square grand or is it clavichord?

[William R. Brohinsky]

Richard Brekne wrote:

> Ahhhh the clavichord.... probably THEE most under-rated and 
> underdeveloped music instrument idea of our time. The keys have this 
> little capstan like nail... thumbtackish like thing.... where the 
> capstan usually is.. more or less. When you press down the key this 
> hits the string and stays there until you let the key down. Makes a 
> really neat sound and double serves to determine the pitch of the 
> note... sort of like left hand hammering a guitar... but neater.


All the descriptions of the clavichord given so far have been 
essentially correct, but none of them have been complete.

The clavichord is an old instrument, believed by Bach to be the epitome 
of a composer's keyboard. It comes in two varieties, one in which a 
single string was affected by a single key, and a more 'compact' system 
in which each string served four-or-so consecutive keys. The latter form 
is often referred to as a 'fretted clavichord', and obviously precludes 
playing chords that involve intervals closer than a minor third. This 
was no impediment to music in the earliest times, but with the onset of  
the baroque became a liability. One might suspect that the fretted 
clavichord would have died out, but apparently examples exist from 
Bach's time. There is one change in the fretted clavichord that might 
allow some dating: before 1600, the form that predominated had all 
strings of the same weight and length. (It is believed that this form 
evolved from the 'polychoridc monochord', which had strings tuned in 
thirds and relied on the student's fingers to find proper intervals for 
chords. The tangents represent a fixing of those positions, and 
assigning to a mechanism which allows them to be independently 
activated.) The more 'modern' version uses strings of differing weights 
and lengths, and although it appeared before 1600, is mostly a post-17th 
century instrument. The older form is largely called "monochord", even 
when the term clavichord is applied to it, in the tretises of the times.

The action is as has been described: a balanced key with a vertical 
metal tangent on one end, which is flattened at its upper end. They are 
arranged so the flattened ends stand perpindicular to the string. 
Depressing the key brings up the tangent, which strikes and remains in 
contact with the string as long as the key remains depressed. The 
pressure of the tangent on the string lifts the string slightly, as the 
tangent supplies the second bridge. The keys could be pressed further 
(what is considered 'aftertouch' on modern high-end synthesizers) to get 
a vibrato effect on a per-note basis, but it is worth noting that 
vibrato was considered an ornament as were trills and mordents and 
backfalls and such: too much use of it was anathema. Use on every note 
was clearly too much.

The case of the clavichord was shallow and of fairly light construction. 
They were sometimes supplied with legs, but by no means would a 
fully-outfitted clavichord be remotely considered to be a piano's 
caseworks. The wrestplank is tight-fit into the case. The soundboard is 
constrained on one side by the wrestplank, and the others by the box. It 
may have more than one bridge on it, but all bridges on the soundboard 
are effectively only one side of the vibrating length of the string.

There is only one effective part to a clavichord's actions: the 
teetertotter of the key. When the key is pressed the note starts, when 
it is released, the note is damped by felt cloth at the far end of the 
strings from the bridges. The tuning of the instrument is effected both 
by tuning the strings, and especially in the fretted version, bending of 
the tangents! I have a faint memory (a luxury afforded to those of us 
who have arrived at over-50 years of age) of one clavichord that I saw 
in England, which for all I know was a very modern experiment: it had 
rotatable tangents, with the fan-shaped spread top offset, so that you 
could shift the pitch of a string fairly on-the-fly. It struck me at the 
time as a bit farcical, and in retrospect, remains so. (If you don't 
follow that line of thought, get a copy of Helmholz (Dover edition) and 
read some of the lengths that musicians and theorists went to with 
harmoniums and such to map out different scales and temperaments. I'd 
assume that the rotating tangent idea was to support a 'quick change' 
between meant tone and whole-temperament (well-temperament). And 
frankly, the idea of turning all those little buggers during a concert, 
between pieces, still doesn't appeal to me.)

The general idea behind a clavichord seems to always have been 
portability, and pedagogy. As a development from the poly-monochord, it 
was certainly a teaching tool back in the early 1400's. Bach taught his 
20-odd sons theory and composition on it. I'd have to say that, for its 
intended purposes it was as well developed as it could want. It did 
allow tremendous 'repeatability', of the sort that even grand pianos 
with their highly refined actions only dream of in their long dark 
polished-ebony sleeps under heavy quilted pads... sorry, got off the 
subject a bit there.

There is one major identifying and limiting feature of a clavichord: 
they are quiet. So quiet, in fact, that the first tendency is to lay 
your head on the strings. (At least mine was.) It was clearly a personal 
instrument, for singular enjoyment. The harpsichord made lots of noise 
by comparison, and was used for ensemble playing.

Square pianos are claimed by Sachs to have been a German development on 
the Italian Pianoforte/Fortepiano. because the German household was used 
to the square clavichord, which required far less space than the 
wing-shaped italian instruments, the mechanism was turned sideways and 
stuffed into a box. But a piano is quite different from a clavichord: 
the string tension is much higher, since the strings are excited with 
blows (not plucking like a harpsichord) and the action is more 
complicated. Of course, early square pianos had no escapement at all: 
the back of the key lofted a single-rotation-point hammer, stopped short 
of pushing the hammer all the way to the strings, and caught the 
pushing-point of the hammer when it returned. Since the combined art of 
firing off the hammer and successfully catching and stopping its return 
are hard to achieve in a single mechanism, escapements happened. But 
there are no instances I know of (from the literature, not just my own 
limited experiences) where the string is struck by a mechanism that is 
solid from hammer to keyfront. So this is the first complete difference 
between one key-one string clavichords and square pianos: multipart key 
mechanisms and double-bridged strings.

The second is case weight. Square pianos are more stout to account for 
the heavier weight of an action, as well as the higher string tensions. 
They are not 'tuck it under your arm and run up to teach the king a 
lesson in theory' instruments.

The third is trap/lyre mechanisms and dampers. The dampers for a 
clavichord is the felt/cloth wrapping one side of the strings. Strings 
that are double-bridged need 'real' dampers.

There is one more thing to note: almost all clavichords have lighter 
accidentals than naturals. Almost all pianos, even square, tend to ivory 
keys and black or dark-wood sharps.

The box is rectangular,

> If it was a Clavichord... it would be interesting to hear how you 
> tuned it :)
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>

Boy, I'll say! Which temperament? Did you have to bend tangents?

> Alpha88x@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>>             What is the difference between a square grand and a 
>> clavichord?
>>

raybro