[NSP] Re: Tuning
Fair enough. George Welch sings it in B minor - or very low of course. though George appears to be having problems with the high notes even at this pitch. c __ From: Matt Seattle [mailto:theborderpi...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:12 PM To: BIRCH Christopher (DGT) Cc: anth...@robbpipes.com; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: [NSP] Re: Tuning On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, [1]christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu wrote: Also, it's a song and all of the singers I have backed prefer that key. Yes, it would be horribly high in A min unless you were a natural light tenor. Fair enough. George Welch sings it in B minor - [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map9v2neGbA and Judy Dinning sings it in A minor. As a non-NSP player I had assumed that it would feel more at home on the un-keyed notes. Robert Bewick has it in A minor in a setting which has high a and omits f. -- References 1. mailto:christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map9v2neGbA To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, at 07:20, Paul Gretton wrote: So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Hello Paul and others, I must say, I disagree here. It's often forgotten that the the NSP of two hundred years ago - the conventional fully keyed form - was the product of a single workshop and was played in a relatively narrow geographical area. There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
One maker having lots of influence again, or rather previously! C -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Francis Wood Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:31 AM To: Paul Gretton Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu group Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 9 Feb 2011, at 07:20, Paul Gretton wrote: So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Hello Paul and others, I must say, I disagree here. It's often forgotten that the the NSP of two hundred years ago - the conventional fully keyed form - was the product of a single workshop and was played in a relatively narrow geographical area. There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Absolutely! Couldn't agree more. But I wasn't really talking about inconsistency or carelessness. Rather, I was thinking of the various prevailing standards such as F F# a bit sharp of F, G and us lot 'ere all tune to old Fred's chanter 'cos he's the one wot sounds the best. I would assume that the Reids worked to a chosen pitch standard in the same way as did Silbermann or - more relevant here - the Hotteterre gang. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Francis Wood Sent: 09 February 2011 10:31 To: Paul Gretton Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu group Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 9 Feb 2011, at 07:20, Paul Gretton wrote: So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Hello Paul and others, I must say, I disagree here. It's often forgotten that the the NSP of two hundred years ago - the conventional fully keyed form - was the product of a single workshop and was played in a relatively narrow geographical area. There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, at 15:11, Paul Gretton wrote: I would assume that the Reids worked to a chosen pitch standard in the same way as did Silbermann or - more relevant here - the Hotteterre gang. And at least the Hotteterre gang had the sense to pitch their instruments a whole tone below modern pitch, their G being more or less concert F. No NSP's there, but the next best thing. Some delectable 12 keyed musettes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Tuning/pitch
Francis wood wrote today: There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. This degree of variation would make it impossible for these sets to span the gulf by pressure adjustment. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, with the resulting move away from the Reid pattern, and here we find ourselves. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Hi Anthony, Perhaps we should also take reed variations into consideration. Cheers, Richard - Original Message - From: Anthony Robb anth...@robbpipes.com To: Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:02 AM Subject: [NSP] Tuning/pitch Francis wood wrote today: There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. This degree of variation would make it impossible for these sets to span the gulf by pressure adjustment. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, with the resulting move away from the Reid pattern, and here we find ourselves. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
But have they been rereeded (almost certainly) and retuned (quite possibly) since leaving the workshop? Rereeding can account for a semitone, and the tuning could then have been readjusted for consistency once they were flattened. John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Robb Sent: 09 February 2011 16:02 To: Dartmouth NPS Subject: [NSP] Tuning/pitch Francis wood wrote today: There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. This degree of variation would make it impossible for these sets to span the gulf by pressure adjustment. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, with the resulting move away from the Reid pattern, and here we find ourselves. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, Anthony Robb wrote: The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. We know that Billy was in the habit of making his reeds as sharp as possible -and not just so that he could get over the John Doonan problem but all the time - he liked them that way, apparently. Annie Snaith played in F# to accompany him, she said. He learnt to make reeds from George Storey who learnt from Richard Mowat who learnt from...? (Obviously with influence from other players but that's the basic chain) 10-12 of us, on an assortment of modern makers' pipes (5, I think, but at least 4) happily played along with Andrew on Monday without much perceptible difficulty. I didn't have a tuner out but my ears would tell me we were certainly no sharper than F+20, and probably a bit shy of that. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, eh? Not on my watch! Based on the meetings I go to I would have said F=20 to F+ 30 was about the norm, varying a bit depending on the season, the venue temperature, the degree of exciting-ness, the amount of alcohol consumed etc etc Concert F and below I reserve for the top of the Wannies and suchlike Arctic locations. It was E one year with the windchill. I've had my wrist slapped on reaching F+40/50, but that's where I want to play if I can. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Are the Reid ones not in CB (don't have it to hand)? We also have Clough figures, there are Hedworth ones and I'm sure I've seen comparison charts of this kind in at least two locations in the past few years. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
As for the Reids' hole spacings, Dr. Wells is probably better placed than anyone to answer, having looked at most of the survivors. He might also know which ones look to have the original hole spacings and which show signs of subsequent work? John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Julia Say Sent: 09 February 2011 16:42 To: Dartmouth NPS Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 9 Feb 2011, Anthony Robb wrote: The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. We know that Billy was in the habit of making his reeds as sharp as possible -and not just so that he could get over the John Doonan problem but all the time - he liked them that way, apparently. Annie Snaith played in F# to accompany him, she said. He learnt to make reeds from George Storey who learnt from Richard Mowat who learnt from...? (Obviously with influence from other players but that's the basic chain) 10-12 of us, on an assortment of modern makers' pipes (5, I think, but at least 4) happily played along with Andrew on Monday without much perceptible difficulty. I didn't have a tuner out but my ears would tell me we were certainly no sharper than F+20, and probably a bit shy of that. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, eh? Not on my watch! Based on the meetings I go to I would have said F=20 to F+ 30 was about the norm, varying a bit depending on the season, the venue temperature, the degree of exciting-ness, the amount of alcohol consumed etc etc Concert F and below I reserve for the top of the Wannies and suchlike Arctic locations. It was E one year with the windchill. I've had my wrist slapped on reaching F+40/50, but that's where I want to play if I can. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Are the Reid ones not in CB (don't have it to hand)? We also have Clough figures, there are Hedworth ones and I'm sure I've seen comparison charts of this kind in at least two locations in the past few years. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
The original question I posed was more a rhetorical one. The point being that, until the invention of the tuning fork, there was no set or standard pitch as such. Only the sound of other instruments - hence the plethora of tuning methods to ensure everyone played the same (or as near as possible). Obviously better to tune to an instrument either to a well known one (such as the town organ) or one that couldn't be altered (as in the principal of a tuning fork as it comes from the maker and before anyone files a bit off because it's sharp etc). We are lucky now because we have the technology to set, say, A=440 and make comparisons for tuning, our forbears were not so lucky. The reason they traditionally/originally tune to the oboe A, of course. I wonder how many orchestras tuned to an Oboe that was several cents out? Colin Hill - Original Message - From: Paul Gretton i...@gretton-willems.com To: 'Colin' cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:20 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch In a large number of cities, the tuning standard was taken from the organ (specifically the flue pipes) in the church, the cathedral, or the local ruler's chapel. That pitch in turn tended to be determined by the particular organ-builder - say Silbermann - who transported his preferred pitch from one commission to another. Until well into the 19th century, there was an incredible mish-mash of different pitches from one town/city to the other. (And even within a particular city too - Bach complained of the varying pitches of the organs in Leipzig.) This was not a terrible problem for string players but it certainly was for wind players. Brass players, for example, had to travel equipped with a whole series of bits for fine tuning because until the 19th century brass instruments didn't have tuning slides. Flutes had to have corps de rechange - alternative middle sections of slightly differing lengths and hole placements for tuning to different pitch standards. So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Colin Sent: 09 February 2011 01:37 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Which were tuned with reference to.. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: gibbonssoi...@aol.com To: cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:27 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Before the tuning fork was invented, there were pitch pipes. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Anthony Robb wrote: Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. Hello Anthony and others, Well, not quite as far as the Andrew Davison set is concerned. What Julia said was that when a reed was first put in the chanter it was said to have played at F+20. I took that to be an interesting and amusing anecdote without any specific conclusions to be drawn from it [is that correct, Julia?] Incidentally, the owner of that set is admiring and appreciative of the work done by the expert fettler who did the best possible job. However, he acknowledges that the performance at F+20 of that historic set is not ideal at the present pitch which is (if other Reid chanters are taken as valid examples) very far from that originally intended. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. I have recorded hole positions from several Reid chanters. This is easier than one might suppose because although hole sizes have wandered over the years, their original position is usually indicated very clearly on the opposite wall of the bore where the Reid drill made contact. It's evident that Reid revised some of his hole positions - a normal and sensible thing for any woodwind maker. As you would expect, the Reid scale is shorter, as you would expect from a higher pitched instrument. Julia is right to point out that Reid hole positions are provided (very accurately) in Cocks Bryan. Ross/Nelson figures are not identical and I believe Colin's pattern also shows some evolution, as one would expect. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
(for anyone puzzled by this discussion, one cent is 1/00 th of a semitone. So 20 cents is 1/10th of a whole tone, or 1/10th of the difference between C and D.That's not a subtle difference, of course!) On 7 Feb 2011, at 17:26, Julia Say wrote: Shortly after Andrew Davison took over the 17 key R. Reid set he now plays (which apparently is c. 1836) the fettler who helped him set it up remarked to me that they first, without altering *anything* put in a reed - design unspecified - and Andrew played it. The resulting pitch, without any work, oddities or messing on, was F + 20. Hello Julia and others, Well, that's an interesting and fortunate anecdote, but are you suggesting that it's anything more than amusing coincidence? I have no problem over the large number of pipes being pitched at F+20 cents. I can happily play on a concert F set for a whole evening with a roomful of pipers playing at variously F+20, F+ 35 and F + whatever, though I must admit the bag arm gets a little tired with the extra squeezing, and it does no favours to tone or intonation. People should be at liberty to play at whatever pitch they like, provided that they and fellow players don't mind the musical consequences. What worries me is the notion often put forward on this forum that F+20 cents is a 'standard' pitch for pipes. It isn't a standard: it's a current tendency, and nobody can accurately predict how long this will last. My instinct - and it's no more than that, though based on precedents in woodwind history - is that pitch will revert a more widely accepted standard, i.e concert pitch. The good news there is that there may well be plenty of remunerative work for the pipe fettlers of the future in converting chanters to F concert! Playing music is primarily a sociable activity and there seems to be little point in encouraging an NSP 'sharp-F ghetto' where players can only play comfortably with their own kind. For that reason, I think that anyone considering buying and learning pipes should consider whether they intend to play primarily with other instruments or just with with pipes . If pipe-makers are offering to provide pipes set up in these alternative pitches, they should make themselves known. Your narrative of the way the present situation came about is a good and accurate account, I think. what is notable is that historically, each step along this path towards F + 20 has been for some negative reason and not because of some advantage of musicality or encouraging our pipes to play a part in any wider musical context. I have no axe to grind over F+20 Cents or F concert. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. What I do think, however is that there should actually *be* a choice! Cheers, Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Absolutely Francis, music is a sociable activity, I also think the idea is take your pipes out of the box and be able to muck in with any other type of instrument. I may be considered different but I like the idea of just saying - yep it's a Bb transposing, so treat it like a clarinet. I therefore set up for A=440( as close as is possible) and like the way it sounds. As for re-reeded pipes that get modded at the top end -- that would be a staple conicity variation, thus not just the old reed that was in it, it has to be the original makers staple -- Dave S On 2/9/2011 7:17 PM, Francis Wood wrote: Playing music is primarily a sociable activity and there seems to be little point in encouraging an NSP 'sharp-F ghetto' where players can only play comfortably with their own kind. For that reason, I think that anyone considering buying and learning pipes should consider whether they intend to play primarily with other instruments or just with with pipes . If pipe-makers are offering to provide pipes set up in these alternative pitches, they should make themselves known. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, Francis Wood wrote: What Julia said was that when a reed was first put in the chanter it was said to have played at F+20. I took that to be an interesting and amusing anecdote without any specific conclusions to be drawn from it [is that correct, Julia?] When I was told it, it was with a little surprise, I think - they had perhaps expected it to be sharper. That it played in easily with other pipers was felt to be an immediate bonus. However, he acknowledges that the performance at F+20 of that historic set is not ideal at the present pitch My understanding is that they both regard it as a work in progress. It sounds very agreeable, although Andrew remarked that they are not yet happy with it. He played a solo set and then folk got a chance to look at it. If he is compensating for non-ideal tuning then it is certainly not obvious from his playing that anything is amiss. I find my own (modern made) ivory set has a more brilliant tone than the equivalent in wood, even using the same reed. If I were to nit-pick on Monday's playing, I would say I would be interested to see if the fettling team can coax a bit more brilliance from it, but maybe this is not what Andrew is looking for. I have recorded hole positions from several Reid chanters. their original position is usually indicated very clearly on the opposite wall of the bore where the Reid drill made contact. This can also be seen on some modern sets (various makers), although I have been taught to put a rod down the bore before drilling to prevent it happening! (And had the bore inspected closely to check I'd done so!) Sets have been observed where the maker has absent-mindedly drilled right through the far side, I believe.
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
- Original Message - From: Julia Say julia@nspipes.co.uk This can also be seen on some modern sets (various makers), although I have been taught to put a rod down the bore before drilling to prevent it happening! (And had the bore inspected closely to check I'd done so!) Sets have been observed where the maker has absent-mindedly drilled right through the far side, I believe. Whereas I can't claim NEVER to have touched the far side of the bore (a good tune title?) I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Answering Colin's earlier post: until the invention of the tuning fork, there was no set or standard pitch as such. In fact, according to the latest research (Bruce Haynes' fairly definitive book The story of A - a history of performing pitch) even in the late 16th/early 17th century there were three main standardised pitches generally recognised across Europe, and the fact that there were only a few centres where the best wind instruments were made helped to determine this - but it's a complex subject, best summed up in the biblical quotation He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith. Very interesting discussion though. Thanks for all the contributions. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Pitch
Hello Folks * Yes, reeds make a huge difference. In general I use different reed patterns to converge pitch, that's why I have 4 different patterns just for 'F' chanters. * When I referred to a modern trend towards concert F (A=440) I did not for a millisecond mean to imply it was a universal trend. I was actually thinking of the Cut Dry Dolly album where we needed pipes in concert F to play with Alistair Anderson's concertina. This seemed to start something and this very evening I played for over 2 hours in F with Sylviane Bartowiak (concertina player and regular Cleveland Branch attender). It is modern in the sense that it wasn't something the Reids needed to consider. * I totally agree, this music is primarily social. That's why I have three different 'F' chanters to play comfortably in various situations. As Francis rightly points out this is not essential but it does make the music-making a joy rather than an acievement. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
That's very interesting. I still have to ask though (and it IS a genuine question) - how did they tune to those standard pitches? Did a clarinet maker in the area say I'll make my clarinet to be in tune to Fred's serpent, he make's good ones? Most standards are set in various ways (like a size being the length of the King's foot or similar) and then having something made to check everything else again (like the standard measures held in the Jewel Tower) and all other measures are compared against this to ensure uniformity. I suppose it would have to be something untunable - like a cast bell (yes, I know they can be tuned ) from which the idea of a tuning fork originated (rather than the idea of the city organ which had to be tuned to something in the first place). Unlike pitch pipes, a tuning fork is pretty well stable (reeds in pitch pipes can go out of tune over time). As establishing frequencies was yet to come, I keep wondering what the instrument makers tuned to. Maybe one maker made all the instruments in a band or got together with other makers so they played in tune with each other. A bit of a chicken and egg situation. I'll stop asking questions. I'll find a copy of that book and read it. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: Philip Gruar phi...@gruar.clara.net To: julia@nspipes.co.uk; Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:29 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch - Original Message - From: Julia Say julia@nspipes.co.uk This can also be seen on some modern sets (various makers), although I have been taught to put a rod down the bore before drilling to prevent it happening! (And had the bore inspected closely to check I'd done so!) Sets have been observed where the maker has absent-mindedly drilled right through the far side, I believe. Whereas I can't claim NEVER to have touched the far side of the bore (a good tune title?) I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Answering Colin's earlier post: until the invention of the tuning fork, there was no set or standard pitch as such. In fact, according to the latest research (Bruce Haynes' fairly definitive book The story of A - a history of performing pitch) even in the late 16th/early 17th century there were three main standardised pitches generally recognised across Europe, and the fact that there were only a few centres where the best wind instruments were made helped to determine this - but it's a complex subject, best summed up in the biblical quotation He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith. Very interesting discussion though. Thanks for all the contributions. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Started Wikipedia article F+ (pitch)
Given that the vagaries of NSP tuning take some explaining, and are briefly mentioned in the NSP article on Wikipedia, I turned the term F+ into a wikilink and started a new article for it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%2B_%28pitch%29 If anyone has any _footnoted_ material they'd like to add, from a reputable published source or musical journal, it'd be good to flesh it out a little bit. I just ask that we try to footnote data vice putting in personal knowledge; the goal is to compile existing published info vice our own research (though in fairness plenty of folks on this list know as much as anyone can on the subject). To add a footnote on wiki you just type your citation between the terms ref and /ref and it will automatically number itself and list itself at the bottom of the page. Any particular heartburn with the title? F+ seems to be as close to a standard way to say a little sharp of modern Concert F as NSP tend to be as there is. And though I realise 20c isn't a rock-solid standard, it does seem to be a common working number. Thanks for any edits or suggestions. -Matthew -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
