	untere Gehäusestreben	traversa del fondo
barre de table	rib	Rippe	catena
bec	plectrum	Kiel	plettro
béquille	lid stick	Deckelstock	bacchetta coperchio
boudin	4´ hitchpinrail	Vierfuß-Anhängeleiste	supporto attacco punte 4´
caisse	case	Gehäuse	cassa
chapiteau	jackrail	Prallleiste	coperchio salterelli
charnière	hinge	Scharnier	cerniera
chevalet	bridge	Steg	ponticello
cheville d’accord	tuning pin	Stimmwirbel	caviglie
clavecin	harpsichord	Cembalo	clavicembalo	cravo
clavier	keyboard	Klaviatur	tastiera	teclado
contre éclisse	liner	Resonanzboden-Auflageleisten	controfascia
contresommier	upper bellyrail	Oberdamm	controsomiere
corde	string	Saite	corda	corda
couvercle	lid	Deckel	coperchio
diapason	rack	Kanzelle	guida a rastrelliera
échine	spine	Rückwand oder lange Wand	fascia dorsale
éclisse courbe	bentside	gebogene Wand	fascia curva
épinette	spinet	Spinett	spinetta	espineta
fond	bottom	Bodenteil	fondo
gorge	nameboard	Namenswand	tavola frontale
grande barre	cutoff bar	große Rippe	grande catena diagonale
joue	cheek	Wange	fascia corta
languette	tongue	Zunge	bilancero
levier de registration	stop lever	Registerhebel	leve comando registri
masse	upper bellyrail	Oberdamm	controsomiere
peigne	rack	Kanzelle	guida a rastrelliera
piétement	stand	Gestell	cavalletto
plectre	plectrum	Kiel	plettro
pointe	tail	Schwanzwand	fascia caudale
pointe d’accroche	hitchpin	Aufhängestift	punta di attacco
pointe de balancement	balance pin	Waagebalkenstift	punta di bilanciamento
pointe de chevalet	bridge pin	Stegstift	punta ponticello
pointe de sillet	nut pin	Stegstift	punta capotasto
portillon	fallboard	Verschlußbrett	coperchio frontale
pupitre	music desk	Notenpult	leggío
queue	tail	Schwanzwand	fascia caudale
rabat	flap	Deckelklappe	coperchio a ribalta
registre	register	Register	registro	registo
sautereau	jack	Springer	salterello
sillet	nut	Stimmstocksteg	capotasto
sommier	wrestplank	Stimmstock	somiere
table d’harmonie	soundboard	Resonanzboden	tavola armonica
touche	key	Taste	tasti	tecla
virginal	virginal	Virginal	virginale	virginal

1911 EB article

A good-faith edit added a link to the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica article, but this is not helpful, I think, because this article is inaccurate. In 1911, scholars didn't know that the so-called "Bach harpsichord" didn't belong to Bach, and that it was modified at some point to have a disposition of strings unlike that of any true historical harpsichord. You can read about this stuff in Hubbard's or Kottick's books, cited in the article. For now, let's guide our readers only to the more reliable reference sources. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a verifiable reference on this, as it appears you do, I think the better procedure would be to add a comment on the link with your citation of the particular pages where the "Bach" harpsichord is discussed. Then people would have a heads up if they run into this factoid somewhere else. I will give the article link here for those interested: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Harpsichord" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.. It is interesting to hear about the "Bach" harpsichord. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Range

This article is excellent, but there is no mention of the harpsichord's dynamic range (or lack there of). It's my understanding that due to the plucking mechanism, there is no variation in volume when the keys are pressed harder or softer, and that this is one of the main differences between the harpsichord and the piano. A comparison to the piano is debatable for inclusion into the article, but certainly mention of the volume would be warranted. ...And now I defer to people who know what they're talking about. Eeblet (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the returning jack bypasses the string

I couldn't figure out how the jack bypasses the string on the way down. I can see that the jack is on a pivoted mount. What I can't see it what causes the mount to pivot on the way down. Is it the jack lightly touching the string, or what?

Please could someone who knows about this have a go at adding an explanation?

Macboff (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. I gave this a try; see article.

My explanation (based on the cut of the plectrum) is probably oversimplified. Two other possible factors are upward-angling of the plectrum (mentioned earlier in the article, though I've never seen a reference source for this) and the fact that the plectrum is flexible. I hope that opinion more expert than mine will weigh in on this.

As an aside: I have always found it surprising that the plectra do manage to pass below the string; even when you watch up close it seems counterintuitive. Of course, if the plectrum is cut wrong then it doesn't pass below the string and you have to get out your knife and fix it. Opus33 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining reverts

I don't mean to be difficult but I don't think any of three edits just made by an anon helped the article and so I reverted. Here are the details.

"and middle" for when Haydn and Mozart wrote harpsichord music seems a little verbose and pendantic to me; "earlier" suffices.

Beethoven's piano music was often advertised as being for harpsichord by greedy publishers, but this does not mean that anyone took this seriously.

All instruments should be attributed to their builders, even if they are modern instruments. We might wonder if the top picture recently added to the article is spam, but that is a separate question; if we keep it, we should attribute it.

Opus33 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Harpsichord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century.

Many instances of references to the 20th century indicate it began as the year 2000. It should instead indicate that the 20th century began on January 1st 2001. Yours truly, Poreyspring (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the place in the article where we committed this mistake (I searched on "century"). Could you point out the location? Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the 20th century began in 1901, and the 21st in 2001, but I can't find anywhere in this article where we get this wrong. --Deskford (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does origin in the beginning keep getting removed?

I've added the origin in the beginning of the text, in line with other articles such as Arghul or Kamancheh.

Should the origin be removed from these pages too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.229.243 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why does origin in the beginning keep getting removed?" Because nobody really knows where the harpsichord originated.

Look, there's a bigger issue here: it's not all that clear you really know anything to speak of about the harpsichord. If you haven't read any basic reference works on this topic, such as Kottick or Hubbard, you should not be editing this page. Else you're just spreading errors and ignorance. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Key colour

To the lay person, the obvious difference in appearance between a piano and a harpsichord is that the former has white keys for the C major notes and black for the sharps and flats, whereas the harpsichord keyboard (often) has the colours the other way round. How universal is this? What is its origin? PhilUK (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article https://livingpianos.com/piano-parts/why-were-the-white-keys-and-black-keys-on-the-piano-reversed/ answers my question. PhilUK (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]