Happy things thread!

elemtilas · Post by **elemtilas** » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:34 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:19 pm Maybe nobody else will understand why the Pathetique on a clavichord is so fantastic. Your first reaction will probably be that it sounds weird and ugly. But if you have a spare half an hour, listen to the whole thing!

He's got some serious pickups on that machine! (Which, in my opinion at least, rather defeats the purpose of that most delicate of musical instruments, which is the intimacy of its sound.)

Here's four great things about it:
a) the clavichord is the most sensitive, faithful keyboard instrument. The player has much more control over its volume than a piano player - they can even change the volume while the note is playing. They can even introduce vibrato! This is inconceivable on ordinary keyboards. In this piece, there are times when Winters (the clavichordist) can drop the volume right to the edge of silence (whereas the piano effectively has a minimum volume below which it can't make any sound) - at one point even reminding me of the silent notes guqin players use, where you can just hear the faintest touch of the string - and then he can crescendo so smoothely and so rapidly! But beyond the things that would obviously be impossible on a piano, throughout the piece we can hear the passion expressed more directly than normally - partly because he intentionally adopts a more heart-on-sleeve interpretation of tempi (etc) but also because the clavichord does just convey the emotion of the player so much more transparently. Playing the piano is like playing through a blanket by comparison...

Bebung. That and the direct touch are indeed the hallmarks of the instrument. It's one of the few instruments where pppppppp is actually possible! As a small chamber instrument, its realistic maximum of about mf is okay. Unless electrically overdriven, as this one seems to be, a clavichord can never hope to balance even the tenderest of recorder music.

You can also hit the quarter tones (or maybe fifth tones) by pressing deeper (not harder) on the keys: this causes the tangent to push the string higher up, changing its sounding length a little.

Another neat thing you can do is a "trill" on one single note. Whereas on the piano, there is a waiting period during which two consecutive strikes at the same note can't be made any faster because the hammer is "in flight" to or from the string, on the clavichord, there is no such waiting period. Because your fingers are in constant contact with the keys, and thus with the tangents and thus with the strings themselves, you get an effect kind of like a drum roll.

The instrument, while capable of direct communication between player to instrument to sound of deep emotion, she is also a terrible mistress! She is absolutely unforgiving! Every slightest tap of the wrong key, every incorrectly weighted press on the keys is instantly broadcast as a horrible clashing sound!

b) those sounds! Sure, it takes a while to get used to. But if you're used to the piano, having such different timbres puts the familiar music in a different light. Two things stand out to me. One is the way that, like a tangentenfluegel, the clavichord's timbre varies over its pitch range, from the relatively sharp treble through to the more muffled, slightly buzzy bass (that reminds me of the arp stop on a muselaar!). The result of this is that the 'vocal line' stands out more clearly from the accompaniment than on a piano (or harpsichord) which doesn't have that timbral effect. The other is just the remarkable sound in the moments where there's a loud, staccato bass, which buzzsaws into the music in a way you can't get from an piano. It's also worth noting that these sounds are all 'purer' than those of a piano, more harmonic, which is why there's that sort of MIDI-file feeling (again, like a muselaar).

Yep! The construction of the instrument is very different. The piano strings are very tense and the hammers are felt, kind of soft and fuzzy and are thrown against the strings which are all but metal bars at that tension. The claivchord is very lightly built: no cast iron frames or heavily built structures. Even the heaviest instruments only weigh about 15 pounds! There is no complex mechanism: just a stick with a small brass tangent that delicately touches the more loosely tensed string with the flat of its blade. (You can get the same effect on a guitar by smartly pressing a string near the fret - it will act somewhat like the clavichord's tangent.)

c) it's less insane as an idea than it seems. The pathetique was written in 1798, when clavichords would have been widespread in domestic settings, particularly in Germany. When amateurs bought Beethoven's sheet music and tried to play it at home, a lot of them would have been doing it on clavichords, not on pianos - keyboards were often considered interchangeable back then (hence Beethoven's 'Hammerklavier' sonata - simply a demand that it be played specifically on the piano rather than on a different sort of keyboard). Indeed, we know that some experts DID perform Beethoven on clavichords. So, while it's certainly not the sound that Beethoven was intending when he wrote the piece, it's a sound that people in his era would have heard, and that Beethoven would have expected. Indeed, Beethoven himself played clavichords, and it's not impossible that, seated at a clavichord, he might well have played some of his own works.

Quite right. Back then, you played music on whatever instruments were available. Or you went without. And this piece certainly sound beautiful on the clavichord!

d) it's a reminder of how revolutionary Beethoven was. Compare this to the usual sort of thing you could hear on a clavichord - Bach, or Mozart. By comparison, Beethoven's music is bursting at the seams of the instrument. Indeed, this piece perhaps as much as any other is why we DON'T have clavichords today, and why the modern piano was invented.

Heh. And what's ironic about it is that it is music like this (historically informed) performance that has over the last century or so driven the market for "ancient instruments" like the clavichord (and the recorder and the one keyed oboe and the keyed bugle and the ophicleide) to be produced at economically viable numbers again!

[Why? What's wrong with clavichords? Well, three things. First, the sound is relatively thin, lacking the richness of the piano. It's also in a way pure, whereas the piano's inharmonic flaws make it sound more human, and hence affecting. Second, the sustain is much poorer than on a piano, so you don't get the singing quality. And above all: the instrument is inherently very, very quiet. You have to stand close to it, or use microphones. What you CAN'T do is, as you can on a piano, fill an entire auditorium with a fortissimo that can be heard over an orchestra.]

Mr Winter's is clearly playing an overdriven instrument (either electric pickups or a good set of microphones -- the sound is extremely loud and distorted). As clavichords are well known for being quiet, here is a more characteristic volume:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOhzki9TGg

But yes, you hit all the nails on the head: the clavichord is not (and I don't believe was intended to be) an orchestral instrument. It's not even really suitable as a small consort instrument. Unless the sound is magnified.

Some people may also ask: sorry, and what IS a clavichord? Brief answer:

(Snipped wonderful description.)

Therefore a new invention arose: the tangentenfluegel, or 'tangent piano'. Actually, a bunch of inventions arose, but the tangent piano is the notable one (with one exception - see below). The tangent piano abandons the clavichord idea, and is basically a harpsichord where the harpsichord action is adapted to striking rather than plucking. The vital part is that rather than the key in some way hitting the string, instead the key fires a projectile at the string from below, which hits the string and bounces back into place. This is only a little more complicated than a harpsichord.

Right. Kind of combines the worst aspects of both instruments. But its sound is rather engaging!

...and although it's a mechanically ingenious device with a unique and interesting sound, the tangent piano is now also obsolete, because some bloke called Bartolomeo Cristofori invented an entirely new mechanism, by which hammers could hit strings and then be retracted - and all it took was a couple of dozen moving parts. This immediately meant you could play louder, softer and with more control than the tangent piano, and the new instrument - once people swallowed the high price tag - quickly made all other keyboards obsolete.

Salmoneus · Post by **Salmoneus** » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:07 pm

elemtilas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:34 pm
Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:19 pm Maybe nobody else will understand why the Pathetique on a clavichord is so fantastic. Your first reaction will probably be that it sounds weird and ugly. But if you have a spare half an hour, listen to the whole thing!
He's got some serious pickups on that machine! (Which, in my opinion at least, rather defeats the purpose of that most delicate of musical instruments, which is the intimacy of its sound.)

Pretty sure he doesn't.

Bebung. That and the direct touch are indeed the hallmarks of the instrument. It's one of the few instruments where pppppppp is actually possible! As a small chamber instrument, its realistic maximum of about mf is okay. Unless electrically overdriven, as this one seems to be, a clavichord can never hope to balance even the tenderest of recorder music.

Really sure it's not overdriven.

You can also hit the quarter tones (or maybe fifth tones) by pressing deeper (not harder) on the keys: this causes the tangent to push the string higher up, changing its sounding length a little.

Another neat thing you can do is a "trill" on one single note. Whereas on the piano, there is a waiting period during which two consecutive strikes at the same note can't be made any faster because the hammer is "in flight" to or from the string, on the clavichord, there is no such waiting period. Because your fingers are in constant contact with the keys, and thus with the tangents and thus with the strings themselves, you get an effect kind of like a drum roll.

The instrument, while capable of direct communication between player to instrument to sound of deep emotion, she is also a terrible mistress! She is absolutely unforgiving! Every slightest tap of the wrong key, every incorrectly weighted press on the keys is instantly broadcast as a horrible clashing sound!

I wouldn't know; but yes, I've heard it's difficult to play. And you're right, I should have said 'further' or 'deeper' rather than 'harder', which is ambiguous between further/faster.

d) it's a reminder of how revolutionary Beethoven was. Compare this to the usual sort of thing you could hear on a clavichord - Bach, or Mozart. By comparison, Beethoven's music is bursting at the seams of the instrument. Indeed, this piece perhaps as much as any other is why we DON'T have clavichords today, and why the modern piano was invented.
Heh. And what's ironic about it is that it is music like this (historically informed) performance that has over the last century or so driven the market for "ancient instruments" like the clavichord (and the recorder and the one keyed oboe and the keyed bugle and the ophicleide) to be produced at economically viable numbers again!

Sadly, there is never enough ophicleide music. The recorder doesn't belong on that list, though - the overwhelming popularity of the recorder is due to its low cost and traditional role as everyone's (especially girls') first instrument. [which has always struck me as sort of sadistic - the number of amateur recorder players is vast, but if a child wants to go further with the instrument, the number of professional recorder jobs is tiny, and the repertoire isn't much better, so they almost all have to switch to an entirely unrelated instrumen in adulthood...]

[Why? What's wrong with clavichords? Well, three things. First, the sound is relatively thin, lacking the richness of the piano. It's also in a way pure, whereas the piano's inharmonic flaws make it sound more human, and hence affecting. Second, the sustain is much poorer than on a piano, so you don't get the singing quality. And above all: the instrument is inherently very, very quiet. You have to stand close to it, or use microphones. What you CAN'T do is, as you can on a piano, fill an entire auditorium with a fortissimo that can be heard over an orchestra.]
Mr Winter's is clearly playing an overdriven instrument (either electric pickups or a good set of microphones -- the sound is extremely loud and distorted). As clavichords are well known for being quiet, here is a more characteristic volume:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOhzki9TGg

I really don't hear the 'distortion' you complain of, although I'll admit I've a terrible ear. Winters clearly doesn't, though, so I'd be surprised if it's as terrible as you think. To me, your recorded just sounds like the microphone's not very good. Winters' sound is different imo because:

a) it's in a resonant room. Sure, the effect is minimised with an instrument so quiet, but it's still there.

b) he's using better microphones, close to the instrument, to recreate the sound of playing it, whereas the recording in your link feels more like you're just in the same room.

c) he's using two microphones, which in this recording have evidently been set up to replicate the reverb of a rather echo-y chamber, which is why there's that added sustain. But that doesn't exactly change the sound of the instrument, it just attempts to imitate a certain circumstance of hearing it.

d) here I think is the biggest factor: the two people are playing different instruments. VERY different instruments. First, your guy is playing a clavichord he's assembled from a kit, whereas Winters is playing an instrument by one of the top professional builders. More importantly, your guy is playing a replica of a 17th century double-fretted instrument, whereas Winters is playing a replica of an 18th century unfretted concert instrument - it's deeper, and it's much longer, so it has higher string tensions, more efficient coupling, etc. Your one is a better representation of early modern music, and it's also closer to the instruments that were revived in the late 19th century as domestic instruments - but Winters' one is a better representation of an expensive instrument that might be around at the time of Beethoven. [actually, even bigger and more powerful clavichords were around by then, and even into the early 19th century, apparently mostly in Sweden]. I think this mostly explains the difference in sound.

[yes, obviously it's massively amplified. But so is any video on youtube... he just does the amplification on a professional amp, rather than on the volume slider in your internet browser...]

But yes, you hit all the nails on the head: the clavichord is not (and I don't believe was intended to be) an orchestral instrument. It's not even really suitable as a small consort instrument. Unless the sound is magnified.

Interestingly, and this does surprise me, Winters says his clavichord can actually give concerts in concert halls - he says he's done satisfactory concerts for 250 people. Of course, the hall matters too - and of course it would be like a guitar or or a viol or something, immediately drowned out if he tried to go up against modern string instruments. So it's still a solo instrument, more or less, even if big ones like this aren't necessarily drawing room instruments alone.

And the innovations keep coming...

Actually, I find the lack of innovation disappointing - the occasional instrument gets a run out with some composers and performers looking for some way to stand out, but nothing non-electronic has really become mainstream since the saxophone, I don't think. Though the heckelphone had a go for a bit. It's a shame because with modern knowledge of acoustics and instrument-building, all sorts of things could be possible.

The Wheelharp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGOqIYo9cBE&t=7s

I've always loved the look of the wheelharp, but why does it have to be so hideous in sound? I've always wondered how much of that is inherent to the design, and how much is due to the fact it's just something some guy threw together in his shed.

Either way, it's not actually an innovation, as it predates the piano. One-wheeled geigenwerken like this were developed in the 17th century. Pepys mentions one in his diaries. [a geigenwerk, popularised by Hans Haiden in the 16th century, is a keyboard instrument that uses a rotating band to bow the strings; in the 17th century versions were built with rotating wheels instead, including versions with a single wheel, giving the instrument a "domed" shape.] In the 18th century, Le Gay was building cylindrical versions with a single rotating wheel turned by a pedal, which iirc is what the wheelharp does. English versions were made with clockwork-powered flywheels instead. The general idea keeps being reinvented every generation and then disappearing - they're expensive, complicated, prone to failure, and they tend to sound awful. Because it's hard to bow a string pleasantly unless you can do fine adjustments as a human bower can - otherwise you end up with scraping and stuttering and whatnot. Or at least, if they might sometimes sound ok, they basically sound like a string quartet playing badly...

The Viola Organisata:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmow9jsPqBc

Ditto. As the video says, Leonardo was the first person to invent the geigenwerk, but that isn't actually following his designs - of course, he'd never seen a harpsichord! I believe that, like Haiden's first instruments, he used bands rather than wheels. Though I think Haiden was the first to use wheels, too. Not a massively novel idea, of course - it's inspired by the hurdy-gurdy, which has been around since the 12th century at the absolute latest.

[Leonardo invented many instruments. He invented, for instance, Boehm-style flute keywork! But it was forgotten about for hundreds of years. He also discovered Chladni patterns. But they were forgotten about for hundreds of years. Leonardo's really a great answer to those "what if a time-traveller brought a [X] to the middle ages!? how would it change history!?!?" questions. Answer: [X] would be forgotten about for hundreds of years.]

I'll admit, though, the sound of that organista is growing on me... (and it's always nice to hear some Abel!)

The Parlour Organ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK_cbvtRrbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C7i6q0X3xc

The free-reed organ was invented by Filippo Testa around 1700, and variants evolved alongside the development of the piano and the tangent piano, although the modern forms - the harmonium, melodeon, accordion, etc do indeed slightly postdate the piano, arriving in the early 19th century. But these are all wind instruments...

Two Keyboard Piano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxyf6NHXmw

Janko Piano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru-aEDO8WfA

The piano is actually innovative in having only one keyboard - most large keyboard instruments before then had multiple keyboards. And rearrangements of the keys, particularly in the lower registers, was also ubiquitous, although not to the extent that Janko took it. FYI, Janko was beaten to building an isomorphic keyboard by Bosenquet a decade earlier, but Helmholtz in the '60s developed the theory.

Pedal Piano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF864Fev0ws

Pedal clavichords date from the 15th century; Bach had a pedal harpsichord and Mozart had a pedal piano.

I'd suggest the pianola as an innovation, though.

elemtilas · Post by **elemtilas** » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:27 am

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:07 pm
elemtilas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:34 pm
Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:19 pm Maybe nobody else will understand why the Pathetique on a clavichord is so fantastic. Your first reaction will probably be that it sounds weird and ugly. But if you have a spare half an hour, listen to the whole thing!
He's got some serious pickups on that machine! (Which, in my opinion at least, rather defeats the purpose of that most delicate of musical instruments, which is the intimacy of its sound.)
Pretty sure he doesn't.

Bebung. That and the direct touch are indeed the hallmarks of the instrument. It's one of the few instruments where pppppppp is actually possible! As a small chamber instrument, its realistic maximum of about mf is okay. Unless electrically overdriven, as this one seems to be, a clavichord can never hope to balance even the tenderest of recorder music.
Really sure it's not overdriven.

Indeed not pickups -- but definitely overdriven! The playing is wonderful, the sound of the poor instrument is horrible. He does actually address some concerns in a video about recording the clavichord. Sadly, he doesn't get very specific. I'm just saying, from experience, the recording doesn't sound like a clavichord in the wild would sound. In that huge salon where he made the recording, without jacking up the recorded sound, you literally would not be able to hear an unamplified clavichord more than about six feet away. They're hard enough to hear when you're sitting right at the keyboard!

True that some instruments are louder than others, but this recording really does not do the instrument any justice at all.

I wouldn't know; but yes, I've heard it's difficult to play. And you're right, I should have said 'further' or 'deeper' rather than 'harder', which is ambiguous between further/faster.

It is difficult to play well, and I don't claim that accomplishment. I have one and enjoy playing it. I can tell you, the clavichord is very quiet!

Here's a much more characteristic example of their level of volume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcfl3lYQy9M

Heh. And what's ironic about it is that it is music like this (historically informed) performance that has over the last century or so driven the market for "ancient instruments" like the clavichord (and the recorder and the one keyed oboe and the keyed bugle and the ophicleide) to be produced at economically viable numbers again!
Sadly, there is never enough ophicleide music.

True that!

But fortunately, there are talented young folks taking up the banner!

The recorder doesn't belong on that list, though

It does when we consider that it is the recorder that was at the forefront of the ancient instruments revival of the early 20th century.

- the overwhelming popularity of the recorder is due to its low cost and traditional role as everyone's (especially girls') first instrument. [which has always struck me as sort of sadistic - the number of amateur recorder players is vast, but if a child wants to go further with the instrument, the number of professional recorder jobs is tiny, and the repertoire isn't much better, so they almost all have to switch to an entirely unrelated instrument in adulthood...]

Yeah. That, in my opinion was a bit of folly. The recorder, really, is not a beginner's instrument. It's, literally, like putting an 18th century oboe (or rather a copy of one!) in the hands of a six year old and expecting them to make anything like music. There are, I think, better didactic instruments available for one's first experience. Jobs? Hah! I'd imagine there's not many at all.

Mr Winter's is clearly playing an overdriven instrument (either electric pickups or a good set of microphones -- the sound is extremely loud and distorted). As clavichords are well known for being quiet, here is a more characteristic volume:
I really don't hear the 'distortion' you complain of, although I'll admit I've a terrible ear. Winters clearly doesn't, though, so I'd be surprised if it's as terrible as you think. To me, your recorded just sounds like the microphone's not very good. Winters' sound is different imo because:

a) it's in a resonant room. Sure, the effect is minimised with an instrument so quiet, but it's still there.

b) he's using better microphones, close to the instrument, to recreate the sound of playing it, whereas the recording in your link feels more like you're just in the same room.

c) he's using two microphones, which in this recording have evidently been set up to replicate the reverb of a rather echo-y chamber, which is why there's that added sustain. But that doesn't exactly change the sound of the instrument, it just attempts to imitate a certain circumstance of hearing it.

d) here I think is the biggest factor: the two people are playing different instruments. VERY different instruments. First, your guy is playing a clavichord he's assembled from a kit, whereas Winters is playing an instrument by one of the top professional builders. More importantly, your guy is playing a replica of a 17th century double-fretted instrument, whereas Winters is playing a replica of an 18th century unfretted concert instrument - it's deeper, and it's much longer, so it has higher string tensions, more efficient coupling, etc. Your one is a better representation of early modern music, and it's also closer to the instruments that were revived in the late 19th century as domestic instruments - but Winters' one is a better representation of an expensive instrument that might be around at the time of Beethoven. [actually, even bigger and more powerful clavichords were around by then, and even into the early 19th century, apparently mostly in Sweden]. I think this mostly explains the difference in sound.

Best thing I can suggest is that you either go listen to a clavichord in the wild, or better yet, play one! I have one. It's sitting right next to me. I really don't know how else to describe to you how quiet these instruments are. Even the louder ones! They're like homeopathic, there's so little volume of sound!

Mr Winters is playing a clavichord, yes, but the recording process he uses so greatly magnifies the sound of it that it really no longer sounds like a claivichord. Look through the comments to his recordings: I'm not the only one remarking on how overly loud it sounds! There are harpsichord builders, sound engineers, clavichord builders, players familiar with the instrument who all concur.

But, I really would urge you to find out on your own! The sound and musical intimacy of the unfortified instrument is so beautiful! This recording simply doesn't do justice!

Interestingly, and this does surprise me, Winters says his clavichord can actually give concerts in concert halls - he says he's done satisfactory concerts for 250 people. Of course, the hall matters too - and of course it would be like a guitar or or a viol or something, immediately drowned out if he tried to go up against modern string instruments. So it's still a solo instrument, more or less, even if big ones like this aren't necessarily drawing room instruments alone.

That surprises me greatly! One possibility that I saw mentioned is that he may be using heavier strings drawn to a higher tension. That, too, would increase the volume. To be honest with you, I'd have to hear it live! (And unreinforced.) In any event, I'd bet his clavichord in a concert hall (with 250 in attendance) is a damn sight quieter in person than this recording would make it out to be!

And the innovations keep coming...
Actually, I find the lack of innovation disappointing - the occasional instrument gets a run out with some composers and performers looking for some way to stand out, but nothing non-electronic has really become mainstream since the saxophone, I don't think.

And that was a struggle and a half! Given how hard the fight to get any kind of acceptance for the saxophone, I'd say it's not so much a lack of innovation (a trawl through any gallery of 19th century musical instruments shows considerable effort at innovation) but perhaps more a determination to keep innovations away from high art music.

Though the heckelphone had a go for a bit. It's a shame because with modern knowledge of acoustics and instrument-building, all sorts of things could be possible.

Not my favourite sound, the heckelphone. But they do kind of sound nice in consort.

Probably 75% of all heckelphonists in the world attended this gala: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBhkaL6z82M

The Wheelharp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGOqIYo9cBE&t=7s
I've always loved the look of the wheelharp, but why does it have to be so hideous in sound? I've always wondered how much of that is inherent to the design, and how much is due to the fact it's just something some guy threw together in his shed.

Personally, I think you're on to it with design. I've been following the saga from its first prototype demonstrations on line years ago. I think part of it may be in how deeply you can depress the keys. Maybe the string is pressed too hard against the wheel.

Either way, it's not actually an innovation, as it predates the piano. One-wheeled geigenwerken like this were developed in the 17th century. Pepys mentions one in his diaries. [a geigenwerk, popularised by Hans Haiden in the 16th century, is a keyboard instrument that uses a rotating band to bow the strings; in the 17th century versions were built with rotating wheels instead, including versions with a single wheel, giving the instrument a "domed" shape.] In the 18th century, Le Gay was building cylindrical versions with a single rotating wheel turned by a pedal, which iirc is what the wheelharp does. English versions were made with clockwork-powered flywheels instead. The general idea keeps being reinvented every generation and then disappearing - they're expensive, complicated, prone to failure, and they tend to sound awful. Because it's hard to bow a string pleasantly unless you can do fine adjustments as a human bower can - otherwise you end up with scraping and stuttering and whatnot. Or at least, if they might sometimes sound ok, they basically sound like a string quartet playing badly...

Yep. Though I believe the wheelharp as it now is has an electric motor driving the wheel.

The Viola Organisata:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmow9jsPqBc
Ditto. As the video says, Leonardo was the first person to invent the geigenwerk, but that isn't actually following his designs - of course, he'd never seen a harpsichord! I believe that, like Haiden's first instruments, he used bands rather than wheels. Though I think Haiden was the first to use wheels, too. Not a massively novel idea, of course - it's inspired by the hurdy-gurdy, which has been around since the 12th century at the absolute latest.

Novel for keyboards, which was rather the point. To combine the sound & sound production technique of the hurdy gurdy with the playing technique of the keyboard.

[Leonardo invented many instruments. He invented, for instance, Boehm-style flute keywork! But it was forgotten about for hundreds of years. He also discovered Chladni patterns. But they were forgotten about for hundreds of years. Leonardo's really a great answer to those "what if a time-traveller brought a [X] to the middle ages!? how would it change history!?!?" questions. Answer: [X] would be forgotten about for hundreds of years.]

I've seen pictures and examples of his slide whistle, but not anything like a Boehm flute! That would be a picture to see!

I'll admit, though, the sound of that organista is growing on me... (and it's always nice to hear some Abel!)

It is rather charming!

Pedal clavichords date from the 15th century; Bach had a pedal harpsichord and Mozart had a pedal piano.

I'd suggest the pianola as an innovation, though.

Yep. Pedal clavichords did indeed exist back then. Application to the piano, in specific, is the innovation here. Mechanical instruments (organs usually) are also quite old. Applying that to the piano, of course, rather newer!

For more innovations, check out Bart Hopkin's Instrumentarium. "Moe" I think might count as a realisation of Da Vinci's slit flute, applied to clarinet form.

Risla · Post by **Risla** » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:09 am

I'm somewhat obsessed with this hiking trail I found back in August, called the Yamanobe-no-Michi (山辺の道). Very few people know about it, but it's the oldest known road in the country. It's lined with interesting and ancient sites (including a bunch of kofun and arguably the oldest Shinto shrine in the country), and the whole thing looks like it's straight out of a Ghibli movie. Here are some pictures I took there (both last week and back in August). What's more, there are currently fruit stands every couple hundred meters, selling all the delicious and dirt-cheap fruit you could ever want.

alice · Post by **alice** » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:13 pm

That looks really lovely!

How did you cope with the storm which was heading your way, btw?

Travis B. · Post by **Travis B.** » Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:02 pm

I am really happy with the progress of Attoforth. I just got exception handling and thread-local variables working and have been reworking a good amount of functionality to move things out of the core runtime and into the Forth library. I had already gotten a lot of Readline-like functionality working, even though that could still benefit from more work (e.g. right now it does not support searching through history or automatically repeating operations).

Post by **Linguoboy** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:03 pm

I just had a string of minor positive reactions which have temporarily stilled my desire to wish a painful end to all of humanity. Donuts may have been involved.

Raphael · Post by **Raphael** » Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:07 am

Yay, donuts!

Travis B. · Post by **Travis B.** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:35 am

I fixed a particularly annoying bug in Attoforth that was causing terminating tasks to cause other tasks created after them to abnormally terminate as well; this was hard to track down because it had little to do with the apparent bug I was hunting, which was that when a certain task terminated, it would cause the other tasks to take up 100% CPU. Debugging is often frustrating, but it's wonderful when you've actually fixed a significant bug.

Nortaneous · Post by **Nortaneous** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:18 pm

One proposal I've seen is to replace recorders as a first instrument with mountain dulcimers. They're a little bulkier, but allegedly the bodies can be made out of cardboard without them sounding too bad (and traditionally they'd be banged out in a shed anyway - that's what I did with mine, and when I went out to instrument shops looking for a better one, the only ones I found were even worse) and nowadays you could probably 3D print the fretboards or something and just slot the frets in.

Post by **Linguoboy** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:37 pm

I would much rather have learned a dulcimer. I might still be playing an instrument if that had been the case.

Post by **Linguoboy** » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:14 am

Most days on my way to work, I walk past a young man escorting two young children to school. I think they're Arabic speakers. In any case, I've gotten in the habit of nodding hello since it seems rude not to acknowledge them in some way. Sometimes he gives me a slight nod back.

Today I ran into them just as they were leaving their building and, before I could give my nod, the guy saw me, nodded and smiled. Such a small thing and yet it gave me such a lift.

Vijay · Post by **Vijay** » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:33 pm

My workload today was less than usual, so I actually managed to work a little bit on all of my remaining projects today, which is a nice change from the usual.

Arzena · Post by **Arzena** » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:08 pm

I've gotten a promotion at work! You're now speaking to Arzena, Mr Assistant Property Manager, thank you very much

alice · Post by **alice** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:08 am

Yay Arzena! Pat thyself upon thy back!

Raphael · Post by **Raphael** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:50 am

Congratulations!

alice · Post by **alice** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:40 pm

Meanwhile, I managed to work twelve hours this week, the most for abut two years.

elemtilas · Post by **elemtilas** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:58 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:18 pm One proposal I've seen is to replace recorders as a first instrument with mountain dulcimers. They're a little bulkier, but allegedly the bodies can be made out of cardboard without them sounding too bad (and traditionally they'd be banged out in a shed anyway - that's what I did with mine, and when I went out to instrument shops looking for a better one, the only ones I found were even worse) and nowadays you could probably 3D print the fretboards or something and just slot the frets in.

They make half sized dulcimers, so that would decrease the bulk considerably!

Giving a young school aged child a recorder and pretending like it is a "pre-band instrument" is really no different than giving the same child an oboe.

Travis B. · Post by **Travis B.** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:12 pm

I have made more progress with attoforth! The latest major feature is autocomplete, so that when you enter prefixes of Forth words, hitting tab will either display all the words with that prefix, or, if only one Forth word has that prefix, will autocomplete that word.

Vijay · Post by **Vijay** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:08 pm

The kitchen has been smelling of spices for hours. <3

Zompist Bboard Again

Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!

Re: Happy things thread!