Anthony,
I find the area of performance practice in the early 20th century to be
extremely fascinating. There were a lot of changes that effected the quality
of instrumental timbre, but they seem to have happened with little complaint or
fanfare. You would think that composers like Schoenberg and his followers,
concerned as they were with Klangfarbenmelodie, would have had something to say
about gut versus metal strings or the difference in brilliance between low vs.
high pitch, but I can't think of a single utterance. The Second Viennese
school composers orchestrated in an extremely specific manner in regards to
timbre, (see Webern's orchestration of Bach's ricercar from Bach's
"Musikalische Opfer") but the change over from gut to metal seems not to have
concerned them. I don't perceive a difference in how they orchestrated even
though their works straddle the periods. Where is the pining for the "good,
warm" tone of gut or the celebration at the "new
brilliance" of metal? And who on earth had the chops to play those angular
guitar parts (written in bass and treble clefs at sounding pitch) in Webern and
Schoenberg?
Chris
Christopher Wilke
Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer
www.christopherwilke.com
--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]>
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: tuning fork at 433Hz?
> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 8:58 AM
> Thank you all for your
> responses, and your detailed explanations, Tom.
> I agree that
> "In fact, that's one reason pitch has
> risen over the past few hundred
> years - more string tension = higher
> volume and brighter sound. Even
> today some orchestras tune to 442 -444,
> to take advantage of this
> effect."
> and this search for brightness, also
> partly explains the change from
> gut strung instruments to metal strung
> ones (while of course the
> fragility of gut stringing might perhaps
> have kept pitch down to save
> string breakage).
> I recently heard a performance of
> Stravinsky's Pulcinella on "period
> brass instruments" and a gut strung bowed
> section by the "Musiciens du
> Louvre-Grenoble" (Mark Minkowski
> director); MM argued that even in 1905
> gut stringing was fairly standard. He did
> not say at which pitch they
> were playing, however, I presume it may
> have been at 433 Hz. The
> performance was in no way unsatisfactory,
> as the modern "brightness"
> was replaced by more harmonic texturing,
> coming both from the gut
> strings, and from the warmer but also
> "rougher" sounding period brass
> instruments. While the threads of the
> music remained exceptionally
> clear, as no instrument type seemed to be
> covering the other.
> In relation to tuning over high, I seem
> to remember that in an article
> on tuning, Gordon Gregory suggested that
> relaxed people tend to tune
> too low, while tense people would tend to
> tune too high (I certainly
> read that somewhere, but not certain it
> was in Gordon's article).
> However, this coincides well with my own
> experience, as I always tend
> to tune too high, if I tune by ear (I
> would certainly not classify
> myself as relaxed).
> Relative brightness would be associated
> with increased emotional
> tension, which by some, might be felt as
> somehow a more exciting
> sound.
> Tuning too high, as Ed says, does
> result in out-of-tuneness, but it
> can also be considered as an over-bright
> tonal aberration. In relation
> to this (and the above), it is recorded
> in many hifi sites that a
> change from over bright distorting
> resistors and capacitors to better
> noise performance ones, initially results
> in the hifi enthusiasts
> feeling that the sound is less exciting
> (something is missing), before
> they finally realize they are suffering
> less listener's fatigue (could
> be the same with the change to better
> mics).
> Perhaps a piece played at 433 may
> therefore somehow sound more relaxed
> (and just as interesting on harmonically
> rich period instruments), when
> compared to 440 on modern instruments (or
> period instruments that have
> been altered to support modern string
> tensions); although it would
> indeed seem difficult to explain why 433
> might be the "harmonic
> frequency of the universe".
> Ed's description of competitive tuning
> between violinists (presumably
> not gut strung), reminds me of a
> tale about a televised presidential
> debate between two candidates here in
> France. One of the contestants
> was rather short, and his advisers kept
> bringing in cushions to make
> him look taller, but of course those of
> his taller opponent, began
> reacting similarly, resulting in
> something of a "Lewis Carrol" moment
> for my friend who was organizing the
> filming.
> Back to Ed, how those Baroque Strads must
> have suffered over the years
> from this almost "Darwinian" striving to
> be better heard than your
> neighbour.
> Regards
> Anthony
> PS I will think of you Tom, if I decide
> to let it go.
> When I am back in Paris I will make a
> photo of the fork with
> resonator-case.
> --- En date de : Ven 6.1.12, [email protected]
> <[email protected]>
> a ecrit :
>
> De: [email protected]
> <[email protected]>
> Objet: Re: [LUTE] tuning fork at
> 433Hz?
> A: [email protected],
> "Anthony Hind" <[email protected]>
> Date: Vendredi 6 janvier 2012,
> 23h39
>
> This is very interesting to me,
> because an old friend recently
> alerted me to
> a new line of thinking claiming that
> 432Hz OUGHT to be true concert
> pitch.
> There are websites devoting a lot of
> space to articles and discussions
> about this.
> [1]http://www.omega432.com/music.html
> [2]http://www.solfeggiotones.com/432-hz/
> [3]http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2007/12/26/a-432hz-vs-a-440hz-a-sonic-expe
> riment-fascinating/
> People claim things like "it FEELS
> better", or "it's the harmonic
> frequency of the universe" ...
> ("New Age" / "Airy-Fairey" ...)
> As a piano technician with perfect pitch,
> I'm pretty locked into 440.
> But it's fun to experiment
> with other pitches and temperments.
> Plus, I am human and cannot say
> that I'm ALWAYS
> spot on standard pitch, although I'm
> usually so close it doesn't
> matter. I still use a fork to set
> A4. But when it comes to tuning my
> lute or guitar I just "ear" it. I
> tune my lute low.
> Sometimes I tune my guitar a smidge
> higher when playing solo to get a
> brighter sound.
> In fact, that's one reason pitch has
> risen over the past few hundred
> years - more string
> tension = higher volume and brighter
> sound. Even today some orchestras
> tune to 442 -444,
> to take advantage of this effect.
> Anthony, if you ever decide you'd
> like to part with your 433 fork I'd
> be interested in having it.
> Then maybe I, too, can be in harmony with
> the universe! (Or close to
> it?)
> Tom
> > Dear
> luthenists
> >
> A friend gave me an amusing tuning fork,
> which is clearly
> of
> > some age.
> > I am not (here) in a
> position to be able to load a photo of it,
> but
> > it fits into a tight
> wooden case, and at the end of this there is
> a
> > hollow metal peg. I
> quickly realized that if you place the case on
> > a table, and set the
> tuning fork ringing while holding it in the
> > metal peg's hollow, the
> resonance is amplified. I measure the
> > resonance as 433Hz.
> Would this be the London Philharmonic
> Orchestra
> > pitch of 1826? This is
> what I read at
> >
> [4]http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-84975.html
> > "In 1939, an
> International Conference met in London and
> unanimously
> > adopted 440 Hz as the
> standard frequency for the pitch A4, and
> that
> > is the almost universal
> standard at present. Previously, the
> > standard was A=435
> (fixed, Paris Academy, 1859, as diapason
> normal;
> > and confirmed, Vienna
> conference, 1885, as international pitch).
> > The National Institute
> of Standards and Technology (NIST)
> > broadcasts a precise
> 440 Hz reference tone on its short wave radio
> > station WWV (Along with
> time data). In the 1800's there was also
> > Philharmonic Pitch,
> that of the London Philharmonic Orchestra. It
> > varied from 1826, were
> A=433 Hz, and in 1845, was raised to A=455
> > Hz. Historically it has
> ranged from A=403 Hz to 567 Hz. !!!" What
> > do you think. The fork
> is unfortunately not perfect, having been
> > effected by some rust,
> but I don't think this would explain the
> > 433HZ. I was not
> intending to use it, but it is an entertaining
> > looking (if no doubt
> useless) object. Regards Anthony
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list
> information at
> > [5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> Tom Draughon
> Heartistry Music
> [6]http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html
> 714 9th Avenue West
> Ashland, WI 54806
> 715-682-9362
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.omega432.com/music.html
> 2. http://www.solfeggiotones.com/432-hz/
> 3.
> http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2007/12/26/a-432hz-vs-a-440hz-a-sonic-experiment-fascinating/
> 4. http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-84975.html
> 5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 6. http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html
>
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
