Hi John I love this piece and your interpretation of it. It sets my heart on fire. I played this at my senior recital at WMU ...a thousand years ago...as it were. Thank you for the great music. Cheers Albert Peckham
Hi John! Magnificent! You come closer to the actual guitar performance that I've ever heard! The rolled chords are necessary in playing a guitar. Thank you!
Bless you for your kind words. Especially since you've played it in the past, you should try to relearn it on your Challis! I can mail you the arrangement!
I love Asturias and the harpsichord; so I just put it into the search engine. Not only am I glad someone did it but did both the song and the instrument justice.
Greetings! A question re: your calling this 1968 Challis harpsichord a "revival" harpsichord: revival harpsichords were famously heavy, solid, and built in some respects like pianos (or tanks :) Challis, who studied under Arnold Dolmetsch, built instruments in the traditional way, but by the late 1950's, he was using aluminum for his frames, wrest-planks, soundboards and bridges, with only the cases being made of wood. This makes this 1968 instrument NOT a "revival" harpsichord, but one closer to early harpsichords, despite 20th century innovations, does it not?
The term "revival" (in my mind at least) usually refers not so much to the instrument's weight as its disposition, in this case the fact that it includes a 16-foot stop and pedals for changing registration while playing, both hallmarks of Landowska's design changes for her Pleyels. And don't be fooled into thinking that Challis instruments are light because they incorporate aluminum; the frame is cast aluminum and the instrument weighs a freaking ton, as much as a grand piano. (The wrest-plank is also aluminum, although the bridges are brass, and Challis never divulged what the soundboard was actually made of, although educated guesses are that it is anodized aluminum.) I think Challis would have been the first to admit his instruments were NOT close to early harpsichords and openly admitted he was not trying to duplicate the sound of historical instruments but rather developed a sound he found preferable. (Harpsichordist Larry Palmer, in his book "Harpsichord in America," records hearing Challis complain at a recital on an "authentic" instrument, "If I hear one more note of quill, I'm going to puke!") Challis designed it to use leather plectra, but when I bought it I had it revoiced in Delron, which lasts longer and didn't seem to alter the sound. All that being said, I've been calling it a revival instrument mainly to head off criticism from the purists who might complain about my old-school registration changes and use of the 16-foot stop. It is also probably the reason why Northwestern University was eager to sell this instrument (which is the instrument I studied and performed on at NU 45 years ago!) because no one wanted to use it anymore. When I bought it about six years ago, I was told it hadn't been touched in at least a decade and had been stashed away in an organ practice room. Even when Ursula Oppens was preparing to perform a 20th-century harpsichord concerto--for which this instrument would have been perfect--she refused to use it because it wasn't an "authentic" harpsichord. Go figure. But I appreciate your comments and wish more people felt as you do, that this is a perfectly acceptable instrument in the classical tradition that could simply be called a harpsichord. To me a harpsichord is a harpsichord, and all the purists' quibbling is just an obsession with hardware. Thanks for your interest!
As a personal friend of the late John Challis, I agree with your assessment. His instruments were and still are closer to the originals than anyone else. My Challis is a 7 foot with two manuals. The lower with 16, 8 and 4. The upper manual with 8 and 4. The 8 being shared. It has Corfam plectra which gives it a strident sound which I love! John built this instrument for me and today after over 40 years it still is exciting to hear!
Sounds stunning on this revival harpsichord
one of the most intense pieces of music ever written.. It captures the Spanish soul.
Hi John
I love this piece and your interpretation of it. It sets my heart on fire. I played this at my senior recital at WMU ...a thousand years ago...as it were. Thank you for the great music.
Cheers
Albert Peckham
Perfect... please more like this... ❤🌷
Hi John! Magnificent! You come closer to the actual guitar performance that I've ever heard! The rolled chords are necessary in playing a guitar. Thank you!
5 stars! A tour de force to get it so smooth but it was worth all the effort to get this great result.
Magnificent!
Thank you so much! I know it is something of a novelty, but I think it stays pretty faithful to the spirit of the original. Glad you enjoyed it!
It should be me that is thankful to you - and Albeniz -for letting us hear this precious piece performed so majestically!
Again, harpsichords like this introduced many to Harpsichordist of the past. Please, respect! Wanda Landowska didn't live her life in vein.
Bless you for your kind words. Especially since you've played it in the past, you should try to relearn it on your Challis! I can mail you the arrangement!
Perfect!
Great job sir! Thanks for that
You're very kind--and very welcome!
Very good!
Glad you liked it!
I love Asturias and the harpsichord; so I just put it into the search engine. Not only am I glad someone did it but did both the song and the instrument justice.
bravo
👍
Greetings! A question re: your calling this 1968 Challis harpsichord a "revival" harpsichord: revival harpsichords were famously heavy, solid, and built in some respects like pianos (or tanks :) Challis, who studied under Arnold Dolmetsch, built instruments in the traditional way, but by the late 1950's, he was using aluminum for his frames, wrest-planks, soundboards and bridges, with only the cases being made of wood. This makes this 1968 instrument NOT a "revival" harpsichord, but one closer to early harpsichords, despite 20th century innovations, does it not?
The term "revival" (in my mind at least) usually refers not so much to the instrument's weight as its disposition, in this case the fact that it includes a 16-foot stop and pedals for changing registration while playing, both hallmarks of Landowska's design changes for her Pleyels. And don't be fooled into thinking that Challis instruments are light because they incorporate aluminum; the frame is cast aluminum and the instrument weighs a freaking ton, as much as a grand piano. (The wrest-plank is also aluminum, although the bridges are brass, and Challis never divulged what the soundboard was actually made of, although educated guesses are that it is anodized aluminum.) I think Challis would have been the first to admit his instruments were NOT close to early harpsichords and openly admitted he was not trying to duplicate the sound of historical instruments but rather developed a sound he found preferable. (Harpsichordist Larry Palmer, in his book "Harpsichord in America," records hearing Challis complain at a recital on an "authentic" instrument, "If I hear one more note of quill, I'm going to puke!") Challis designed it to use leather plectra, but when I bought it I had it revoiced in Delron, which lasts longer and didn't seem to alter the sound. All that being said, I've been calling it a revival instrument mainly to head off criticism from the purists who might complain about my old-school registration changes and use of the 16-foot stop. It is also probably the reason why Northwestern University was eager to sell this instrument (which is the instrument I studied and performed on at NU 45 years ago!) because no one wanted to use it anymore. When I bought it about six years ago, I was told it hadn't been touched in at least a decade and had been stashed away in an organ practice room. Even when Ursula Oppens was preparing to perform a 20th-century harpsichord concerto--for which this instrument would have been perfect--she refused to use it because it wasn't an "authentic" harpsichord. Go figure. But I appreciate your comments and wish more people felt as you do, that this is a perfectly acceptable instrument in the classical tradition that could simply be called a harpsichord. To me a harpsichord is a harpsichord, and all the purists' quibbling is just an obsession with hardware. Thanks for your interest!
As a personal friend of the late John Challis, I agree with your assessment. His instruments were and still are closer to the originals than anyone else. My Challis is a 7 foot with two manuals. The lower with 16, 8 and 4. The upper manual with 8 and 4. The 8 being shared. It has Corfam plectra which gives it a strident sound which I love! John built this instrument for me and today after over 40 years it still is exciting to hear!
how many 17th century harpsichords were built with aluminum?
@@HamstrayNone, metallurgy being what it was. If Al were as cheap as it is now, I'll bet they all would've been.
What s horrible instrument. Nearly a warcrime!