Klinkhamer Harpsichord and Fortepiano makers since 1974

From the Palacio de Queluz, Lisbon, Portugal

Introduction

The object of this restoration was to bring back a totally unplayable and warped fortepiano to its original state, so that it could be used as a concert instrument again. Jorge Gil of ‘Em Orbita’, who recommended our firm for the restoration, was very clear about this.

This type of Clementi, probably dating from before 1805, is relatively rare. From Martha Novak Clinckscales’ Book ‘Makers of the Piano’ 1700-1820, it appears that about 14 Clementi ‘Grand Pianos’ have survived, nr. 14 possibly being the Queluz’ instrument, since the description calls it early 19th. century and the present owner is supposed to be the ‘Museu Federico the Freitas’ in Madeira. I suppose that it was acquired from this museum by the Palacio de Queluz. If this is not the case, there might be two of these Clementi fortepianos in Portugal, but I consider that to be unlikely.

The exterior of the Queluz’ Clementi is in fact very similar to nr. 2 on Ms. Novak’s list (page 73): Serial no. 544, (Queluz’, serial no. could not be deciphered). Date 1801-1802. Compass 5½ octave, FF-c’’’’. Length 221 cm. Case ‘Sheraton Style’, Sheraton being a very famous maker of veneered furniture during that period.

No 3 on her list corresponds well to the length of the ‘Queluz’ i.e. 2.254m, making it improbable that the instrument was built after 1805. Clementi had his shop in London; we do not know if he liked the name of the street: it was called Cheapside. Muzio Clementi was a composer turned entrepreneur; we may safely assume that he was not himself sweating away at the instruments.

To quote Clinkscale: ’An Italian, he came to England as a result of his having been sold to an Englishman, Peter Beckford. He moved to London in 1774 where he gave a series of successful concerts. He achieved great fame as a concert pianist, composer and teacher in Britain and on the continent. In 1798, Clementi, together with a group of partners took over the firm of Longman and Broderip…….which in 1822 when Frederic Collard joined the firm became known as Clementi, Collard and Collard till Clementi died in 1832.’ (Clinkscale, page 67).

One of Clementi’s students and general dogsbody during his tours on the Continent was John Field, the first composer of Nocturnes. He was to be quite ruthlessly exploited by Clementi whose mercurial talents were not only limited to the Fortepiano business.

London was, of course, not the only important place for the construction of Fortepianos, although the Square Piano Model was made in huge quantities for well-to-do citizens. But after all this was not where Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert lived, worked and died. So there is a Viennese School of Fortepianomaking that did, in fact domineerthe 20th century reproduction of Fortepianos. Important names between 1790 and 1840: Stein, Walter, Streicher and Graf.

It should be stressed that these early 19th-century Grand Pianos as made by Clementi and Broadwood in London (there are no musically or structurally important differences between the two) but also by Walter, Streicher and Graf in Vienna, are very beautiful musical instruments, eminently suited to the music of their time. (We regard J.A. Stein as belonging to the 18th. century, his pianos were made famous by Mozart.)

Ludwig van Beethoven, possibly because of his progressive deafness, showed very little appreciation for the fortepiano and this may have something to do with its lack of status in many musical circles today as well as a belief many people have in technological ‘progress’. However, these were the composers’ tools and their compositions reflect this. The ‘newness’ and excitement of Clementis (who influenced Beethoven) and Beethovens compositions, is smothered whenon the modern piano, but highlighted by a performance on a period instrument.

Our ears, used to the glib sounds of contemporary Steinways and Yamahas, can re-acquire the taste, and savour the exquisite sound of instruments like these. It is not until 1880, with cross-stringing firmly in place, that the modern piano as we know it basically emerges, with Steinway as its leader. (Crossstringing: strings do not run parallel to each other, blurring theclarity of the different registers) so there is a lot to savour. As an aside I’d like to mention that there is an incredibly beautiful Steinway from the eighteen sixties in the Yale Collection at New Haven (USA, Conservator Richard Rephann).

But the need to accommodate an ever bigger audience forced all piano makers to step up the power of their instruments possibly at the expense of beauty and subtlety. It is ironic that the ‘fortepiano’ does not have a very powerful sound which the ‘piano’, on the other hand, does have, even the lowliest of its species. With a generally shrinking audience for classical music (especially chamber music) in present times, maybe Steinway could start to reproduce its own period instrument.

Back to the eighteen hundreds now: the tonal difference between the English and the Vienna schools must of course be heard to be appreciated (see Discography), so we limit ourselves here to the construction, dealing with the action later.

What are the pros and cons with respect to the differences in construction? If we compare the construction of an 1805 Walter to that of the Clementi-Broadwood school, the construction of the Walter is vastly superior. With the Walter, the braces of the case construction continuously interlock and the strings are attached to pins that live in a beam forming an integral part of the case.

The Clementi and Broadwoods from that same period have been constructed in a very similar way to the English harpsichords of a few decades earlier. This was not a good idea, the tension on a harpsichord being much less, and even those harpsichords had a severe tendency to warp. Fortepianos need a lot more tension, because a string struck by a hammer can generate much less energy than a plucked string. Here is a picture of this relatively light construction:

So, unfortunately, the ‘Queluz Clementi’ had severely warped under the tension of the strings, resulting in a cocked-up ‘cheek’ (the right-hand or treble side) that made it absolutely essential to take the instrument apart.

To make this possible, the soundboard and pinblock (where the tuning pins are) had to be removed. The connection between the ‘cheek’ and the bentside had to be taken apart. This also involved removing a very ornate part of the case veneer, with the ‘Sheraton motifs’ on both these surfaces. ‘Removing’ here meant very carefully soaking out all these separate parts with the help of damp cloths. A very time consuming job, requiring a lot of patience. The next picture shows partner C. Kraan at work.

Once this was done, a very difficult decision had to be made: the pinblock had been warped to such an extent that we deemed it impossible to get it back into its original shape with the certainty that it would stay flat.

We are very grateful to Christopher Clarke one of the ‘grand old men’ (except that he isn’t very old) of fortepiano making and restoring, that he was willing to help us out with his advice, this decision being the most difficult one to take.

So the pinblock was replaced with a copy: the same material (oak, and the same direction for the grain of the wood. The same measurements: if you realise that the standard pinblock of an 18th-century French harpsichord has a thickness of 5 cm and that this one was only 3.5 cm thick , you can imagine why we would have loved to keep it a little thicker. But the position of the action within the instrument made this absolutely impossible. The pinblock needs to be tapered, otherwise the hammershank would bump into the pinblock on its way to the string, as the picture shows. (The distance between the hammer rail with the pistolgrip form and the pinblock is only a few mm in the Clementi.).

Making a new pinblock had the advantage that the original tuning pins could be used again.

The rest of the instrument was straightened out with the help of clamps, this made the internal braces of the instrument too short. The braces are made of pine.
The resulting gaps were filled out with the same type of wood.

New dovetails where made for the cheek/ bentside joint.

The case sides have been made of oak. Restoring the complicated Sheraton motif on the case was difficult, some of the veneer ‘strings’ had to be replaced and a special mould had to be made to reproduce the pattern. Here it still is in its pre-restorative state.

After the whole casework veneer had been restored, the case and the lid were French polished, the way they originally were. Both the lid and the stand had to be extensively restored as well.

Now that the case had become straight again, it was time to bring back the soundboard to its original condition, because it was quite badly damaged with severe cracks in the treble, a broken bridge and ribs that had become unstuck.

Every part of the ribbing seemed to be original, the ribs being fairly thin, so conceptually this was not a difficult part. Everything has of course been reglued with hot bone glue as it had been in the past, making the restoration process reversible. Since the ‘Palacio de Queluz’ is a fairly humid place, as is our shop in Amsterdam, care was taken not to dry out the soundboard too much before putting it back in.

The hitchpin-rail (a strip of wood on top of the soundboard, glued into the bentside, that has to carry the tension of the strings with this type of Fortepiano, had to be replaced since it didn’t look too reliable.

After the hitchpins had been put in, the instrument was ready for stringing.

Till the end of the ninteen eighties, restorers had a tough time deciding which was the correct material and size for the instrument they worked on. One could not rely too much on the strings that were still present, because these instruments were very often restrung with heavier sizes. But Malcolm Rose, one of the pioneers of historical string making, had, together with David Law, very patiently compiled stringing data from restorers all over the world.

Together with the fact that the old English fortepiano makers already used string gauges, deciding the right kind of stringing and tension was not too daunting a task.

It should be mentioned here that a restoration of this kind is not without its controversies: it is possible that within 25 years the instrument needs to be restored again to keep it in playing order. With every restoration some historical material disappears, as was already argued around the nineteen eighties by the then Conservator of the Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments, Nicolas Meeús. Therefore it would be better to make a copy, leaving the instrument itself alone. The copy would not have been more expensive, but for the public it would lack the charm of the genuine thing. Also, in reality, the copy is hardly ever commissioned. It seems to be easier to acquire the funds for a restoration, probably for the same reason: it appeals more to the imagination of those who hold the purse strings.

After this it had become time to concentrate on the Clementi’s action, which had to be entirely rebuilt. But let us discuss two major action styles for grand pianos around 1800:

The essentials of the English action used by Clementi go back to the inventor of the fortepiano, Bartolomeo Christofori, of whom some fortepianos from the period 1720-1726 have survived. A similar type of action was used around 1750 by the famous Silbermann organ and piano builder family, but by 1790 the ‘Viennese’ action was well established in German speaking countries.

What are the pros and cons of these actions? The reputation of the ‘Viennese’ action is for precision and subtlety, enabling the player to create every possible kind of nuance.

The ‘English’ action, however, is capable of producing more powerful dynamics. (Which is why in 1818 Beethoven, as a promotion, received a Broadwood Grand specially made for him, but by that time his deafness had already progressed too far for him to appreciate the difference.)

With regard to subtlety however, it should be mentioned that English Grands have a secret weapon that I have not yet found in Viennese fortepianos: the true ‘una corda’.

Shifting the keyboard to use only two strings in the choir, is normal and present also in modern grand pianos. English grands, however, by removing a lever to the right of the keyboard and thereby using one string only, are capable of whispering. (This can be heard on the recording the author has produced of the instrument which he hopes will be obtainable in the museum itself one day.)

Viennese instruments on the other hand, apart from the later ones with sometimes all kinds of ‘bells and whistles’, do have a ‘moderator’, a strip of cloth that can be put between the strings and the hammers, also producing a wonderful sound, but less clear.

‘Viennese’ Action or ‘Prell-mechanik’.

From: John Koster, Keyboard instruments, Catalogue of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

The Viennese action is indirect, but profits from the lever momentum provided by the hammer shank, making it a very light action to play. Here the escape is provided by ‘A’ which is held in position by a spring and grabs with its beak the end of the hammershaft ’B’. The exact position of this ‘escape’ defines the release of the hammer.

Some of the Viennese builders, notably Bösendörfer were so attached to this type of action that they held on to it as late as the year 1860. But with the heavier hammerheads, necessary for a bigger sound, this action lost its special advantages.

English Action

From: John Koster, Keyboard instruments, Catalogue of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

From both diagrams it becomes clear that the English action (that evolved into the modern piano action as we know it) is the more direct one. The hammer is hinged on rail ‘A’ looking not unlike a pistol grip and resting on rail ‘B’.

Lever ‘C’ is almost -but not quite- touching the hammer socket. (All relevant parts are protected by leather to prevent unwanted noises.) As soon as the key is depressed, the hammer is thrown upwards towards the string. At the same time the jack ‘F’ -with the damper- is lifted so that the string can sound freely.

Now we come to the crucial part of any piano action, we need an escape, or the hammer would block the string and one would hear a very unpleasant sound. With the help of a spring that is lodged in the key, lever ‘C’ is held in contact with regulating screw ‘D’. This screw defines the exact point where lever ‘C’ will be pushed back so that the hammer can fall back unimpeded. Back-check ‘E’ should prevent its bounce after that. When the player releases the key, the lever will fall back to its original position.

Rebuilding the action:
Some of the hammershanks were broken and had to be replaced, all the bearings of the moving parts had to be replaced and the leather of the hammerheads had to be renewed as well.

Taking the action apart and rebuilding it, also implies regulating everything again. In this respect we are also indebted to Christopher Clarke, who during an ‘Antwerpiano Symposium’, organised by the renowned fortepiano and harpsichord player Jos van Immerseel, gave detailed instructions in a paper he presented to the symposium about the setting up of different types of actions after they had been rebuilt.

After the restoration I now have a certain bias towards the English action, because you can regulate it (using screw ‘D’) with the keyboard remaining in the instrument. Viennese pianos can only be regulated outside the instrument with the help of a ruler simulating the height of the strings.

This concludes this article, originally written for IPPAR , the organisation in Portugal that commissioned the restoration. Many thanks to my partner in business Christiaan Kraan whose special project this was and who gave almost a year of his life to this work.

Sources and recommended reading:

• The Pianoforte, Rosamund Harding, rev. 1978, Gresham Books, ISBN 0905418 31-x.
• Makers of the Piano 1700-1820, Martha Novak Clinkscale, Oxford UP, 1995 ISBN0-19-816323-1.
• Giraffes, Black Dragoons and Other Pianos, Edwin M. Good, 1982, Stanford UP, ISBN 0-8047-1120-8.
• Men, Women & Pianos, a Social History, Arthus Loesser, 1954, Simon and Schuster.
• A Handbook of Historical Stringing Practices for Keyboard Instruments, Malcolm Rose, David Law, 1991. Publish by the author, M. Rose, Englmish Passage, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2AP, UK, ISBN 0-958590-05.

CD recommendations:

The Queluz Clementi:
‘Clementi & Co, works by Clementi and his Contemporaries. Jacques Ogg, Fortepiano, Marc Pantus, Baritone, Wilbert Hazelzet, Flute, Christiaan Norde, Cello. Can be purchased from Klinkhamer Harpsichords & Fortepianos.

For recordings on a Walter and a Silbermann copy, please visit Jacques Oggs’ website, or listen to a sample played by Jacques Ogg.

For recordings on English fortepianos, check out Richard Burnett.

Other recommended performers are Jos van Immerseel, Andreas Staier, Jörg Demus and Trudeliese Leonhardt.

You can find them all on the internet or in specialised CD shops.