(b Schwanden, canton of Glarus, 1702; d London, 19 Aug 1773). English harpsichord maker of Swiss birth. He came to England as a joiner in 1718 and worked for Hermann Tabel. In 1728–9 he married Catherine Wild (whose parents also came from Schwanden), and in 1739 took up residence at 1 Meard Street, Soho, remaining there until 1742, when he moved to Great Pulteney Street. It was there that his portrait by Marcus Tuscher, now in the National Portrait Gallery, was painted (see illustration).
In 1761 John Broadwood started working for Shudi. Eight years later Broadwood married his employer’s daughter Barbara and was taken into partnership by his father-in-law. Shudi’s ‘Venetian swell’, whereby the volume could be varied by moving louvres, was patented on 18 December 1769. In 1771 Shudi retired to a house in Charlotte Street, and on his death his place in the partnership was taken by his son, Burkat (b c1738; d 1803); after the son’s death the ownership of the firm passed to Broadwood, who by then was devoting almost all his time to piano making. Details of some 23 surviving Shudi harpsichords and 27 Shudi–Broadwood harpsichords are given by Boalch.
Two other harpsichord-making members of the family are known: Joshua Shudi (1739–74), the son of Burkat Shudi’s elder brother, Nicholas, spent a short time at sea and then went to work for Shudi in 1761. That his work was not satisfactory is attested by an affidavit sworn on 12 January 1767 by John Broadwood and two fellow apprentices (see Russell, appx 13). However, by 1766 Joshua had set up on his own in Silver Street, Golden Square, and Boalch records three surviving harpsichords, signed ‘Joshua Shudi’, from 1770, 1773 and 1776 respectively. The relationship (if any) of Bernard Shudi to the rest of the family is not clear, and his existence is known only from a two-manual harpsichord of 1769 signed by him.
Shudi was one of the two most important English harpsichord makers of his period, the tone of his instruments being preferred by Burney to Kirkman’s; his clients included Frederick the Great, the Empress Maria Theresa, Haydn, the Prince of Wales, and his friends Gainsborough, Reynolds and Handel. Described as ‘celebrated’ by Gerber (Lexicon, 1790–92), he had among his workers Zumpe (according to Burney) as well as Broadwood; he also worked with Snetzler (again according to Burney) on claviorgans (although none of these have survived), and left Snetzler a ring in his will. Mozart tried one of his harpsichords (no.496) when in London on 13 May 1765 (the numbers were recorded in the workshop books and often on the instruments themselves); Clementi took one of his instruments to Paris; others were exported to Russia (1772–3), and at least 11 to Oporto (1773–5), presumably for dispatch to various places in the peninsula. Mrs Hamilton’s instrument in Naples was said by Burney to be regarded locally as a musical phenomenon.
Trained in the Flemish-orientated workshop of Tabel, Shudi is also known to have hired out two Ruckers harpsichords. From 1782, Broadwood’s piano production was immense, but previously the Shudi–Kirkman output had been largely geared to three basic models: the single-manual harpsichord – 8', 8'; another single-manual harpsichord of 8', 8', 4'; and a double-manual harpsichord – 8', 8', 4' and lute. Usually there was a buff stop; on some single instruments a pedal operates it. Modifications or additions can be dated approximately: from c1760 the buff stop; from c1765 the machine stop and the music desk; from c1765 a long compass down to C'; from c1769 the Venetian swell; from c1770 a change in scaling to somewhat longer bass strings and more distant plucking-points. The ‘machine stop’, perhaps invented for Frederick the Great’s instruments, was the name given to the mechanism engaged by a handstop but operated by a foot-pedal, which on being depressed gradually reduces the registration on each manual (see Machine stop (i)). Variety of tone, dynamic changes, and a certain degree of crescendo-diminuendo were made possible by this means, corresponding roughly to the knee-levers of such French makers as Taskin. The Venetian swell, perhaps invented as an improvement on Kirkman’s raised-lids or nag's head swell, was the name given to the row of framed longitudinal louvres tightly fitting the harpsichord above the strings and opened and closed by a mechanism worked by a foot-pedal. The chief purpose is uncertain, since the device changes the timbre of the sound, affects its volume, permits both gradual and sudden operation, and can rest open or closed. Whatever the various builders’ intention with the Venetian swell, it can hardly be compared to the organ swell which in 1769 still concerned only the upper or melodic parts of the compass; nor can it be truly said to have been intended to aid ‘the harpsichord’s fight for survival against the pianoforte’ (Russell) since in England pianos had not become very common by 1769, and Frederick had then owned two Silbermann pianos for over 20 years. Of instruments with the long compass C' to f''', 11 examples dating from 1765 to 1782 are now known; of Shudi’s supposed 16' stop, nothing is known and the phrase ‘upper and lower octave’ in the advertisement in the Morning Herald for the sale of Handel’s harpsichord on 26 June 1788 is much too vague and of too dubious a provenance for the historian (see Russell, 81). Other terminology is also a little unclear; for example Shudi’s phrases ‘guitar or harp’ for the buff stop in one of Frederick’s instruments, and ‘cimbal’ for the basic, lower-manual 8' stop.
The general nature of a Shudi harpsichord, including its inner construction, can be described as ‘developed Flemish’, like its French and English contemporaries. With regard to the tonal differences between Shudi and Kirkman harpsichords, it is generally said that Shudi harpsichords are rounder, deeper and less incisive, due possibly to the use of leather plectra in some registers (not normally found in Kirkman harpsichords), and the later changes in plucking point and string layout. Such judgments must remain essentially subjective, and the opportunities to hear and compare side by side a Kirkman and a Shudi harpsichord of the same date, in as near as possible the same state of preservation, are still rare. In fact, these judgments are of little real value, for whatever subtle variations of tone may be found between the two makers there can be little doubt that Hubbard’s dictum that the harpsichords of Shudi and Kirkman represent ‘the culmination of the harpsichord maker’s art’ is still valid. His further claim that ‘for sheer magnificence of tone, reedy trebles and sonorous basses, no other harpsichords ever matched them’ is possibly equally true, but again must remain subjective. It is interesting, however, that in the late 20th century, performances of music of the 18th century tended to favour the classical French harpsichord with its beguiling tones and more flexible registration scheme, and it has been less common for modern builders to make true and faithful copies of either a Shudi or a Kirkman.
For illustration see Harpsichord, fig.14.
BoalchM
W. Dale: Tschudi the Harpsichord Maker (London, 1913)
E. Halfpenny: ‘Shudi and the “Venetian Swell”’, ML, xxvii (1946), 180–84
R. Russell: The Harpsichord and Clavichord (London, 1959, rev. 2/1973 by H. Schott)
F. Hubbard: Three Centuries of Harpsichord Making (Cambridge, MA, 1965, 2/1967)
E.M. Ripin: ‘Expressive Devices Applied to the Eighteenth-Century Harpsichord’, Organ Yearbook, i (1970), 65–80
D. Wainwright: Broadwood by Appointment: a History (London, 1982)
DONALD HOWARD BOALCH, PETER WILLIAMS, CHARLES MOULD