 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
65 members (Animisha, Barly, bobrunyan, 1200s, 36251, benkeys, 20/20 Vision, anotherscott, 10 invisible),
1,825
guests, and
315
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
Last edited by Kamin; 05/22/12 02:42 AM.
Professional of the profession.
Foo Foo specialist
I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Ok , I'm coming into this thread late and can't figure out what a "CHAS" tuning is? And, How many different Historical Tunings are there? Hi Dave, you mention a good point: what is Chas tuning? I'll report a sort of definition made by an interlocutor of mine not long ago, perhaps you can tell me if you would like to know more: ..."...I am beginning to see where you are coming from. This is a model for saying what more advanced tuners do, and to maybe help many in the tuning community look at the piano scale frequencies and temperament in a new way? Many tuners view temperament in all manner of old ways, not the least of which is the antiquated, strict doubling of the octave."... Let me ask you, Dave, are you concerned with intonation, either for yourself or your customers? Hi All, are you concerned with intonation, either for yourself or your customers? Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi, Perhaps by investigating some issues related to temperaments we have finally got to the nerve centre of tuning, namely intonation. I must acknowledge that it is not easy to talk about intonation... some of us are definitely able to say when something is out of tune (see Mark R. and many others) while some others may not. And I understand that many techs may have approached our job with different motivations, perhaps being more concerned about the market place, the environment or general mechanical factors and/or job specifics. Intonation, tuning stability, timbre and touch/keyboard dynamics are all deeply related to the piano sound and the pianist' performance. I know that the idea of "clean unisons being all we need" achieves widespread success, personally I would only end that sentence saying "...all we need to start with". At least that is how I started, trying to get decent stability, good intonation and unisons out of old broken pianos stockpiled in a basement. I find no better way to close this chapter with a nice video I found, while looking for barbershop singing. Unfortunately I do not understand a word of what they say, though I hope you like it. Thank you All for your contributions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmDGntpZC3IRegards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi All, Hello rxd, let me move your recent contribute in here: ...........
Those are sensitive subjects, when askingvwhat kind of tuning the colleagues realise it sound as obscene , as if I asked the colors of their underwear.
But I believe this come from the difficulty with analysis (envelope, power, projection. You can see the tuner in Pianomania, tweaking unisons and regulation to provide an adequate ambiance, (while it could suffice to propose different instruments, the budget is not the same)
Greetings
There is a reason for colleagues not speaking of tuning techniques, styles, etc. Whenever anybody has mentioned anything remotely about tuning in this forum, take a close look at your reply. Perhaps now you are ready to talk about tuning, following a post of mine, although some time has passed. I have been missing your reply: Posted here, #1852385 - February 27, 2012 09:57 AM Re: HISTORICAL ET AND MODERN ETs [Re: alfredo capurso]
Thank you, rXd, for your reply.
Yes, I'm interested in knowing your thoughts, hearing about your own tuning experience and analyzing some conclusions, and I hope some other colleagues too are willing to share their own experience and deepen on one crucial issue, namely "intonation".
You said: …"The intervals of vertically structured temperaments and the melodic intervals as perceived and performed by say, gypsy violinists and opera singers simply cannot be reconciled."…
That seems to recall two kinds of "intonation", one for vertical chords structures and a second one for horizontal melodies, based on how intervals are perceived. Is that what you are referring to?
You kindly reported one case and said: …"His intonation in the solo was exemplary string players intonation."…
Do you have other cases? What would you say is "string players intonation" like?
And, if you would like, we could cover some other questions from your other post (above), at your convenience:
Who does regard our wide M3rds as a problem? Do you?
Would you yourself hear ET wide M3rds even wider?
How wide would players of melodic instruments and singers hear minor 6ths?
How do you expand your equal tempered octave?
Where do unequal temperaments gain favour with singers? Do you refer that to UT 6th? To one precise key?
Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi rxd, I have moved our replies from the "Best UT for Voice Teacher" thread in here for two reasons, because I do not like the idea of going off topic there, and because I like thinking that we (All) can share our pro experience, and perhaps help young colleagues with more indications. I don't think we disagree on anything of any consequence.
Perhaps the ET that can be told is not the eternal ET to paraphrase Lau Tsu.
Philosophically, is the mathematical model still ET when transfered to any instrument? Who can possibly be that pedantic?
I was taught a two octave temperament. Over the years, the piano has become one huge extended temperament for me.
As part of a team of 5 that tunes all the major concert and studio pianos here, (yes, there is so much work, it takes 5 and sometimes more, plus a scheduling office of two people), we work interchangeably. There must be over 1000 salaried top flight musicians among our 5 major symphonies and smaller orchestras and theatres, plus as many or more freelance musicians with never a problem they welcome a stable and predictable reference point. If anybody wants anything different, we can accommodate them. Other than the occasional request for 442 which is usually covered by putting in another piano that is stable at that pitch, we are rarely asked for any other temperament. The last time was eight years ago for a new work that hasn't been performed here since.
We simply haven't time to get any weird ideas about tuning. We did have one who started to tune too sharp in the treble. He only had to do it for a day or two before his colleagues had to dissuade him, it created too much extra work and was noticed by our musicians immediately. This was my reply: ..."I don't think we disagree on anything of any consequence."... I am glad, rxd, all in all... good news. ..."Perhaps the ET that can be told is not the eternal ET to paraphrase Lau Tsu."... Nice citation; on the other hand I hope one day you and I together will be able to address ET without having to say "Perhaps...". ..."Philosophically, is the mathematical model still ET when transfered to any instrument?"... Your question doesn't sound philosophical to me, but kind of "technical", and I would say that there is going to be a substantial difference, depending on the model. Which ET "mathematical model" are you referring to in these days? ..."Who can possibly be that pedantic?"... Well, in my own perspective things are a bit different: in my opinion, if a tuner were to refer to a wrong model and (say) expect to be able to transfer that (wrong) model on an instrument, the tuner in question would not be "pedantic" but simply wrong. I think that, in general, mathematical models are taken in consideration only when they can be transferred in actual practice successfully, without even thinking about "pedantic", I would say beyond any possible attribute, here meaning either the model works or it does not. ..."I was taught a two octave temperament. Over the years, the piano has become one huge extended temperament for me."... Good news, really. I too think that the usual (traditional and theoretical) concept of "temperament" is to be extended to the whole piano, that is what I do in practice and what I am sharing in Modern ET theory. Today, every time I think of it, I find all that (teaching and) fighting around "12-tempered-semitones" so deceptive, as if 12 semitones could ever define or be representative of the whole tuning. I cannot really explain this illusory phenomenon either... they too are piano tuners, some of them even talk about "whole harmony", they might well understand (?). Now I am very curious about the two octave temperament you were taught (I mean the sequence, including 4ths, 5ths and octaves) and look forward to knowing how you expand the first two octaves (reference points). ..."As part of a team of 5 that tunes all the major concert and studio pianos here, (yes, there is so much work, it takes 5 and sometimes more, plus a scheduling office of two people), we work interchangeably. There must be over 1000 salaried top flight musicians among our 5 major symphonies and smaller orchestras and theatres, plus as many or more freelance musicians with never a problem they welcome a stable and predictable reference point. If anybody wants anything different, we can accommodate them. Other than the occasional request for 442 which is usually covered by putting in another piano that is stable at that pitch, we are rarely asked for any other temperament. The last time was eight years ago for a new work that hasn't been performed here since."... Thanks for letting me know about your team and your practice. - . - . - . - Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi All, I have had some very busy days but, once a week.. always at PW, reading what my friends/colleagues are willing to partecipate :-) For the time being, I would like to trace Jim's post, and Ed's, Bill's and not least... Isaac's, my... favorite :-) The original thread is "My Piano in the "Equal Temperament via Marpug" 'Quasi' ET", the post below from July 07, 2013 02:32 PM To all, my regards, a.c. and the difference between it and one that has all fifths sharing the same DNA and the thirds ascending like a ladder will be lost on many of them.
There is no such thing as a perfect piano anywhere at any time. It is all a matter of degree and the best that can be accomplished under any given circumstances. The problem of both temperament and inharmonicity are ultimately irresolvable. One can only try to seek a better solution for each and to say that there is only one best solution under all circumstances leads not to the betterment of music from the piano but to mediocrity.
The fact that a very organic and direct contact between the body/ears of the tuner and the whole ensemble tuning pin/wire/soundboard, is necessary is something that some subtle pianists or musicians can understand better than tuners that rely on their "ears" and do not analyse the sensations the instrument is providing. The last three posts in this thread, for me, all point in a similar direction...though, I understand that the above posters very well may not agree with my interpretation. 1-given the mathematically restrictive definition of ET, ET in the reality of an instrument as unruly as a piano, is largely a fiction. Or, if it is a reality it is an extremely fleeting one. Owing to the structural and material complexities involved, not to mention the complexity of the brains that perceive the instrument's sounds, ET in its strictest mathematical sense cannot actually exist for any length of time, if at all. So it boils down to "pretty darn close", or diverting from the mathematical values but below the level of perception. I would offer that the amount that the tuning can deviate from the mathematical, and still musically below the threshold of perception is larger than we might think. This says to me that functionally, the best ET is still kind'a "wet"...dirty. 2-if the above point is accepted, unisons by definition, that is, mathematically pure unisons, are as much a mathematical fiction as mathematically pure ET is. Clean crisp "pure" unisons are also somewhat "wet"...uhhh...dirty...(mathematically speaking) Factoring out the poor communication...which is endemic, since this is all so hard to talk about...I see a "common denominator". The common denominator I see says, from a musical perspective, all these voices are telling a surprisingly similar story. That's good news...at least in my view. Jim Ialeggio ps This thread has crystalized for me musically what I have been doing in all my tunings...though without knowing what I was doing. I do prefer ET's "even-ness" of "disciplined" 4ths and 5ths, but really as the 4ths and 5ths I enjoy are equal beating, it appears to me I like my ET a bit "wet". More important to me than the temperament,is the fact that those equal beating 4ths and fifths (equal beating being a relative term) are extremely important in constructing the octave stretches which I find so musiclaly critical in constructing a seven octave wide resonant stretch...a stretch which easily meets the "musicality perceptible" threshold.
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi, I need to trace ED's reply, I think it may explain some circumstances related to our practice. I will reply in turn. To All, have a nice w.e., a.c. #2173061 - October 28, 2013 11:30 AM Re: Who says an ETD isn't good enough? [Re: Ed Foote] Greetings,
By any measurement, ETD's do some things better than humans. My results come from what I think are the strong points of an ETD used to assist my own judgement.
The machine has us beat by a mile on consistency. There isn't a human alive that can maintain 1/2 cent consistency in the top octave from say, the first to the last of 10 tunings over four days. At its best, an ear/tuning fork standard will just barely reach the accuracy of the most basic devices. We change, the machines don't. How is this of value?
Once we have a tuning in place, recorded on an ETD for a given piano, we have a consistent template. This is valuable for a tuner, as it allows us a perspective on ourselves, i.e. "Gee, this didn't sound that sharp last week"... I guarantee that most of us will disagree with a recorded version of our own tuning, replicated from the machine on the same piano, the first time we hear it. We will find some things that can be improved on when we listen to that tuning, again. And if we alter the ETD's info to match what our ears tell us, the next time we use that template, we will change less, and the third or fourth time we repeat that "massaging" of our template, the changes will be so small that we realize we are the only ones that know there has been a change. It is at this level of resolution that differences between like pianos might be seen, but once again, I have never found it of any more than academic benefit to chase that small of a target.
This level of judgement is all good in a clinical world, but hard to apply to real time use, since fluctuations during a given tuning can have more effect on overall width of our triple octave than any variability of the machines'. This modeling of an ETD tuning over a broader sample can remove the variation caused by localized pitch changes we encounter in any one tuning. And after the template has been refined from numerous applications and modeling, I think it more truly reflects the ideal track through the 88 note scale. When I get a piano that is already at pitch, all across, these tunings can really express what I think a great sounding piano should be.
The modern ETD also allows a great control over stretch, giving us numbers to match what we hear. I can sell either tight or stretched bass tunings, depending on the requirements, with consistent ease, and if someone performing a concerto starts talking about "adding some sharpness for brilliance" I can deliver as much as they want, every time.
Some of the best ears on the planet have complimented, unprompted, tunings done with an ETD, using the straight, unmodified FAC numbers. Refining beyond that is something I have done for myself, but I am under no illusions, there are very, very few people that could tell the difference between my best aural, recorded and refined, and the machine's preset idea of how a concert grand should be tuned. I have tested this theory with some really critical ears,(who had money riding on the quality of the project), and the differences seem to be academic. Hi Ed, You wrote: ..."By any measurement, ETD's do some things better than humans."... Well, perhaps a fair distinction amongst "humans" ought to be made :-) especially when (as many other say) there is room for some kind of artistry? But... please note that I comprehend the use of electronic equipment for any kind of reason, even when someone aims at a form of art. ..."The machine has us beat by a mile on consistency. There isn't a human alive that can maintain 1/2 cent consistency in the top octave from say, the first to the last of 10 tunings over four days. At its best, an ear/tuning fork standard will just barely reach the accuracy of the most basic devices. We change, the machines don't. How is this of value?"... That is perhaps related to your own experience? And the problem might be that a basic device can only reproduce its standard, a "human" can change (as you say), our standard oscillates, and IMO we need to go through ups and downs, they help us speculate, learn more and improve. ..."Once we have a tuning in place, recorded on an ETD for a given piano, we have a consistent template. This is valuable for a tuner, as it allows us a perspective on ourselves, i.e. "Gee, this didn't sound that sharp last week"... I guarantee that most of us will disagree with a recorded version of our own tuning, replicated from the machine on the same piano, the first time we hear it. We will find some things that can be improved on when we listen to that tuning, again. And if we alter the ETD's info to match what our ears tell us, the next time we use that template, we will change less, and the third or fourth time we repeat that "massaging" of our template, the changes will be so small that we realize we are the only ones that know there has been a change. It is at this level of resolution that differences between like pianos might be seen, but once again, I have never found it of any more than academic benefit to chase that small of a target."... Yes, I understand, perhaps it makes it easier for you, perhaps "mindless", but I think the whole question may depend on what you/we like or dislike about tuning: for instance, I love altering beats and "massaging" the whole piano and following the smallest changes my ears can detect or chase. How to explain? I like following what my ears and wrist tell me, more than having to do with a template... I don't know, a simple question of sound dimension? ..."This level of judgement is all good in a clinical world, but hard to apply to real time use, since fluctuations during a given tuning can have more effect on overall width of our triple octave than any variability of the machines'. This modeling of an ETD tuning over a broader sample can remove the variation caused by localized pitch changes we encounter in any one tuning. And after the template has been refined from numerous applications and modeling, I think it more truly reflects the ideal track through the 88 note scale. When I get a piano that is already at pitch, all across, these tunings can really express what I think a great sounding piano should be."... I am afraid here we enter the very subjective field, and I would love to listen to one of those tunings (check aurally: 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, octaves, 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths). Even only 5ths, octaves, 12ths and 17ths, do you think you can provide a recording? ..."The modern ETD also allows a great control over stretch, giving us numbers to match what we hear. I can sell either tight or stretched bass tunings, depending on the requirements, with consistent ease, and if someone performing a concerto starts talking about "adding some sharpness for brilliance" I can deliver as much as they want, every time."... I was never asked to add anything, for anything different from a sound and brilliant tuning. But I understand what you mean, perhaps where you leave ETDs have somehow modified the tuner/customer rapport? You can meet an extravagant customer and sell any displaied number they ask for? Why not? ..."Some of the best ears on the planet have complimented, unprompted, tunings done with an ETD, using the straight, unmodified FAC numbers. Refining beyond that is something I have done for myself, but I am under no illusions, there are very, very few people that could tell the difference between my best aural, recorded and refined, and the machine's preset idea of how a concert grand should be tuned. I have tested this theory with some really critical ears,(who had money riding on the quality of the project), and the differences seem to be academic." Well, perhaps that's you and IMO there is nothing to be discussed. Personally, I look at customers as potential "best ears", and I feel confident to be able to rely every day on my own technical skills. If I may ask, Ed, how do you know when... further refinement can be dismissed as "academic"? Regards, a.c. .
..."Once we have a tuning in place, recorded on an ETD for a given piano, we have a consistent template. "...
Yes, I understand, perhaps it makes it easier for you, perhaps "mindless", but I think the whole question may depend on what you/we like or dislike about tuning: for instance, I love altering beats and "massaging" the whole piano and following the smallest changes my ears can detect or chase. How to explain? I like following what my ears and wrist tell me, more than having to do with a template... I don't know, a simple question of sound dimension?
..."This level of judgement is all good in a clinical world, When I get a piano that is already at pitch, all across, these tunings can really express what I think a great sounding piano should be."...
I am afraid here we enter the very subjective field, and I would love to listen to one of those tunings (check aurally: 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, octaves, 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths). Even only 5ths, octaves, 12ths and 17ths, do you think you can provide a recording?
..."The modern ETD also allows a great control over stretch, giving us numbers to match what we hear. I can sell either tight or stretched bass tunings, depending on the requirements, with consistent ease, and if someone performing a concerto starts talking about "adding some sharpness for brilliance" I can deliver as much as they want, every time."...
I was never asked to add anything, for anything different from a sound and brilliant tuning. But I understand what you mean, perhaps where you leave ETDs have somehow modified the tuner/customer rapport? You can meet an extravagant customer and sell any displaied number they ask for? Why not?
If I may ask, Ed, how do you know when... further refinement can be dismissed as "academic"?
Regards, a.c.
Greetings, In reverse: I tune as part of a whole preparation of the instrument. I don't waste time on what I consider academic, and when I reach a point in the tuning where only another tuner can tell I am changing things, I see it as academic from that point on. I have no time to waste beyond that, chasing the last 1/2 cent in my stretch, when there is constant need for regulation and voicing. Techs debating whether that last 1 cent difference in the treble makes a difference in the sound is like two highway engineers arguing about the roadway varying by 1/16 inch. It makes no discernable difference to any customers I have( and some of them are listening to these tunings in isolation rooms with VERY advanced recording equipment and monitor systems). I work in a market of world-class musicians around here and I don't think my use of the machine has altered the expectations of artists such as B.G. Adair, Renee Fleming, Edgar Meyer, Emmanuel Ax and others. I take their feedback seriously, since they are exposed to piano technicians all over the world and are not shy about requests. Much of what I know now comes from learning what works for them. I have now gotten CDbaby to download all three Mozart comparisons, in meantone, WT, and ET. For free. If you want to examine my tuning, that could be a place to start. Same piano, stage, equipment, just a change of temperament. The Beethoven CD is more heavily into the WT effect. It is now mindless to find the pitches on a given piano, as I have already massaged and finessed the tuning. Having done it once, at greater length than I would ever do as a normal tuning, I don't need to do it again when there are other things like unisons to be polished. To each his own, I only wanted to invent my "wheel" once for each piano. It lets me provide a better prepared instrument. Regards,
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
For me 2 octave temperament is something very secure, but not going in the direction of tonality.
Tonality is defined within one octave, I do not believe a musician can envisage things differently.
The way to have a strong 2 octave temperament is to test it harmonically (arpegios, chords) , and adjust what is not coherent.
For instance I would compare Major and minor chords in the 2 octaves of the temperament.
The fact that musicians never complain about what goes on in mediums does not prove anything in my opinion. At best they accept something "neutral" and anyway there is so much power and the tone is so rich it can be a little undefined, the music will be what is heard primarily.
it is also easy to be coherent in that section, but I believe musicians would appreciate something more "free". My impression was that some tuning where following the progressions in the bottom of the long bridge and that gave some strong impression of deepness and coherence.
possibly using temperament that begin lower on the bridge may induce that, if they are the reference and not the region around A440. May be that was an old way of tuning at Hamburg.
Last edited by Olek; 11/01/13 07:06 PM.
Professional of the profession.
Foo Foo specialist
I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,845
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,845 |
For me 2 octave temperament is something very secure, but not going in the direction of tonality.
Tonality is defined within one octave, I do not believe a musician can envisage things differently.
The way to have a strong 2 octave temperament is to test it harmonically (arpegios, chords) , and adjust what is not coherent.
For instance I would compare Major and minor chords in the 2 octaves of the temperament.
The fact that musicians never complain about what goes on in mediums does not prove anything in my opinion. At best they accept something "neutral" and anyway there is so much power and the tone is so rich it can be a little undefined, the music will be what is heard primarily.
it is also easy to be coherent in that section, but I believe musicians would appreciate something more "free". My impression was that some tuning where following the progressions in the bottom of the long bridge and that gave some strong impression of deepness and coherence.possibly using temperament that begin lower on the bridge may induce that, if they are the reference and not the region around A440. May be that was an old way of tuning at Hamburg.
Greetings, I have to say that I can make absolutely no sense out of this post. I think the problem is the translation of adjectives, but I don't even know where to begin. "neutral, deepness, coherence, "free", so rich it is undefined"; these are not words that I have ever heard a pianist use to describe tone, so I have no idea at all what is being described here. Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 7,439
7000 Post Club Member
|
|
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 7,439 |
Well Ed,
Being a pianist, I have no clue either.
Marty in Minnesota
It's much easier to bash a Steinway than it is to play one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
forget it. I mean that when using 2 octaves you have more compromising and you are yet obliged to use one preference for tuning (taking in account the iH can be done different ways)
but I had in mind a 2 octave temp I have seen that used stacks of M3 as a skeleton.
if you use 2 octaves by confirming the slow beatings intervals, it gives more controls assuming the octaves are tuned consistently.
a too compromising temperament does make a little more predictable modulations and at some point it is boring to me, detracting from the music.
Now if the referent pitch are defined in a zone of the piano here the iH is not smooth, as near and above the break, you have more contrat and the break is more in tune.
ther is always a art of the tuning that consist to adapt the piano iH to the pitch of notes.
methods differ.
the temp I tried range from eb3 to e4 and created light variations in 5ths while sticking better to the break region than if pitches where defined higher in the scalr.
I can post samples but there are not so rare, tuning where the mediums are clean but uncontrasted.
Now what I have seen tuned as ET by the old techs often followed well the break region, and the discrepancies where more or less progressively smoothed higher (sometime not so much and the piano sounded with typically CF too large)
what I say is that it is unnecessary to go to extremes to provide some variations in the 5ths. following the piano plus operator mistakes is largely enough.
Last edited by Olek; 11/02/13 06:56 AM.
Professional of the profession.
Foo Foo specialist
I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 38
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 38 |
There is such great information on these posts, I'm glad they do not get removed. Thank you for posting some of those links to such beautiful music!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi, Tracing: #2221724 - January 28, 2014 05:37 AM Re: Why bother? (tongue in cheek) [Re: jmw] Why is the assumption being made that "concert" tuning is the same as "studio" tuning? As a pianist who has been in both situations, it seems that the tuner plays a very different role in each type of activity.
In performance, I've never been given a lunch break between the 2nd and 3rd mvts. of a concerto. The demands are totally different and shouldn't be equated. Care to expand on both these paragraphs, Marty? Neither of them seem to be saying anything unless I'm missing some humor. Well, it is a combined response to a number of your recent posts. You seem to be in a situation which is unlike the vast majority of highly skilled tuners. That is why I pointed out the difference in tuning for a concert or for a recording. 'Live in Concert' recording (or tuning) is very different than studio work. I'm thinking of the quest for perfection as it relates to the concept of this thread. In the classical world, unlike the craziness of RA Hall, piano tuners aren't pushed into rush jobs or get yelled at by a stage manager. I'm sure there are some rush jobs in unusual situations, but that is not the standard procedure for concert work or recording. I'm sorry that you work in such a frenetic environment. Why is it that you keep stating that wind instruments go flat at the top of their range and the reverse happens at the lower end? This is simply untrue. It is the other way around. Your 'stretch theory' just doesn't cut it. Nothing I stated was meant to be humorous. As I suspected. We are involved in all kinds of situations. The RAH series always gives us 3-4 seperate tuning slots on production day, 2-3 of them entirelyl to ourselves. I doubt I ever said anything different. The experience of my former student was not with the company I work with. it happened in America, as a matter of fact. not in a major centre. That would never be tolerated here. Everything we do here is in well defined, pre arranged, usually copious time slots. Have you been carrying this half understood notion all this time? I categorically never said that any wind instrument played flat in the upper register and sharp in the lower. I have, however stated that the piano is stretched more than any other instruments (skilfully played, of course). Having been a highly skilled professional wind player myself at film studio and broadcast level and in many genres with many different combinations of instruments, of course I understand their intonation. Currently, I am called upon to coach young professional ensembles and more recently, string quartets as an extension of my work with piano trios. I have spoken of certain situations where a wind player has played the odd note or two sharper than the rest of the orchestra that has affected the piano entry. That is not to say anything about general tendencies of an instrument. Let me clear this misunderstanding once and for all. Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played. This is easily accomodated by skilled players. They will, of course, note that it is a different experience from playing with a well tuned organ at the same nominal pitch, for example. This is, as I'm sure you understand, the effect of inharmonicity in pianos. I am assuming an understanding of this basic characteristic of pianos. Perhaps I shouldn't. Pianos tuned with exaggerated stretch only makes matters worse. It is the exaggerated tuning of the piano that is at fault, not the other instruments. I can't stress this enough To say that a piano is sharp is not the same as saying that any other instrument plays flat. Thank you for bringing this up and giving me an opportunity to clarify what I may not have said very clearly and for anybody else who may have been carrying this misunderstanding. Hopefully I didn't create more. this partial understanding explains a lot. But it still doesn't address your post in question. I still don't understand about "lunch between movements" or the exact nature of the distinction you make between concert and studio. Perhaps another partial understanding? What was your frame of mind when you wrote it? Strange Hi, I do not have much time in these days, I would like to be able to seat down for a solid time an reply properly. Instead I have to be short. rxd, you wrote: ..."Let me clear this misunderstanding once and for all. Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played. This is easily accomodated by skilled players. They will, of course, note that it is a different experience from playing with a well tuned organ at the same nominal pitch, for example. This is, as I'm sure you understand, the effect of inharmonicity in pianos. I am assuming an understanding of this basic characteristic of pianos. Perhaps I shouldn't."... Perhaps you want to expand on that. When I read that, I get the feeling we come from two different planets. Please note, nothing personal and I do not think it is a question of amount_or_type_of_experience... musician, playing concerts in duo (with a piano) or more, multi-instrument player, tunings in prestigous halls, for prestigious brands etc... in fact, all this calls for a question. Recently I have had to "learn" that the piano is the most out-of-tune instrument on the stage (BB), some colleagues still wonder about the "point of best fit", others regret that the piano cannot adjust_in_real_time, and now I learn from you that "...Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played." Humor: Do you tune pianos sharp? Humor: Are pianos sharp when they are not flat? Non-humor: Have you been tuning pianos while trying to get along with other orchestra instruments and players (as I understand from your other post)? In case, do you sacrifice your "intonation"? Humor: Gosh, all these martyrs, it looks like an army. Regards, a.c. P.S.: Here we wont go off-Topic.
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Perfection is like a mirage; when conditions are right you can see it is possible, but every motion towards it makes it recede from you. For me, Perfection is like Excellence: when conditions are right I can see it possible, perhaps any wrong notion (and/or posture) may cut it down. Beyond that, I do not think the OP was about Perfection, but scorn and indignation. Why is the assumption being made that "concert" tuning is the same as "studio" tuning? As a pianist who has been in both situations, it seems that the tuner plays a very different role in each type of activity.
In performance, I've never been given a lunch break between the 2nd and 3rd mvts. of a concerto. The demands are totally different and shouldn't be equated. Care to expand on both these paragraphs, Marty? Neither of them seem to be saying anything unless I'm missing some humor. Well, it is a combined response to a number of your recent posts. You seem to be in a situation which is unlike the vast majority of highly skilled tuners. That is why I pointed out the difference in tuning for a concert or for a recording. 'Live in Concert' recording (or tuning) is very different than studio work. I'm thinking of the quest for perfection as it relates to the concept of this thread. In the classical world, unlike the craziness of RA Hall, piano tuners aren't pushed into rush jobs or get yelled at by a stage manager. I'm sure there are some rush jobs in unusual situations, but that is not the standard procedure for concert work or recording. I'm sorry that you work in such a frenetic environment. Why is it that you keep stating that wind instruments go flat at the top of their range and the reverse happens at the lower end? This is simply untrue. It is the other way around. Your 'stretch theory' just doesn't cut it. Nothing I stated was meant to be humorous. As I suspected. We are involved in all kinds of situations. The RAH series always gives us 3-4 seperate tuning slots on production day, 2-3 of them entirelyl to ourselves. I doubt I ever said anything different. The experience of my former student was not with the company I work with. it happened in America, as a matter of fact. not in a major centre. That would never be tolerated here. Everything we do here is in well defined, pre arranged, usually copious time slots. Have you been carrying this half understood notion all this time? I categorically never said that any wind instrument played flat in the upper register and sharp in the lower. I have, however stated that the piano is stretched more than any other instruments (skilfully played, of course). Having been a highly skilled professional wind player myself at film studio and broadcast level and in many genres with many different combinations of instruments, of course I understand their intonation. Currently, I am called upon to coach young professional ensembles and more recently, string quartets as an extension of my work with piano trios. I have spoken of certain situations where a wind player has played the odd note or two sharper than the rest of the orchestra that has affected the piano entry. That is not to say anything about general tendencies of an instrument. Let me clear this misunderstanding once and for all. Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played. This is easily accomodated by skilled players. They will, of course, note that it is a different experience from playing with a well tuned organ at the same nominal pitch, for example. This is, as I'm sure you understand, the effect of inharmonicity in pianos. I am assuming an understanding of this basic characteristic of pianos. Perhaps I shouldn't. Pianos tuned with exaggerated stretch only makes matters worse. It is the exaggerated tuning of the piano that is at fault, not the other instruments. I can't stress this enough To say that a piano is sharp is not the same as saying that any other instrument plays flat. Thank you for bringing this up and giving me an opportunity to clarify what I may not have said very clearly and for anybody else who may have been carrying this misunderstanding. Hopefully I didn't create more. this partial understanding explains a lot. But it still doesn't address your post in question. I still don't understand about "lunch between movements" or the exact nature of the distinction you make between concert and studio. Perhaps another partial understanding? What was your frame of mind when you wrote it? Strange Hi, I do not have much time in these days, I would like to be able to seat down for a solid time an reply properly. Instead I have to be short. rxd, you wrote: ..."Let me clear this misunderstanding once and for all. Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played. This is easily accomodated by skilled players. They will, of course, note that it is a different experience from playing with a well tuned organ at the same nominal pitch, for example. This is, as I'm sure you understand, the effect of inharmonicity in pianos. I am assuming an understanding of this basic characteristic of pianos. Perhaps I shouldn't."... Perhaps you want to expand on that. When I read that, I get the feeling we come from two different planets. Please note, nothing personal and I do not think it is a question of amount_or_type_of_experience... musician, playing concerts in duo (with a piano) or more, multi-instrument player, tunings in prestigous halls, for prestigious brands etc... in fact, all this calls for a question. Recently I have had to "learn" that the piano is the most out-of-tune instrument on the stage (BB), some colleagues still wonder about the "point of best fit", others regret that the piano cannot adjust_in_real_time, and now I learn from you that "...Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played." Humor: Do you tune pianos sharp? Humor: Are pianos sharp when they are not flat? Non-humor: Have you been tuning pianos while trying to get along with other orchestra instruments and players (as I understand from your other post)? In case, do you sacrifice your "intonation"? Humor: Gosh, all these martyrs, it looks like an army. Regards, a.c. . I question your sobriety on this post but to answer but one of your confusion of questions. In blending their ensemble, don't all musicians give a little in their own intonation for the common good? Sacrifice is far too vulgar a word in this instance. To not accommodate the needs of another in the intimacy of music making is somewhat akin to self pleasuring or have I lost you again? Your grasp of the full effects of inharmonicity seem lacking. This surprises me. Surely you heard the bleating of the piano in Bills' video in the "non vib" ensemble sections of that otherwise fine group of musicians. Didn't you hear the effects of an over stretched treble on the rest of the instruments. Or we're you, like most, only listening to the piano? I know there are some people who enjoy the bleat of an overstretched piano. There are also those who get a similar cheap thrill from the bleat of a Mighty Wurlitzer theatre organ. you portray yourself as having higher sensibilities but you give yourself away. I can make a trumpet bleat like a Spanish bullfighting band. Indeed, I have made a lot of money doing just that but I would not use that sound when I played under the baton of sir John Barbirolli. ( long story).. Similarly I can tune a piano so that it bleats but my default tuning is not to do that. Am I compromising the intonation of the piano when I make it bleat? Am I compromising (sacrificing?) the intonation of the piano when I use my skills to minimise that bleating? I will minimise the bleating every time when an ensemble is to use the piano. We all heard how it compromised the ensemble sound in Bills' example. It would do the same thing in a string ensemble utilising piano. My specialised knowledge as a musician only helps me explain this stuff. it is not the only reason I tune this way. The reason I tune this way is because all my colleagues who are involved in what is regarded as the finest tuning available for purpose tune this way. My colleagues in NY, LA and London who I have worked alongside at different times in my life, all tune extremely similarly. There are many reasons that one piano company is used for the vast majority of top line commercial recordings by major companies and one of them is the way they are tuned by that companies' specialist staff tuners. It is also the tone regulation by those who specialise in this alone. Many of the highly regarded European record companies record in London studios, according to some of the contracts I recieve. As I have often said, nothing beats listening to your own tuning for forty hours and continually refining it according to the standards developed over the years by generations of specialist tuners who have worked for the company who made the piano that is chosen for the highest standards demanded by the industry. Carry on bleating. Rxd, You wrote: ..."In blending their ensemble, don't all musicians give a little in their own intonation for the common good? Sacrifice is far too vulgar a word in this instance. To not accommodate the needs of another in the intimacy of music making is somewhat akin to self pleasuring or have I lost you again?"... Hope Marty’s reply has helped you, what can I add... As mentioned, I think we come from different experiences and cannot exclude that our sense of intonation is not that very same. What my experience tells me is that musicians, amongst themselves, can normally share good intonation, at least to a certain degree. Perhaps it is when you experience “intonation” as a command, as an imperative, as something that tells you when IT is right and when it is wrong, improvable or not, it is then that you can measure and compare your sense of intonation, and always a better ear is able to help the dim one. ...”Your grasp of the full effects of inharmonicity seem lacking. This surprises me. “... Yes, even now when I read “...Pianos, when properly tuned to themselves, tend to be sharper in the treble and flatter in the bass than other instruments skilfully played..”, I cannot resist laughing. BTW, you did not answer my humorous questions... Should I understand that a “properly tuned“ piano can only sound sharp? Or, you hear a piano being sharp and you leave it because... that is inharmonicity? Serious, how have you ended up compromising (if not sacrificing) intonation? Any technical hint? I hope you do not mind if we are two “different” musicians and technicians, and what you may want to know is that I have never compromised my intonation. ...”Surely you heard the bleating of the piano in Bills' video in the "non vib" ensemble sections of that otherwise fine group of musicians. Didn't you hear the effects of an over stretched treble on the rest of the instruments. Or we're you, like most, only listening to the piano?”... Sorry, I missed that video, would you link it for me? ...”I know there are some people who enjoy the bleat of an overstretched piano. There are also those who get a similar cheap thrill from the bleat of a Mighty Wurlitzer theatre organ. you portray yourself as having higher sensibilities but you give yourself away.”... I do not know what you mean, is that idiomatic? In any case, why do you mention “bleating”? What has that to do with pianos that sound inevitably sharp... because of inharmonicity? ...”I can make a trumpet bleat like a Spanish bullfighting band. Indeed, I have made a lot of money doing just that but I would not use that sound when I played under the baton of sir John Barbirolli. ( long story)..”... Yes, you seem to have many long stories and to be really into sharing them. Have you thought about starting a personal thread? ...”Similarly I can tune a piano so that it bleats but my default tuning is not to do that. Am I compromising the intonation of the piano when I make it bleat? Am I compromising (sacrificing?) the intonation of the piano when I use my skills to minimise that bleating?.”... Well, you tell me. But, are you saying that sometimes you may as well tune a piano that will sound... sharp? ...”I will minimise the bleating every time when an ensemble is to use the piano. We all heard how it compromised the ensemble sound in Bills' example. It would do the same thing in a string ensemble utilising piano.”... Hmmm... See how different we are, I only have one tuning, and it is the One that, in my ears, matches my sense of intonation to the highest degree. That one, an nothing else. See, no compromise at all is (IMO) how intonation can be improved on a piano, but you need to be equipped, firm and strong, otherwise you adjust on a compromise. ...”My specialised knowledge as a musician only helps me explain this stuff. it is not the only reason I tune this way. The reason I tune this way is because all my colleagues who are involved in what is regarded as the finest tuning available for purpose tune this way.”... Hmmm..., Whenever, I am ready to listen to the finest tuning of yours, just tell me when. ...”My colleagues in NY, LA and London who I have worked alongside at different times in my life, all tune extremely similarly.”... Yes, similarly, I too think we all tune similarly. ...”There are many reasons that one piano company is used for the vast majority of top line commercial recordings by major companies and one of them is the way they are tuned by that companies' specialist staff tuners. It is also the tone regulation by those who specialise in this alone. Many of the highly regarded European record companies record in London studios, according to some of the contracts I recieve. As I have often said, nothing beats listening to your own tuning for forty hours and continually refining it according to the standards developed over the years by generations of specialist tuners who have worked for the company who made the piano that is chosen for the highest standards demanded by the industry.” Fantastic, rxd (or whatever your name is), I look forward to meeting your colleagues too. ...”Carry on bleating.” ? Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571 |
Alfredo,
Only one question.
If you had to tune a piano and organ together, how would you minimise or even completely reconcile the differences between the way they tune?
Amanda Reckonwith
Concert & Recording tuner-tech, London, England.
"in theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not." - Lawrence P. 'Yogi' Berra.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Alfredo,
Only one question.
If you had to tune a piano and organ together, how would you minimise or even completely reconcile the differences between the way they tune? Good question, rxd, though you may already know my answer: Was it Mandrake? Sure, we might be asked to manage some uncomfortable deals, but why do you ask... Weren't we talking about "refined" and "finest tunings" and "highest standards"? I too have only one new question: can you say when someone is singing or playing out of tune? Of course, I would be delighted if you were to reply to my previous questions too, in order to get to the point: Are you saying that a “properly tuned“ piano can only sound sharp? How do you (technically) "...accommodate the needs of another in the intimacy of music making..."? Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571 |
Bingo!
You have just proven some of my earlier points.
Amanda Reckonwith
Concert & Recording tuner-tech, London, England.
"in theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not." - Lawrence P. 'Yogi' Berra.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515 |
Bingo!
You have just proven some of my earlier points. I guess anything goes in this thread. That being said, rxd, is there any intonation problem when the organ and piano stick within C2-F6 (normal organ ambitus)? I have played Bach Art of Fugue arranged for 2 keyboards on organ and piano (ambitus C2-C6) without problems. Kees
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571 |
Kees, Depending on what you mean by intonation, that word has had a couple of strange interpretations here, lately. To the average listener, no real discrepancies would be noticed between the notes that you indicated. Maybe the odd extreme note if you were listening intently to a playback. There is only a problem in the top 2 & lower 2 octaves or so as I'm sure you know. An organ manufacturer had, in the '80's, three stretch settings on their larger church instruments intended to reduce this problem somewhat. So it depends on what you mean by organ.  I have heard some unbelievable audible piano stretching in Europe in the '60's and some brassy toned pianos in southern churches that would give problems matching just one note in the '70's so it depends on what you mean by piano. 
Amanda Reckonwith
Concert & Recording tuner-tech, London, England.
"in theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not." - Lawrence P. 'Yogi' Berra.
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,385
Posts3,349,194
Members111,631
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
