Pianotech

This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
Roger 

------------------------------
Roger Gable
Gable Piano
Everett WA
425-252-5000
------------------------------

I tune to 440
Often pitch can change but the musicians will accommodate.
-Garret

------------------------------
Garret Traylor
Trinity NC
336-887-4266
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
From: Roger Gable
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
Roger 

------------------------------
Roger Gable
Gable Piano
Everett WA
425-252-5000
------------------------------

Original Message------

I tune to 440
Often pitch can change but the musicians will accommodate.
-Garret

------------------------------
Garret Traylor
Trinity NC
336-887-4266
------------------------------

I think this is a great question Roger! One of the only times I ever had a complaint about pitch was when I left a piano at a church at A442. It occured during the fall, and I decided to float the pitch. The music director who was a woodwind player was bothered by the tuning. 

This would be a great question to put towards band teachers. It would be interesting to know their perspective on this. 

Personally I feel comfortable with 2 cents flat and 6 cents sharp so basically 439.5 - 441.5, if the pitch is corresponding to the seasonal expectation - in other words, if I saw a piano at 441 in January, and the humidity had been running 40% I'd want to bring it down to at least 440. Likewise if I find a piano at 439.5 in September I would probably bring it up to 441. 

But it also depends on the situation. I'm going to be more flexible for Middle School Solo & Ensemble adjudications than for an important recording. 

From Wikipedia:

Despite such confusion, A = 440 Hz is the only official standard and is widely used around the world. Many orchestras in the United Kingdom adhere to this standard as concert pitch.^[12] In the United States some orchestras use A = 440 Hz, while others, such as the New York Philharmonic use A = 442 Hz.^[13] The latter is also often used as a tuning frequency in Europe,^[2] especially in Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway and Switzerland.^[14] Nearly all modern symphony orchestras in Germany and Austria and many in other countries in continental Europe (such as Russia, Sweden and Spain) tune to A = 443 Hz.^[12][14]The Boston Symphony Orchestra tunes to A = 441 Hz.

In practice most orchestras tune to a note given out by the oboe, and most oboists use an electronic tuning device when playing the tuning note. Some orchestras tune using an electronic tone generator. ^[15] When playing with fixed-pitch instruments such as the piano, the orchestra will generally tune to them—a piano will normally have been tuned to the orchestra's normal pitch. Overall, it is thought that the general trend since the middle of the 20th century has been for standard pitch to rise, though it has been rising far more slowly than it has in the past. Some orchestras like the Berlin Philharmonic now use a slightly lower pitch (443 Hz) than their highest previous standard (445 Hz).^[2][16]

------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2017 19:07
From: Roger Gable
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Garret,

How much pitch deviation can they accommodate?

Roger

I basically agree with Ryan and his thinking. This topic came up a few years ago soon after my arrival at Texas Tech. Long story short--after much experimenting and "secret" testing (wink) I normally allow up to 4 to 5 cents sharp as a max during humid seasons. There have admittedly been a few occasions in which our recital hall piano was about 6 and I never received complaints/comments, but I do begin to feel uncomfortable with it being that sharp and feel that 6 to 7 is sort of a "red zone" (or "dark orange"). 8 cents sharp is just really getting out there. Set up for problems. (Unless a higher pitch has been requested, etc.)
On the flat side about 3 cents is my max. No more than 2, even better.
In daily practice I usually keep both all performance instruments within 2 to 3 cents of 440 as a norm.


Original Message------

I think this is a great question Roger! One of the only times I ever had a complaint about pitch was when I left a piano at a church at A442. It occured during the fall, and I decided to float the pitch. The music director who was a woodwind player was bothered by the tuning. 

This would be a great question to put towards band teachers. It would be interesting to know their perspective on this. 

Personally I feel comfortable with 2 cents flat and 6 cents sharp so basically 439.5 - 441.5, if the pitch is corresponding to the seasonal expectation - in other words, if I saw a piano at 441 in January, and the humidity had been running 40% I'd want to bring it down to at least 440. Likewise if I find a piano at 439.5 in September I would probably bring it up to 441. 

But it also depends on the situation. I'm going to be more flexible for Middle School Solo & Ensemble adjudications than for an important recording. 

From Wikipedia:

Despite such confusion, A = 440 Hz is the only official standard and is widely used around the world. Many orchestras in the United Kingdom adhere to this standard as concert pitch.^[12] In the United States some orchestras use A = 440 Hz, while others, such as the New York Philharmonic use A = 442 Hz.^[13] The latter is also often used as a tuning frequency in Europe,^[2] especially in Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway and Switzerland.^[14] Nearly all modern symphony orchestras in Germany and Austria and many in other countries in continental Europe (such as Russia, Sweden and Spain) tune to A = 443 Hz.^[12][14]The Boston Symphony Orchestra tunes to A = 441 Hz.

In practice most orchestras tune to a note given out by the oboe, and most oboists use an electronic tuning device when playing the tuning note. Some orchestras tune using an electronic tone generator. ^[15] When playing with fixed-pitch instruments such as the piano, the orchestra will generally tune to them—a piano will normally have been tuned to the orchestra's normal pitch. Overall, it is thought that the general trend since the middle of the 20th century has been for standard pitch to rise, though it has been rising far more slowly than it has in the past. Some orchestras like the Berlin Philharmonic now use a slightly lower pitch (443 Hz) than their highest previous standard (445 Hz).^[2][16]

------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

My antidote happened while tuning for the International Double Reed Society Conference. I was asked to tune two Steinway D's; one at 440 and the other at 442. The pianos were not acoustomed to regular service. If I remember correctly they were 20 to 30 cents flat and not stable. Each piano after three tunings in three days were coming into line. This particular event was held during winter weather and the backstage had HUGE doors that were frequently open. Shorten the story. The 442 concert performer bassoonist chose what he thought was the 442 piano based on the electronic sample of one note. He choose the 440 instrument due to the drift and sample of A4.  The show went on and no one was the wiser.

------------------------------
Garret Traylor
Trinity NC
336-887-4266
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2017 19:07
From: Roger Gable
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Garret,

How much pitch deviation can they accommodate?

Roger

Original Message------

This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
Roger 

------------------------------
Roger Gable
Gable Piano
Everett WA
425-252-5000
------------------------------

Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than ± 8¢ from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.

In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.

------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107

"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
From: Roger Gable
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
Roger 

------------------------------
Roger Gable
Gable Piano
Everett WA
425-252-5000
------------------------------

Hello,

I think that Roger's question is a very important; and pretty complex one.

There are some thoughts on tuning with/for woodwind and brass
instruments that I would like to share with the group. In doing so, I
want to be clear that, while they may not speak accurately to all
individual instances, there is enough commonality within groups of
instruments which make the various points nominally valid.

The exceptionally short version of an answer to Roger's question is that
much depends on the ability of the individual player; and, which
instrument they are playing.

From Roger's question, I am assuming that, in the scenario he is
describing, the pianos that are being tuned/set up are used by a fairly
wide variety of solo and ensemble performers, with ages ranging from
around 11 or 12 to later High School...16, 17, or 18 years of age. If
that is correct, then, there's going to be such a huge variation in
individual capability that the kind of float being discussed is going to
be well within any reasonably expected tolerance (by a secondary school
band or orchestra director who has not already left the cuckoo nest).

From a piano-tuning standpoint, this translates to: no lower than
A=439Hz to nor higher than A=442Hz. (Note that since many bands and
orchestras often use pianos to fill out the parts that would otherwise
be played by "missing" instruments, it's best not to have the tuning
either to "straight" or too "stretched"...but, should one err, it should
be on the side of greater, rather than lesser, stretch. Much depends on
the percentage of players in the ensemble who take private lessons, the
amount of practicing their are doing regularly...which goes to the
development of their embouchure, without which, no stable pitch is
possible.)

Once you get beyond HS, players (and expectations of them) will depend
strongly on more, and more advanced, instruction. Even then, there are
some caveats..which, sadly exist even amongst may otherwise truly
professional players. This latter is partly to do with the design and
construction of the individual instruments.

Here are some thoughts on individual instrument groups which may/may not
be helpful/useful:

- Piccolo - Generally pitch OK in the lower ranges; but often
unpredictably sharp and/or flat as one goes up the scale.

- Flute - Especially with instruments like older Haynes and Murumatsu
flutes, there is a tendency for the lower ranges to be a bit flat; the
midranges semi-OK; and the higher ranges tending flat.

- Oboe - Here, much depends on who made the oboe. Loree, Marigaux,
Miraphone, Boosey & Hawkes, Yamaha, and Fox, all have their own concept
of oboe tone; and, with that, very different concepts of how to apply
the "Plateau" key system with which oboes are still inflicted. Those
tonal concepts affect intonation quite strongly, as does the style of
reed used by the performer. The précis version of this catastrophe is
that, while oboists _can_ play fairly well in tune, when "tuning, many
of them have discovered that blowing directly into their version of an
ETD by raising the bell and poking it at the "microphone" in the "tuner"
lets them give a nice, low A, while then allowing them to play as sharp
as they want when actually playing. (This is a latter-day version of
what the great Marcel Tabuteau taught all of his students...which was to
partially close the fingers of the Right hand while fingering A with the
left, while, at the same time, pulling the body of the oboe as close as
possible to their chest and stomach...a more primitive, but equally
successful way to throw off generations of string players.)

- Clarinet - While much depends on which clarinet (nominally A, Bb,
and the dreaded C), and which brand of clarinet is being used, in
general, the lower ranges are often fairly good; the middle tones (right
around the break in the scale, often called "throat tones") can vary
wildly...most often "blowing" flat, especially as the dynamic range
changes; and the treble going sharp, especially in softer passages.

(NOTE: All three of the instruments mentioned above are bored using the
same dimension tools. That is, even for some first-rank makers, the
same boring mandrel is used for drilling each of the three instrument
bores. While this sort of mostly works between the A and the Bb...where
there is only 1/2-step change in "base" pitch", the step from the A to
the C is obviously a m3rd...and, the pitch discrepancies and tonal
variations between notes that can more easily be masked on an A or a Bb
are treacherously obvious on a C.) Only FWIW, one of the worst
experiences I've had yet in over 50 years of studio work involved live
recordings of a Klezmer band in which the clarinetist was playing only a
C instrument, he was the owner/leader of the band. The piano had to be
perfectly on 440, relatively, throughout the range, or the poor guy
could not keep the clarinet in tune. The nightmare came when he would
change reeds, and all bets were off.

- Bassoon - Sadly, bassoons are most often increasingly sharp as they
go down in their range; and, generally, increasingly sharp as they go
up. Yes, it doesn't have to be that way...but, it takes a good deal of
work.

- Fr. Horn - As with the Oboe, much depends on the maker. Variations
here involve different materials used in different parts of the (very
long) tubing of the instrument, different diameters, different flares
(especially to the bell), differing valves, and what additional changes
may be made on the fly by the performer. For some decades, it was
usually fairly often to be able to tell when a player was using either
the F or the Bb "side" of the horn because the Bb side was almost always
sharp by comparison to the F. "Alexander" type horns (most often heard
in Russian and other European orchestras) generally have a thinner tube
wall and a more narrow diameter bore for longer along the length before
a final flare.
These most often have a more clarion-style sound, and are often played
with a good deal of vibrato. "American" style horns were, for many
years, much larger and heavier, with thicker walls in the tubing, a
wider, "faster" flare in the bell; and are often (but not exclusively)
played sensa vibrato. Either style is often noticeably sharp in the
extremes of the range, both low and high.

- Trumpets - Trumpets have changed a good deal throughout the 20th
Century. Earlier on, and up through the end of WWII, they were largely
(but not exclusively) more strident, clarion sounding, capable of
holding a piece of paper on the back wall of a concert hall. After
WWII, the concept of sound started changing, and with that, the way in
which trumpets were designed and built. Generally, the walls of the
tubing became somewhat thicker, the length and flare of the bell were
more gradual; and the mouthpieces had deeper and somewhat wider cups.
Minor changes were also made to the lengths of piping added to the three
valves. The best examples of these kinds of horns are still the
"Burbank" Benge instruments of the early- to mid-1950's. To hear the
differences as things unfolded, listen to a range of recordings of Adolf
Herseth, legendary Principal Trumpet of the Chicago Symphony. He was at
Chicago for most of his career, playing different instruments as times
changed. Unfortunately, for many players, trumpets still have an
unfortunate tendency to blow flat.

- Trombones - A very similar transition through the 20th Century to
what developed for trumpets, with similar outcomes. Most notable for
most trombonists is their ability to blow increasingly sharp as they
move more air (play louder).

- Tubas - These mammoths still manage to retain some of their original
nationalistic sound and response after 150+ years of development. Many
players own multiple instruments for the simple reason that different
tubas match different literatures better than others. Sadly, they're
still most often sharp in the lower ranges, and flat in the upper ones.

And, on top of all of that, especially in ensemble playing, a very great
deal depends on the ear of the conductor, and their willingness to use it.

Again, all of this is painting with a very wide brush. Individual,
specific instances will be very different.

All of which is a very long way around the barn to support what I think
was the original thought that one probably has much more latitude for
tuning for these kinds of things than one might for solo wind
performances. As noted, while I would be careful not to let things get
below 440, I'd be quite happy with 442.

While it's now somewhat dated, H.E. Adkins "Treatise on the Military
Band" (1931, revised a few times since), in the earlier editions had
some interesting thoughts on tone and tuning. Reading them, it would be
important to remember that, being English, he was writing for English
bands, which have a very different sound for winds in general v.
American bands. That said, it's still a very good reference because the
during which it was written and in larger use roughly corresponds to a
period of time during which some of the changes I note were beginning to
unfold.

I should note that, in a previous lifetime, in addition to studying
harmony and theory with a student of Boulanger, and conducting with a
former conductor of the Berlin Opera and master classes with Herbert
Blomstedt (for which I played bassoon for 15 years), I played and taught
bassoon professionally for thirty years. Coupled with doing largely
concert and warranty work with pianos for over 50 years, it's been an
interesting life.

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I
would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or
tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the
result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are
still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That
said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned
professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself,
you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer
discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to
either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing
their job...and, neither are the players.

Please use whatever of this might be useful, and can the rest.

Kind regards.

Horace

On 1/13/2017 10:26 AM, William Ballard via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than 8 from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
> interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.
>
> In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.
>
> ------------------------------
> William Ballard RPT
> WBPS
> Saxtons River VT
> 802-869-9107
>
> "Our lives contain a thousand springs
> and dies if one be gone
> Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
> should keep in tune so long."
> ...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
> From: Roger Gable
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Gable
> Gable Piano
> Everett WA
> 425-252-5000
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=de0a1749-f928-49b3-99dc-6c3d5ff4b007&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>


Original Message------

Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than ± 8¢ from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.

In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.

------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107

"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------

Original Message------

Hello,

I think that Roger's question is a very important; and pretty complex one.

There are some thoughts on tuning with/for woodwind and brass
instruments that I would like to share with the group. In doing so, I
want to be clear that, while they may not speak accurately to all
individual instances, there is enough commonality within groups of
instruments which make the various points nominally valid.

The exceptionally short version of an answer to Roger's question is that
much depends on the ability of the individual player; and, which
instrument they are playing.

From Roger's question, I am assuming that, in the scenario he is
describing, the pianos that are being tuned/set up are used by a fairly
wide variety of solo and ensemble performers, with ages ranging from
around 11 or 12 to later High School...16, 17, or 18 years of age. If
that is correct, then, there's going to be such a huge variation in
individual capability that the kind of float being discussed is going to
be well within any reasonably expected tolerance (by a secondary school
band or orchestra director who has not already left the cuckoo nest).

From a piano-tuning standpoint, this translates to: no lower than
A=439Hz to nor higher than A=442Hz. (Note that since many bands and
orchestras often use pianos to fill out the parts that would otherwise
be played by "missing" instruments, it's best not to have the tuning
either to "straight" or too "stretched"...but, should one err, it should
be on the side of greater, rather than lesser, stretch. Much depends on
the percentage of players in the ensemble who take private lessons, the
amount of practicing their are doing regularly...which goes to the
development of their embouchure, without which, no stable pitch is
possible.)

Once you get beyond HS, players (and expectations of them) will depend
strongly on more, and more advanced, instruction. Even then, there are
some caveats..which, sadly exist even amongst may otherwise truly
professional players. This latter is partly to do with the design and
construction of the individual instruments.

Here are some thoughts on individual instrument groups which may/may not
be helpful/useful:

- Piccolo - Generally pitch OK in the lower ranges; but often
unpredictably sharp and/or flat as one goes up the scale.

- Flute - Especially with instruments like older Haynes and Murumatsu
flutes, there is a tendency for the lower ranges to be a bit flat; the
midranges semi-OK; and the higher ranges tending flat.

- Oboe - Here, much depends on who made the oboe. Loree, Marigaux,
Miraphone, Boosey & Hawkes, Yamaha, and Fox, all have their own concept
of oboe tone; and, with that, very different concepts of how to apply
the "Plateau" key system with which oboes are still inflicted. Those
tonal concepts affect intonation quite strongly, as does the style of
reed used by the performer. The précis version of this catastrophe is
that, while oboists _can_ play fairly well in tune, when "tuning, many
of them have discovered that blowing directly into their version of an
ETD by raising the bell and poking it at the "microphone" in the "tuner"
lets them give a nice, low A, while then allowing them to play as sharp
as they want when actually playing. (This is a latter-day version of
what the great Marcel Tabuteau taught all of his students...which was to
partially close the fingers of the Right hand while fingering A with the
left, while, at the same time, pulling the body of the oboe as close as
possible to their chest and stomach...a more primitive, but equally
successful way to throw off generations of string players.)

- Clarinet - While much depends on which clarinet (nominally A, Bb,
and the dreaded C), and which brand of clarinet is being used, in
general, the lower ranges are often fairly good; the middle tones (right
around the break in the scale, often called "throat tones") can vary
wildly...most often "blowing" flat, especially as the dynamic range
changes; and the treble going sharp, especially in softer passages.

(NOTE: All three of the instruments mentioned above are bored using the
same dimension tools. That is, even for some first-rank makers, the
same boring mandrel is used for drilling each of the three instrument
bores. While this sort of mostly works between the A and the Bb...where
there is only 1/2-step change in "base" pitch", the step from the A to
the C is obviously a m3rd...and, the pitch discrepancies and tonal
variations between notes that can more easily be masked on an A or a Bb
are treacherously obvious on a C.) Only FWIW, one of the worst
experiences I've had yet in over 50 years of studio work involved live
recordings of a Klezmer band in which the clarinetist was playing only a
C instrument, he was the owner/leader of the band. The piano had to be
perfectly on 440, relatively, throughout the range, or the poor guy
could not keep the clarinet in tune. The nightmare came when he would
change reeds, and all bets were off.

- Bassoon - Sadly, bassoons are most often increasingly sharp as they
go down in their range; and, generally, increasingly sharp as they go
up. Yes, it doesn't have to be that way...but, it takes a good deal of
work.

- Fr. Horn - As with the Oboe, much depends on the maker. Variations
here involve different materials used in different parts of the (very
long) tubing of the instrument, different diameters, different flares
(especially to the bell), differing valves, and what additional changes
may be made on the fly by the performer. For some decades, it was
usually fairly often to be able to tell when a player was using either
the F or the Bb "side" of the horn because the Bb side was almost always
sharp by comparison to the F. "Alexander" type horns (most often heard
in Russian and other European orchestras) generally have a thinner tube
wall and a more narrow diameter bore for longer along the length before
a final flare.
These most often have a more clarion-style sound, and are often played
with a good deal of vibrato. "American" style horns were, for many
years, much larger and heavier, with thicker walls in the tubing, a
wider, "faster" flare in the bell; and are often (but not exclusively)
played sensa vibrato. Either style is often noticeably sharp in the
extremes of the range, both low and high.

- Trumpets - Trumpets have changed a good deal throughout the 20th
Century. Earlier on, and up through the end of WWII, they were largely
(but not exclusively) more strident, clarion sounding, capable of
holding a piece of paper on the back wall of a concert hall. After
WWII, the concept of sound started changing, and with that, the way in
which trumpets were designed and built. Generally, the walls of the
tubing became somewhat thicker, the length and flare of the bell were
more gradual; and the mouthpieces had deeper and somewhat wider cups.
Minor changes were also made to the lengths of piping added to the three
valves. The best examples of these kinds of horns are still the
"Burbank" Benge instruments of the early- to mid-1950's. To hear the
differences as things unfolded, listen to a range of recordings of Adolf
Herseth, legendary Principal Trumpet of the Chicago Symphony. He was at
Chicago for most of his career, playing different instruments as times
changed. Unfortunately, for many players, trumpets still have an
unfortunate tendency to blow flat.

- Trombones - A very similar transition through the 20th Century to
what developed for trumpets, with similar outcomes. Most notable for
most trombonists is their ability to blow increasingly sharp as they
move more air (play louder).

- Tubas - These mammoths still manage to retain some of their original
nationalistic sound and response after 150+ years of development. Many
players own multiple instruments for the simple reason that different
tubas match different literatures better than others. Sadly, they're
still most often sharp in the lower ranges, and flat in the upper ones.

And, on top of all of that, especially in ensemble playing, a very great
deal depends on the ear of the conductor, and their willingness to use it.

Again, all of this is painting with a very wide brush. Individual,
specific instances will be very different.

All of which is a very long way around the barn to support what I think
was the original thought that one probably has much more latitude for
tuning for these kinds of things than one might for solo wind
performances. As noted, while I would be careful not to let things get
below 440, I'd be quite happy with 442.

While it's now somewhat dated, H.E. Adkins "Treatise on the Military
Band" (1931, revised a few times since), in the earlier editions had
some interesting thoughts on tone and tuning. Reading them, it would be
important to remember that, being English, he was writing for English
bands, which have a very different sound for winds in general v.
American bands. That said, it's still a very good reference because the
during which it was written and in larger use roughly corresponds to a
period of time during which some of the changes I note were beginning to
unfold.

I should note that, in a previous lifetime, in addition to studying
harmony and theory with a student of Boulanger, and conducting with a
former conductor of the Berlin Opera and master classes with Herbert
Blomstedt (for which I played bassoon for 15 years), I played and taught
bassoon professionally for thirty years. Coupled with doing largely
concert and warranty work with pianos for over 50 years, it's been an
interesting life.

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I
would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or
tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the
result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are
still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That
said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned
professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself,
you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer
discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to
either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing
their job...and, neither are the players.

Please use whatever of this might be useful, and can the rest.

Kind regards.

Horace

On 1/13/2017 10:26 AM, William Ballard via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than 8 from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
> interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.
>
> In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.
>
> ------------------------------
> William Ballard RPT
> WBPS
> Saxtons River VT
> 802-869-9107
>
> "Our lives contain a thousand springs
> and dies if one be gone
> Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
> should keep in tune so long."
> ...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
> From: Roger Gable
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Gable
> Gable Piano
> Everett WA
> 425-252-5000
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=de0a1749-f928-49b3-99dc-6c3d5ff4b007&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>

Agreed! Thank you Horace for the very thoughtful reply!

Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned: Stretch. 

Wind and string instruments have no inharmonicity so their octaves will be more or less exact doubling of frequencies. So it could be argued that a piano tuned at A440 will be a little sharp in the 5th octaves and even sharper in the 6th and 7th octaves. 

Theoretically if A440 is tuned at 439.5 and the pianos octaves are stretched .5 hz at the 2:1 level (which would not be unusually at all) then the piano will be "in tune" the next octave up.  


------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 17:48
From: Ruth Zeiner
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Goodness!  Thank you, Horace, for all this information.  Ruth Zeiner

Hi, Ryan,

On 1/13/2017 3:06 PM, Ryan Sowers via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
>
> Agreed! Thank you Horace for the very thoughtful reply!

Thanks, but it's only just a very brief start on a much larger set of
topics.

> Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned: Stretch.

Actually, I did:

"Note that since many bands and orchestras often use pianos to fill out
the parts that would otherwise be played by "missing" instruments, it's
best not to have the tuning either to "straight" or too
"stretched"...but, should one err, it should be on the side of greater,
rather than lesser, stretch."

And, that is because:

> Wind and string instruments have no inharmonicity so their octaves will be more or less exact doubling of frequencies. So it could be argued that a piano tuned at A440 will be a little sharp in the 5th octaves and even sharper in the 6th and 7th octaves.

I respectfully disagree.

Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does
not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to
think about it. Further, it's also a question of degree of
inharmonicity, as well. So, for myself, it's not simply whether or not
it occurs. Rather, it's a question of how much, and where; and,
importantly, in what ways does it become objectionably noticeable in
various settings.

For example, while it's considered obvious to the point of legend that
"strings play sharp", if one listens carefully (sometimes at half-speed
or less) to the recordings of virtually any orchestral group one
chooses, one will probably hear that the real issues around "string"
intonation actually have very much to do with which of the winds (WW and
Brass) are playing chords voiced with the lowest "voices" being in first
inversion. The "bottom" 3rd being sharp makes tuning virtually
impossible for anyone voiced relative to that inversion. While this is
usually most noticeable in 2nd Clarinet and 2nd Bassoon, it is often
also heard in 3rd and/or 4th Horn, and/or 1st Trombone, depending on
the instrumentation.

There always seems to be some degree of confusion around these things.
After more thinking than I presently care to think about, I've (over a
period of some decades) come to think (yes...sorry) that the major
differences in understanding among technicians, let alone adding in
instrumentalists to the discussion, is that, it really seems as if the
filters used for performers and technicians...or, at least the
understanding of them...is somewhat at cross purposes...both within each
group, and, certainly between the two.

To try to make that more clear, envision tuning data as a vast hologram
of various kinds of data..."true" or "real" pitches (whatever those
might actually be), "relative pitches" (ditto), balance among various
overtones/partials of each pitch in each set of pitches (often thought
of as timbr??). Then add to that mix all the variables that have to do
with what (little) we often actually "know" (that's a nod to Ron
Nossman, with thanks for his endless push for verifiable data on which
to base conclusions) about a given composer, their general catalog of
works, their lives (very important for competent development of
interpretation choices in performance), the makes, kinds, brands, etc of
the instruments on which they performed. With all of that dumped into
an unimaginably large and complex data base, what we get out of it (as
the old joke goes) has a great deal to do with what we put into it.

That is, the work which we put into developing our overall knowledge of
each of the data points above (and, others which we might add) to the
point that we have a reasonable sense of being able to develop our own
sets of filters (or, since we're dealing with this really huge database,
our SQL search terms and criteria) directly affects what we might glean
(if anything) from the knowledge at hand.

More simply yet, while the overall raw data with which performers and
technicians are presented may, in fact, be _precisely_ the same, the
differences in our understanding of those "facts" has specifically to do
with the filters which we use to understand those data or "facts".
And, those understandings, in turn, have specifically to do with how we
perceive intonation (among other things), and, crucially, how and what
we do as a result.

Remembering that we're painting with a very wide (and, sloppy) brush,
here is one way in which to constellate this rambling into something
that might make more sense:

Leaving aside things like organs, harps, and celestes, let's think about
how one might approach tuning specific instruments for specific
composers/periods.

- For Bach (J.S.), Handel, early Hadyn and Mozart, and early Czerny,
one probably would use very little of what we now call stretch.
Exceptions might be if one is tuning for something that uses winds (of
whatever flavour), in which case, one might adjust for instruments
which, upon hearing, demonstrate vagaries of pitch which can be (sort
of) duplicated on a keyboard instrument. Note that this does _not_ mean
trying to duplicate specific notes. Rather, a general sense of what the
instruments require to produce the psycho-acoustic appearance of being
"in tune".

- For composers like Beethoven and Schubert (and their
contemporaries), one has to exercise caution. For some work, mostly,
but not exclusively, earlier ones, "tighter" octaves may well be the
order of the day...(assuming that the instrument will take them without
sounding nasty). For their later works, at least some stretch (in the
modern sense) is definitely in order...how much depending on numerous
factors...what the instrument will take, what the room will allow, what
the performer has in their head, etc.

- For later Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, and from then forward into
the 20th C., varying (often quite large) amounts of stretch are in
order. In the days when pianists used to think in terms of "key
centers" for their recitals, and, one could get the program in time, it
was often very useful to figure out not only the actual "key center"
(which might be different from the one in the performer's mind), and to
structure some flavour of non-ET around that; adjusting stretch so that
the "most important" piece of a given program was going to have the best
chance of sounding stellar. Like any other skill, this is one which
requires time, serious work, and application to develop; but, the
rewards can be remarkable.

- Throughout the rest of the 19th C, up to into the first part of the
20th C, these variations in tuning and stretch can be used to good
advantage. That's not to say that one should always and forever stretch
or not...it is, for me, a matter of discretion.

- By the time we get to folks like Webern, Schoenberg, some
Stravinsky, &c, we've got two distinct needs. One firmly in place; and
the other developing. On the one hand, there are still composers
working well into the 20th C whose works seem to sound best with at
least some stretch. On the other, counting the composers noted above
among many others, there is the equally valid school of having very
precise (which is not the same things as non-stretched) octaves. While
these two understandings of tunings are not necessarily always at odds
with one another, they're also not necessarily mutually
complimentary...all the more reason for the technician to know more
about the literature. Unfortunately, one of the things lost as the
literature has expanded and the century has closed has been the concept
of a "key center" for programs. Obviously, this is a personal
thought...YMMV.

For a more down-to-earth example of the kinds of things I'm talking
about, I'll relate a fairly short story from my own career which
unfolded over a fairly long period of time.

At one point, I wound up tuning for the old Beaux Arts Trio. (Isadore
Cohen, violin; Bernard Greenhouse, 'cello; and Menachem Pressler, piano.)

After tuning for them a dozen or so times, I noticed in one of their
rehearsals that, while Cohen was very precisely in tune with the upper
end of the piano, Greenhouse was consistently increasingly sharp as he
went lower in the range of the 'cello (especially as compared with the
piano). Pressler was usually quite happy with the pianos. As an
experiment, on one concert when they were performing the Schubert Trio
in Eb, D. 929, I tuned the middle and upper ranges of the piano as I had
previously done; but tuned the based very slightly, but increasingly
sharp as the scale proceeded into the bass. Fortunately, I managed to
nail what Greenhouse had in his head. They had a marvelous performance;
and were quite ecstatic. Interestingly, of the three, I think that
Pressler was the only one who figured out what I had done. At the post
concert reception, he commented that the "setting" of the piano was
"most harmonious". The point is not that I am (or was) that wonderful;
but that artists do notice these things, that they appreciate them when
they are done; and that as technicians, we can always work to improve
whatever it is we are doing.

As previously noted, this barely scratches the surface of these topics.

> Theoretically if A440 is tuned at 439.5 and the pianos octaves are stretched .5 hz at the 2:1 level (which would not be unusually at all) then the piano will be "in tune" the next octave up.

In all probability, that works at least part of the time. It just does
not seem to me that any of these issues ever really boil down to a
one-size-fits-all solution. It's simply not the actual nature of the beast.

Kind regards.

Horace



>
>
> ------------------------------
> Ryan Sowers
> Olympia WA
> 360-705-4160
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-13-2017 17:48
> From: Ruth Zeiner
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> Goodness! Thank you, Horace, for all this information. Ruth Zeiner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=8e6f7054-4591-4fbb-a605-f8e908bb6fb0&MID=669997&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669997&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>


Original Message------

Agreed! Thank you Horace for the very thoughtful reply!

Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned: Stretch. 

Wind and string instruments have no inharmonicity so their octaves will be more or less exact doubling of frequencies. So it could be argued that a piano tuned at A440 will be a little sharp in the 5th octaves and even sharper in the 6th and 7th octaves. 

Theoretically if A440 is tuned at 439.5 and the pianos octaves are stretched .5 hz at the 2:1 level (which would not be unusually at all) then the piano will be "in tune" the next octave up.  


------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message------

Hi, Ryan,

On 1/13/2017 3:06 PM, Ryan Sowers via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
>
> Agreed! Thank you Horace for the very thoughtful reply!

Thanks, but it's only just a very brief start on a much larger set of
topics.

> Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned: Stretch.

Actually, I did:

"Note that since many bands and orchestras often use pianos to fill out
the parts that would otherwise be played by "missing" instruments, it's
best not to have the tuning either to "straight" or too
"stretched"...but, should one err, it should be on the side of greater,
rather than lesser, stretch."

And, that is because:

> Wind and string instruments have no inharmonicity so their octaves will be more or less exact doubling of frequencies. So it could be argued that a piano tuned at A440 will be a little sharp in the 5th octaves and even sharper in the 6th and 7th octaves.

I respectfully disagree.

Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does
not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to
think about it. Further, it's also a question of degree of
inharmonicity, as well. So, for myself, it's not simply whether or not
it occurs. Rather, it's a question of how much, and where; and,
importantly, in what ways does it become objectionably noticeable in
various settings.

For example, while it's considered obvious to the point of legend that
"strings play sharp", if one listens carefully (sometimes at half-speed
or less) to the recordings of virtually any orchestral group one
chooses, one will probably hear that the real issues around "string"
intonation actually have very much to do with which of the winds (WW and
Brass) are playing chords voiced with the lowest "voices" being in first
inversion. The "bottom" 3rd being sharp makes tuning virtually
impossible for anyone voiced relative to that inversion. While this is
usually most noticeable in 2nd Clarinet and 2nd Bassoon, it is often
also heard in 3rd and/or 4th Horn, and/or 1st Trombone, depending on
the instrumentation.

There always seems to be some degree of confusion around these things.
After more thinking than I presently care to think about, I've (over a
period of some decades) come to think (yes...sorry) that the major
differences in understanding among technicians, let alone adding in
instrumentalists to the discussion, is that, it really seems as if the
filters used for performers and technicians...or, at least the
understanding of them...is somewhat at cross purposes...both within each
group, and, certainly between the two.

To try to make that more clear, envision tuning data as a vast hologram
of various kinds of data..."true" or "real" pitches (whatever those
might actually be), "relative pitches" (ditto), balance among various
overtones/partials of each pitch in each set of pitches (often thought
of as timbr??). Then add to that mix all the variables that have to do
with what (little) we often actually "know" (that's a nod to Ron
Nossman, with thanks for his endless push for verifiable data on which
to base conclusions) about a given composer, their general catalog of
works, their lives (very important for competent development of
interpretation choices in performance), the makes, kinds, brands, etc of
the instruments on which they performed. With all of that dumped into
an unimaginably large and complex data base, what we get out of it (as
the old joke goes) has a great deal to do with what we put into it.

That is, the work which we put into developing our overall knowledge of
each of the data points above (and, others which we might add) to the
point that we have a reasonable sense of being able to develop our own
sets of filters (or, since we're dealing with this really huge database,
our SQL search terms and criteria) directly affects what we might glean
(if anything) from the knowledge at hand.

More simply yet, while the overall raw data with which performers and
technicians are presented may, in fact, be _precisely_ the same, the
differences in our understanding of those "facts" has specifically to do
with the filters which we use to understand those data or "facts".
And, those understandings, in turn, have specifically to do with how we
perceive intonation (among other things), and, crucially, how and what
we do as a result.

Remembering that we're painting with a very wide (and, sloppy) brush,
here is one way in which to constellate this rambling into something
that might make more sense:

Leaving aside things like organs, harps, and celestes, let's think about
how one might approach tuning specific instruments for specific
composers/periods.

- For Bach (J.S.), Handel, early Hadyn and Mozart, and early Czerny,
one probably would use very little of what we now call stretch.
Exceptions might be if one is tuning for something that uses winds (of
whatever flavour), in which case, one might adjust for instruments
which, upon hearing, demonstrate vagaries of pitch which can be (sort
of) duplicated on a keyboard instrument. Note that this does _not_ mean
trying to duplicate specific notes. Rather, a general sense of what the
instruments require to produce the psycho-acoustic appearance of being
"in tune".

- For composers like Beethoven and Schubert (and their
contemporaries), one has to exercise caution. For some work, mostly,
but not exclusively, earlier ones, "tighter" octaves may well be the
order of the day...(assuming that the instrument will take them without
sounding nasty). For their later works, at least some stretch (in the
modern sense) is definitely in order...how much depending on numerous
factors...what the instrument will take, what the room will allow, what
the performer has in their head, etc.

- For later Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, and from then forward into
the 20th C., varying (often quite large) amounts of stretch are in
order. In the days when pianists used to think in terms of "key
centers" for their recitals, and, one could get the program in time, it
was often very useful to figure out not only the actual "key center"
(which might be different from the one in the performer's mind), and to
structure some flavour of non-ET around that; adjusting stretch so that
the "most important" piece of a given program was going to have the best
chance of sounding stellar. Like any other skill, this is one which
requires time, serious work, and application to develop; but, the
rewards can be remarkable.

- Throughout the rest of the 19th C, up to into the first part of the
20th C, these variations in tuning and stretch can be used to good
advantage. That's not to say that one should always and forever stretch
or not...it is, for me, a matter of discretion.

- By the time we get to folks like Webern, Schoenberg, some
Stravinsky, &c, we've got two distinct needs. One firmly in place; and
the other developing. On the one hand, there are still composers
working well into the 20th C whose works seem to sound best with at
least some stretch. On the other, counting the composers noted above
among many others, there is the equally valid school of having very
precise (which is not the same things as non-stretched) octaves. While
these two understandings of tunings are not necessarily always at odds
with one another, they're also not necessarily mutually
complimentary...all the more reason for the technician to know more
about the literature. Unfortunately, one of the things lost as the
literature has expanded and the century has closed has been the concept
of a "key center" for programs. Obviously, this is a personal
thought...YMMV.

For a more down-to-earth example of the kinds of things I'm talking
about, I'll relate a fairly short story from my own career which
unfolded over a fairly long period of time.

At one point, I wound up tuning for the old Beaux Arts Trio. (Isadore
Cohen, violin; Bernard Greenhouse, 'cello; and Menachem Pressler, piano.)

After tuning for them a dozen or so times, I noticed in one of their
rehearsals that, while Cohen was very precisely in tune with the upper
end of the piano, Greenhouse was consistently increasingly sharp as he
went lower in the range of the 'cello (especially as compared with the
piano). Pressler was usually quite happy with the pianos. As an
experiment, on one concert when they were performing the Schubert Trio
in Eb, D. 929, I tuned the middle and upper ranges of the piano as I had
previously done; but tuned the based very slightly, but increasingly
sharp as the scale proceeded into the bass. Fortunately, I managed to
nail what Greenhouse had in his head. They had a marvelous performance;
and were quite ecstatic. Interestingly, of the three, I think that
Pressler was the only one who figured out what I had done. At the post
concert reception, he commented that the "setting" of the piano was
"most harmonious". The point is not that I am (or was) that wonderful;
but that artists do notice these things, that they appreciate them when
they are done; and that as technicians, we can always work to improve
whatever it is we are doing.

As previously noted, this barely scratches the surface of these topics.

> Theoretically if A440 is tuned at 439.5 and the pianos octaves are stretched .5 hz at the 2:1 level (which would not be unusually at all) then the piano will be "in tune" the next octave up.

In all probability, that works at least part of the time. It just does
not seem to me that any of these issues ever really boil down to a
one-size-fits-all solution. It's simply not the actual nature of the beast.

Kind regards.

Horace



>
>
> ------------------------------
> Ryan Sowers
> Olympia WA
> 360-705-4160
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-13-2017 17:48
> From: Ruth Zeiner
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> Goodness! Thank you, Horace, for all this information. Ruth Zeiner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=8e6f7054-4591-4fbb-a605-f8e908bb6fb0&MID=669997&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669997&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>

Hi, Michael

I'm also a cellist. The wolf tone on my instrument is on the G string, fairly close to F#3. The same note on the D string is slightly "wolfy" but not nearly as much as on the G string.

My understanding of a wolf tone is that it happens when the note played is a near match to the natural resonance of the body of an instrument.

Inharmonicity is something completely different, related to the stiffness of a wire. Since a wire isn't perfectly strong and flexible both, the nodes don't start right at the bearings, but just a little further out. It must occur at least a little bit on string instruments, but since the tension of the strings is so much less, and we change pitch at will and also use vibrato, inharmonicity is far more noticeable on a piano.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 03:54
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Horace! You're a tower of splendid information. Thank you so much for your excellent treatise. But I do have question relating to:

<Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does 
<not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to 
<think about it.

This is about strings - and particularly about Violoncellos. Mine has a 'wolf' note (it also has a Lion's Head scroll!) - on the C string - and I have to use a 'suppressor' to control it. It's not 100% and howls somewhere # of F.

So what is the definition of 'inharmonicity'?

Michael   UK

Fretless string players have always been a guide for what sounds in tune, particularly string quartets, which most often tune in perfect fifths. Gypsy violinists from the near East play serially better than virtually all the brass and wind players out of the West due most of all to a superior sense of pitch, particularly to guitarists from the same. Frets are cheating from a tuning perspective and produce the same problems as valves with wind and horn instruments, and tuning with pianos for that matter. The West produced better entertainers, not musicians, and a media that knew how to promote jazz in the West at least. The cimbalom guides the gypsy bands, not woodwinds.

The greatest string quartets play perfect thirds depending on repetoire. Starting with A zero, A # zero, B zero, C one in the 88 note range of the piano, cellists tune C2, G2, D3, A3. The viola is an octave higher. Violin is G3, D4, A4, E5. The bass tunes in 4ths, starting with E1, then A1, D2, G2. This has always caused ambivalence about moving away from the fundamental in the lower bass notes of the piano. But for the most part it sounds like in the midrange and beyond all these fretless players with the exception of the bass are tuning in perfect fifths. That won't be in tune with Hertz standard of A440, A220, A110, etc.

In years of playing French Horn for Wind Ensembles, high school and college, piano was not involved for the most part. The only thing that seems to keep winds and horns in line with tuning are string players. 

My question with Hertz is how do you reconcile the numbers with how string players tune? Woodwinds don't do nearly as much in the area of making notes sound in tune as fretless string players. Fretted string players are another matter.


------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 05:35
From: Susan Kline
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hi, Michael

I'm also a cellist. The wolf tone on my instrument is on the G string, fairly close to F#3. The same note on the D string is slightly "wolfy" but not nearly as much as on the G string.

My understanding of a wolf tone is that it happens when the note played is a near match to the natural resonance of the body of an instrument.

Inharmonicity is something completely different, related to the stiffness of a wire. Since a wire isn't perfectly strong and flexible both, the nodes don't start right at the bearings, but just a little further out. It must occur at least a little bit on string instruments, but since the tension of the strings is so much less, and we change pitch at will and also use vibrato, inharmonicity is far more noticeable on a piano.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 03:54
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Horace! You're a tower of splendid information. Thank you so much for your excellent treatise. But I do have question relating to:

<Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does 
<not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to 
<think about it.

This is about strings - and particularly about Violoncellos. Mine has a 'wolf' note (it also has a Lion's Head scroll!) - on the C string - and I have to use a 'suppressor' to control it. It's not 100% and howls somewhere # of F.

So what is the definition of 'inharmonicity'?

Michael   UK

There are a few little quirks about tuning a cello which may affect this discussion.

We tune A from a pitch source, then we tune D to a pure fifth below. Then we tune G to a pure fifth below that. By now, we're already getting enough off a tempered scale to matter. So cellists tend to tune the C just a tad sharp. This means there's already an irregularity built into the tuning. I've also noticed that the little tuning widgets used by string players seldom have the C right. I remember my silent snort the first time someone plopped one of those gadgets on my music stand when I came to play string quartets. Who do they take me for?? In fact, once one is a piano tuner, observing other string players tuning, and seeing how often they have to do it, ---- well, it's a little like listening to most orchestras tune. The oboe gives the A -- hmmmm, not exactly steady, is it? I wonder which one he wants them to take? The brass tuning -- about five variations. Woodwinds -- different ones. Strings -- oh, goody! Dozens of pitches, pick almost anything within about twenty cents, and SOMEBODY will be tuned to it! But then, as my cello teacher used to say, that's only four notes. Who knows where the other notes are going to be placed?

Second, since the tension of the strings isn't all that great, when we play loud the excursion increases and the sound goes sharp. This shows up the most on the C string, especially the lower notes of it and the open string. If one plays an open C softly and then one increases in volume to double forte (well, as close as we can, there's not all that much volume in a cello) the wow practically sounds like a Doppler effect. So, to a greater extent on the lower strings, but also somewhat on the upper strings, how loud one plays will affect the pitch of a stringed instrument. The every-helpful adjustment on the fly has a lot of work to do for a string player. Adjustment for the excursion of the strings, adjustment for a slightly more Pythagorean tuning than equal temperament, adjustment for different keys, adjustment not to collide too much with the very different (and, for me, very imperfectly understood) wind tuning, and then there's the vibrato. People suppose it covers up a lot of intonation problems, but really, there is a center to the pitch of a note with vibrato. Well, a decent vibrato.

I'm aware of such things from direct experience, but never did the work needed to put more than a vague scientific framework around them. More "sciencey" than scientific, alas.

Looking at the greater picture of intonation in an orchestra, there's a tremendous variation in quality, dependent not just on the skills of the players but also the determination of the conductor. The more carefully one listens, the more problems one will hear. It seems to me that the only way people can hear with enjoyment even one of the better in tune orchestras is by having a range of tolerance, so that everything within it is "all right" as far as they notice. I think that the same thing allows people to accept an equal temperament. Also, one accepts what one is used to, and we've heard equal temperament all our lives.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 08:55
From: Benjamin Sloane
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Fretless string players have always been a guide for what sounds in tune, particularly string quartets, which most often tune in perfect fifths. Gypsy violinists from the near East play serially better than virtually all the brass and wind players out of the West due most of all to a superior sense of pitch, particularly to guitarists from the same. Frets are cheating from a tuning perspective and produce the same problems as valves with wind and horn instruments, and tuning with pianos for that matter. The West produced better entertainers, not musicians, and a media that knew how to promote jazz in the West at least. The cimbalom guides the gypsy bands, not woodwinds.

The greatest string quartets play perfect thirds depending on repetoire. Starting with A zero, A # zero, B zero, C one in the 88 note range of the piano, cellists tune C2, G2, D3, A3. The viola is an octave higher. Violin is G3, D4, A4, E5. The bass tunes in 4ths, starting with E1, then A1, D2, G2. This has always caused ambivalence about moving away from the fundamental in the lower bass notes of the piano. But for the most part it sounds like in the midrange and beyond all these fretless players with the exception of the bass are tuning in perfect fifths. That won't be in tune with Hertz standard of A440, A220, A110, etc.

In years of playing French Horn for Wind Ensembles, high school and college, piano was not involved for the most part. The only thing that seems to keep winds and horns in line with tuning are string players. 

My question with Hertz is how do you reconcile the numbers with how string players tune? Woodwinds don't do nearly as much in the area of making notes sound in tune as fretless string players. Fretted string players are another matter.


------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 05:35
From: Susan Kline
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hi, Michael

I'm also a cellist. The wolf tone on my instrument is on the G string, fairly close to F#3. The same note on the D string is slightly "wolfy" but not nearly as much as on the G string.

My understanding of a wolf tone is that it happens when the note played is a near match to the natural resonance of the body of an instrument.

Inharmonicity is something completely different, related to the stiffness of a wire. Since a wire isn't perfectly strong and flexible both, the nodes don't start right at the bearings, but just a little further out. It must occur at least a little bit on string instruments, but since the tension of the strings is so much less, and we change pitch at will and also use vibrato, inharmonicity is far more noticeable on a piano.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 03:54
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Horace! You're a tower of splendid information. Thank you so much for your excellent treatise. But I do have question relating to:

<Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does 
<not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to 
<think about it.

This is about strings - and particularly about Violoncellos. Mine has a 'wolf' note (it also has a Lion's Head scroll!) - on the C string - and I have to use a 'suppressor' to control it. It's not 100% and howls somewhere # of F.

So what is the definition of 'inharmonicity'?

Michael   UK

Original Message------

There are a few little quirks about tuning a cello which may affect this discussion.

We tune A from a pitch source, then we tune D to a pure fifth below. Then we tune G to a pure fifth below that. By now, we're already getting enough off a tempered scale to matter. So cellists tend to tune the C just a tad sharp. This means there's already an irregularity built into the tuning. I've also noticed that the little tuning widgets used by string players seldom have the C right. I remember my silent snort the first time someone plopped one of those gadgets on my music stand when I came to play string quartets. Who do they take me for?? In fact, once one is a piano tuner, observing other string players tuning, and seeing how often they have to do it, ---- well, it's a little like listening to most orchestras tune. The oboe gives the A -- hmmmm, not exactly steady, is it? I wonder which one he wants them to take? The brass tuning -- about five variations. Woodwinds -- different ones. Strings -- oh, goody! Dozens of pitches, pick almost anything within about twenty cents, and SOMEBODY will be tuned to it! But then, as my cello teacher used to say, that's only four notes. Who knows where the other notes are going to be placed?

Second, since the tension of the strings isn't all that great, when we play loud the excursion increases and the sound goes sharp. This shows up the most on the C string, especially the lower notes of it and the open string. If one plays an open C softly and then one increases in volume to double forte (well, as close as we can, there's not all that much volume in a cello) the wow practically sounds like a Doppler effect. So, to a greater extent on the lower strings, but also somewhat on the upper strings, how loud one plays will affect the pitch of a stringed instrument. The every-helpful adjustment on the fly has a lot of work to do for a string player. Adjustment for the excursion of the strings, adjustment for a slightly more Pythagorean tuning than equal temperament, adjustment for different keys, adjustment not to collide too much with the very different (and, for me, very imperfectly understood) wind tuning, and then there's the vibrato. People suppose it covers up a lot of intonation problems, but really, there is a center to the pitch of a note with vibrato. Well, a decent vibrato.

I'm aware of such things from direct experience, but never did the work needed to put more than a vague scientific framework around them. More "sciencey" than scientific, alas.

Looking at the greater picture of intonation in an orchestra, there's a tremendous variation in quality, dependent not just on the skills of the players but also the determination of the conductor. The more carefully one listens, the more problems one will hear. It seems to me that the only way people can hear with enjoyment even one of the better in tune orchestras is by having a range of tolerance, so that everything within it is "all right" as far as they notice. I think that the same thing allows people to accept an equal temperament. Also, one accepts what one is used to, and we've heard equal temperament all our lives.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Hi Nancy,

Interesting post! 

I'm not sure why your cut and paste didn't work - so I took the liberty of trying it on my computer. Here it is:
-Ryan
*******************

Hmm…

Trumpets DEFINITELY tend to blow SHARP, NOT FLAT. In every professional or amateur group I’ve been in, from Hagerstown Municipal Band to The Herald Trumpets, the high trumpets end up at odds with everyone else in an ensemble because they keep pushing the pitch up. Within the Army Band we had heated meetings about this, with the woodwinds constantly upset about the rising pitch center.

With regard to tubas, the lower partials of these instruments (and all brass instruments), when one picks an appropriate compromise tuning slide length for the mid-register, are DEFINITELY FLAT in the low register, and decidedly SHARP in the high register. My tuba friends and I are always endeavoring to pull up and low notes (partials) and lip down the higher partials. The best we can do, by means of alternate fingerings and strong embouchures is to come close, sometimes very close to accurate pitch. I’m never flat in the upper register or sharp in the lower register. Instead I’m always making adjustments of embouchure to compensate for the opposite (otherwise known as the reality of the physics of brass instruments). It would physically be much easier to relax the embouchure to lip down the low notes, and push up the high notes. 

The trombonist has a huge advantage in that he or she can push the slide out to bring the high partials down to pitch, and pull in the slide for the low notes that tend to be flat (as long as they leave a little extra room for 1st position). Trombones, like trumpets, if blown a bit too hard, tend to ride sharp, but this can quickly be compensated for by adjusting the slide. Good trombonists, or at least conscientious ones, are often making tiny tweaks of the slide length to get everything just right as far as matching what is going on around them. It is possible to blow a note flat, but one has to blow REALLY hard, to the point of grossly “overblowing” the horn and getting an obnoxious over-the-top “blasting” sound out of the horn to blow the pitch downward. And even then it only stays flat in pitch if the trombonist stubbornly keeps the slide exactly where it was when he or she was playing softer. 

I’m going to stick to what I know, and not spout off about things I obviously know nothing about. Therefore I have next to nothing to say about the woodwinds.  The one thing I will say is: As a VERY general rule, based only on my personal experience within various ensembles, is that woodwinds play a lot better in tune that most brass players I know. It should be noted that my opinion is that the disparity is more closely related to the person behind the instrument, than the instruments themselves.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard a lot of horribly out of tune woodwinds, and a lot of beautifully in tune brass instruments, but it seems the woodwinds players themselves are (remember, this is a gross generalization, based only on MY experiences) often more concerned about intonation than their brass counterparts, and therefore more likely to make the needed adjustments on their instruments. On the other hand, a ton a brass players I know just seem to be concerned about one thing: being heard. They’re consistently too loud and seem obsessed with being sure they’re heard above the rest of the ensemble.

That’s my 2-cents worth!!!

------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2017 16:23
From: Nancy Salmon
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is a subject I've been puzzling over and speaking to musicians about for years. Thank you for this discussion and information.

I can add some discussion from a low brass player and composer, who played until very recently for the 'President's Own'  and the 'Herald Trumpets' with the US Army band. I seem unable to paste here so I will attach his comments.

He also says in a later email that trying to accommodate all instruments with our tuning is not possible; what would help one instrument would be more difficult for other instruments. The best we can do is tune at the requested A (440, 441, 442 etc) and allow the orchestra to function.

Nancy Salmon RPT

LaVale, MD

Here is an interesting quote from Steve Brady's book "Under the Lid, the Art & Craft of the Concert Piano Technician"

Page 218:

------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2017 21:35
From: Ryan Sowers
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hi Nancy,

Interesting post! 

I'm not sure why your cut and paste didn't work - so I took the liberty of trying it on my computer. Here it is:
-Ryan
*******************

Hmm…

Trumpets DEFINITELY tend to blow SHARP, NOT FLAT. In every professional or amateur group I’ve been in, from Hagerstown Municipal Band to The Herald Trumpets, the high trumpets end up at odds with everyone else in an ensemble because they keep pushing the pitch up. Within the Army Band we had heated meetings about this, with the woodwinds constantly upset about the rising pitch center.

With regard to tubas, the lower partials of these instruments (and all brass instruments), when one picks an appropriate compromise tuning slide length for the mid-register, are DEFINITELY FLAT in the low register, and decidedly SHARP in the high register. My tuba friends and I are always endeavoring to pull up and low notes (partials) and lip down the higher partials. The best we can do, by means of alternate fingerings and strong embouchures is to come close, sometimes very close to accurate pitch. I’m never flat in the upper register or sharp in the lower register. Instead I’m always making adjustments of embouchure to compensate for the opposite (otherwise known as the reality of the physics of brass instruments). It would physically be much easier to relax the embouchure to lip down the low notes, and push up the high notes. 

The trombonist has a huge advantage in that he or she can push the slide out to bring the high partials down to pitch, and pull in the slide for the low notes that tend to be flat (as long as they leave a little extra room for 1st position). Trombones, like trumpets, if blown a bit too hard, tend to ride sharp, but this can quickly be compensated for by adjusting the slide. Good trombonists, or at least conscientious ones, are often making tiny tweaks of the slide length to get everything just right as far as matching what is going on around them. It is possible to blow a note flat, but one has to blow REALLY hard, to the point of grossly “overblowing” the horn and getting an obnoxious over-the-top “blasting” sound out of the horn to blow the pitch downward. And even then it only stays flat in pitch if the trombonist stubbornly keeps the slide exactly where it was when he or she was playing softer. 

I’m going to stick to what I know, and not spout off about things I obviously know nothing about. Therefore I have next to nothing to say about the woodwinds.  The one thing I will say is: As a VERY general rule, based only on my personal experience within various ensembles, is that woodwinds play a lot better in tune that most brass players I know. It should be noted that my opinion is that the disparity is more closely related to the person behind the instrument, than the instruments themselves.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard a lot of horribly out of tune woodwinds, and a lot of beautifully in tune brass instruments, but it seems the woodwinds players themselves are (remember, this is a gross generalization, based only on MY experiences) often more concerned about intonation than their brass counterparts, and therefore more likely to make the needed adjustments on their instruments. On the other hand, a ton a brass players I know just seem to be concerned about one thing: being heard. They’re consistently too loud and seem obsessed with being sure they’re heard above the rest of the ensemble.

That’s my 2-cents worth!!!

------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2017 16:23
From: Nancy Salmon
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is a subject I've been puzzling over and speaking to musicians about for years. Thank you for this discussion and information.

I can add some discussion from a low brass player and composer, who played until very recently for the 'President's Own'  and the 'Herald Trumpets' with the US Army band. I seem unable to paste here so I will attach his comments.

He also says in a later email that trying to accommodate all instruments with our tuning is not possible; what would help one instrument would be more difficult for other instruments. The best we can do is tune at the requested A (440, 441, 442 etc) and allow the orchestra to function.

Nancy Salmon RPT

LaVale, MD

Hello Susan I agree about the 'quirks'.  When tuning George (my old dark Austrian 'Cello with a Lions-head Scroll) I use a lot of harmonics to help. One approach in particular is using the harmonic for G on the C string (where you play G there) and comparing it to the 8ve harmonic on the G string above. The same applies for D and A - you'll know what I mean. As for Pythagorean tuning I'm not so sure -  so I looked it up in Reblitz first . .  not mentioned. Then in Igrec -  and there it was under Types of Temperament on p.99.   Of course! - this is where you go round the circle of perfect 5ths and get a bit left over - which then has to be distributed of the 12 notes. The so-called Pythagorean interval. I must say I cannot agree with Mario Igrec's 12 "equal" intervals though, for they follow the logarithmic curve dictated according to the usual requirements of E.T. Michael   UK There are a few little quirks about tuning a cello which may affect this discussion. We tune A from a pitch source, then we tune D to a pure fifth below. Then we tune G to a pure fifth below that. By now, we're already getting enough off a tempered scale to matter. So cellists tend to tune the C just a tad sharp. This means there's already an irregularity built into the tuning. I've also noticed that the little tuning widgets used by string players seldom have the C right. I remember my silent snort the first time someone plopped one of those gadgets on my music stand when I came to play string quartets. Who do they take me for?? In fact, once one is a piano tuner, observing other string players tuning, and seeing how often they have to do it, ---- well, it's a little like listening to most orchestras tune. The oboe gives the A -- hmmmm, not exactly steady, is it? I wonder which one he wants them to take? The brass tuning -- about five variations. Woodwinds -- different ones. Strings -- oh, goody! Dozens of pitches, pick almost anything within about twenty cents, and SOMEBODY will be tuned to it! But then, as my cello teacher used to say, that's only four notes. Who knows where the other notes are going to be placed? Second, since the tension of the strings isn't all that great, when we play loud the excursion increases and the sound goes sharp. This shows up the most on the C string, especially the lower notes of it and the open string. If one plays an open C softly and then one increases in volume to double forte (well, as close as we can, there's not all that much volume in a cello) the wow practically sounds like a Doppler effect. So, to a greater extent on the lower strings, but also somewhat on the upper strings, how loud one plays will affect the pitch of a stringed instrument. The every-helpful adjustment on the fly has a lot of work to do for a string player. Adjustment for the excursion of the strings, adjustment for a slightly more Pythagorean tuning than equal temperament, adjustment for different keys, adjustment not to collide too much with the very different (and, for me, very imperfectly understood) wind tuning, and then there's the vibrato. People suppose it covers up a lot of intonation problems, but really, there is a center to the pitch of a note with vibrato. Well, a decent vibrato. I'm aware of such things from direct experience, but never did the work needed to put more than a vague scientific framework around them. More "sciencey" than scientific, alas. Looking at the greater picture of intonation in an orchestra, there's a tremendous variation in quality, dependent not just on the skills of the players but also the determination of the conductor. The more carefully one listens, the more problems one will hear. It seems to me that the only way people can hear with enjoyment even one of the better in tune orchestras is by having a range of tolerance, so that everything within it is "all right" as far as they notice. I think that the same thing allows people to accept an equal temperament. Also, one accepts what one is used to, and we've heard equal temperament all our lives. ------------------------------ Susan Kline Philomath, Oregon ------------------------------

------------------------------
Michael Gamble
semi retired
Brighton
01273813612
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2017 16:23
From: Nancy Salmon
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is a subject I've been puzzling over and speaking to musicians about for years. Thank you for this discussion and information.

I can add some discussion from a low brass player and composer, who played until very recently for the 'President's Own'  and the 'Herald Trumpets' with the US Army band. I seem unable to paste here so I will attach his comments.

He also says in a later email that trying to accommodate all instruments with our tuning is not possible; what would help one instrument would be more difficult for other instruments. The best we can do is tune at the requested A (440, 441, 442 etc) and allow the orchestra to function.

Nancy Salmon RPT

LaVale, MD

<grin> Michael, my first cello, bought at age 10 from my first teacher, a college student, was named George.

Not the most diligent student, though I was was good at it, My mother would try a guilt trip -- "oh, look, poor George is dusty!" So I dusted it.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-16-2017 06:00
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hello Susan I agree about the 'quirks'.  When tuning George (my old dark Austrian 'Cello with a Lions-head Scroll) I use a lot of harmonics to help. One approach in particular is using the harmonic for G on the C string (where you play G there) and comparing it to the 8ve harmonic on the G string above. The same applies for D and A - you'll know what I mean. As for Pythagorean tuning I'm not so sure -  so I looked it up in Reblitz first . .  not mentioned. Then in Igrec -  and there it was under Types of Temperament on p.99.   Of course! - this is where you go round the circle of perfect 5ths and get a bit left over - which then has to be distributed of the 12 notes. The so-called Pythagorean interval. I must say I cannot agree with Mario Igrec's 12 "equal" intervals though, for they follow the logarithmic curve dictated according to the usual requirements of E.T. Michael   UK There are a few little quirks about tuning a cello which may affect this discussion. We tune A from a pitch source, then we tune D to a pure fifth below. Then we tune G to a pure fifth below that. By now, we're already getting enough off a tempered scale to matter. So cellists tend to tune the C just a tad sharp. This means there's already an irregularity built into the tuning. I've also noticed that the little tuning widgets used by string players seldom have the C right. I remember my silent snort the first time someone plopped one of those gadgets on my music stand when I came to play string quartets. Who do they take me for?? In fact, once one is a piano tuner, observing other string players tuning, and seeing how often they have to do it, ---- well, it's a little like listening to most orchestras tune. The oboe gives the A -- hmmmm, not exactly steady, is it? I wonder which one he wants them to take? The brass tuning -- about five variations. Woodwinds -- different ones. Strings -- oh, goody! Dozens of pitches, pick almost anything within about twenty cents, and SOMEBODY will be tuned to it! But then, as my cello teacher used to say, that's only four notes. Who knows where the other notes are going to be placed? Second, since the tension of the strings isn't all that great, when we play loud the excursion increases and the sound goes sharp. This shows up the most on the C string, especially the lower notes of it and the open string. If one plays an open C softly and then one increases in volume to double forte (well, as close as we can, there's not all that much volume in a cello) the wow practically sounds like a Doppler effect. So, to a greater extent on the lower strings, but also somewhat on the upper strings, how loud one plays will affect the pitch of a stringed instrument. The every-helpful adjustment on the fly has a lot of work to do for a string player. Adjustment for the excursion of the strings, adjustment for a slightly more Pythagorean tuning than equal temperament, adjustment for different keys, adjustment not to collide too much with the very different (and, for me, very imperfectly understood) wind tuning, and then there's the vibrato. People suppose it covers up a lot of intonation problems, but really, there is a center to the pitch of a note with vibrato. Well, a decent vibrato. I'm aware of such things from direct experience, but never did the work needed to put more than a vague scientific framework around them. More "sciencey" than scientific, alas. Looking at the greater picture of intonation in an orchestra, there's a tremendous variation in quality, dependent not just on the skills of the players but also the determination of the conductor. The more carefully one listens, the more problems one will hear. It seems to me that the only way people can hear with enjoyment even one of the better in tune orchestras is by having a range of tolerance, so that everything within it is "all right" as far as they notice. I think that the same thing allows people to accept an equal temperament. Also, one accepts what one is used to, and we've heard equal temperament all our lives. ------------------------------ Susan Kline Philomath, Oregon ------------------------------

------------------------------
Michael Gamble
semi retired
Brighton
01273813612
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2017 16:23
From: Nancy Salmon
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is a subject I've been puzzling over and speaking to musicians about for years. Thank you for this discussion and information.

I can add some discussion from a low brass player and composer, who played until very recently for the 'President's Own'  and the 'Herald Trumpets' with the US Army band. I seem unable to paste here so I will attach his comments.

He also says in a later email that trying to accommodate all instruments with our tuning is not possible; what would help one instrument would be more difficult for other instruments. The best we can do is tune at the requested A (440, 441, 442 etc) and allow the orchestra to function.

Nancy Salmon RPT

LaVale, MD

Susan: Greetings. Played my 1^st cello recently and now kind of wish I owned one. Gould good. May study your Partita suggestions but not past Errol Gs yet.

Original Message:
Sent: 01-16-2017 21:55
From: Susan Kline
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

<grin> Michael, my first cello, bought at age 10 from my first teacher, a college student, was named George.

Not the most diligent student, though I was was good at it, My mother would try a guilt trip -- "oh, look, poor George is dusty!" So I dusted it.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-16-2017 06:00
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hello Susan I agree about the 'quirks'.  When tuning George (my old dark Austrian 'Cello with a Lions-head Scroll) I use a lot of harmonics to help. One approach in particular is using the harmonic for G on the C string (where you play G there) and comparing it to the 8ve harmonic on the G string above. The same applies for D and A - you'll know what I mean. As for Pythagorean tuning I'm not so sure -  so I looked it up in Reblitz first . .  not mentioned. Then in Igrec -  and there it was under Types of Temperament on p.99.   Of course! - this is where you go round the circle of perfect 5ths and get a bit left over - which then has to be distributed of the 12 notes. The so-called Pythagorean interval. I must say I cannot agree with Mario Igrec's 12 "equal" intervals though, for they follow the logarithmic curve dictated according to the usual requirements of E.T. Michael   UK There are a few little quirks about tuning a cello which may affect this discussion. We tune A from a pitch source, then we tune D to a pure fifth below. Then we tune G to a pure fifth below that. By now, we're already getting enough off a tempered scale to matter. So cellists tend to tune the C just a tad sharp. This means there's already an irregularity built into the tuning. I've also noticed that the little tuning widgets used by string players seldom have the C right. I remember my silent snort the first time someone plopped one of those gadgets on my music stand when I came to play string quartets. Who do they take me for?? In fact, once one is a piano tuner, observing other string players tuning, and seeing how often they have to do it, ---- well, it's a little like listening to most orchestras tune. The oboe gives the A -- hmmmm, not exactly steady, is it? I wonder which one he wants them to take? The brass tuning -- about five variations. Woodwinds -- different ones. Strings -- oh, goody! Dozens of pitches, pick almost anything within about twenty cents, and SOMEBODY will be tuned to it! But then, as my cello teacher used to say, that's only four notes. Who knows where the other notes are going to be placed? Second, since the tension of the strings isn't all that great, when we play loud the excursion increases and the sound goes sharp. This shows up the most on the C string, especially the lower notes of it and the open string. If one plays an open C softly and then one increases in volume to double forte (well, as close as we can, there's not all that much volume in a cello) the wow practically sounds like a Doppler effect. So, to a greater extent on the lower strings, but also somewhat on the upper strings, how loud one plays will affect the pitch of a stringed instrument. The every-helpful adjustment on the fly has a lot of work to do for a string player. Adjustment for the excursion of the strings, adjustment for a slightly more Pythagorean tuning than equal temperament, adjustment for different keys, adjustment not to collide too much with the very different (and, for me, very imperfectly understood) wind tuning, and then there's the vibrato. People suppose it covers up a lot of intonation problems, but really, there is a center to the pitch of a note with vibrato. Well, a decent vibrato. I'm aware of such things from direct experience, but never did the work needed to put more than a vague scientific framework around them. More "sciencey" than scientific, alas. Looking at the greater picture of intonation in an orchestra, there's a tremendous variation in quality, dependent not just on the skills of the players but also the determination of the conductor. The more carefully one listens, the more problems one will hear. It seems to me that the only way people can hear with enjoyment even one of the better in tune orchestras is by having a range of tolerance, so that everything within it is "all right" as far as they notice. I think that the same thing allows people to accept an equal temperament. Also, one accepts what one is used to, and we've heard equal temperament all our lives. ------------------------------ Susan Kline Philomath, Oregon ------------------------------

------------------------------
Michael Gamble
semi retired
Brighton
01273813612
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2017 16:23
From: Nancy Salmon
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

This is a subject I've been puzzling over and speaking to musicians about for years. Thank you for this discussion and information.

I can add some discussion from a low brass player and composer, who played until very recently for the 'President's Own'  and the 'Herald Trumpets' with the US Army band. I seem unable to paste here so I will attach his comments.

He also says in a later email that trying to accommodate all instruments with our tuning is not possible; what would help one instrument would be more difficult for other instruments. The best we can do is tune at the requested A (440, 441, 442 etc) and allow the orchestra to function.

Nancy Salmon RPT

LaVale, MD

Original Message------

<grin> Michael, my first cello, bought at age 10 from my first teacher, a college student, was named George.

Not the most diligent student, though I was was good at it, My mother would try a guilt trip -- "oh, look, poor George is dusty!" So I dusted it.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Paul Tortelier -- great cellist. I didn't know he'd written a book.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-17-2017 04:59
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Susan - Oddly enough I bought George from my first (and only) 'Cello teacher (Derek Aviss - who went on to become Head of Strings at Trinity-Laban) I was a very late starter being nearly 40 at the time. I met some very interesting 'Cellists - particularly Paul Tortelier who introduced me to his own invention - a bent end-pin which does indeed make holding the bow in place very much easier. So I have George and Paul! 'Paul' comes in four parts including the end-pin holder which goes in to the end block - which I had to file out tapered to accept it. I dare say this pin can be found on-line. And most photos of Paul show this end-pin on his 'Cello. I got him to sign my copy of his book 'How I teach, How I play'

Michael    UK

Original Message------

Paul Tortelier -- great cellist. I didn't know he'd written a book.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

The way I've understood it, because solid vibrating materials have nowhere near the flexibility as air (a gas), the nodes (in any partial) occupy a noticeable physical space, which subtracts from the length of the partials waveform, thus sending it sharp from the mathematically pure harmonic series. 

From Michael Gamble:
"So how does this fit in on this thread."
The thread is about how fixed pitch instruments (but with tunable pitch centers, ie. being tuned to other than their stated pitch) have their "default" (i.e.. as designed by the factory) warped by tuning them away from their stated pitch. This is mainly brass and winds. Strings are not in this category. Also "beside" this thread is the matter of temperament. Modern orchestral instruments generally are designed  for ET. Your could design one for a historical (non-ET) temperament, and its default pitch would experience this warp to the same degree as an ET-based instrument. (All by way of reminding us of what the original thread was.)<quotebtn></quotebtn>

------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107

"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 05:35
From: Susan Kline
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hi, Michael

I'm also a cellist. The wolf tone on my instrument is on the G string, fairly close to F#3. The same note on the D string is slightly "wolfy" but not nearly as much as on the G string.

My understanding of a wolf tone is that it happens when the note played is a near match to the natural resonance of the body of an instrument.

Inharmonicity is something completely different, related to the stiffness of a wire. Since a wire isn't perfectly strong and flexible both, the nodes don't start right at the bearings, but just a little further out. It must occur at least a little bit on string instruments, but since the tension of the strings is so much less, and we change pitch at will and also use vibrato, inharmonicity is far more noticeable on a piano.

------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2017 03:54
From: Michael Gamble
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Horace! You're a tower of splendid information. Thank you so much for your excellent treatise. But I do have question relating to:

<Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does 
<not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to 
<think about it.

This is about strings - and particularly about Violoncellos. Mine has a 'wolf' note (it also has a Lion's Head scroll!) - on the C string - and I have to use a 'suppressor' to control it. It's not 100% and howls somewhere # of F.

So what is the definition of 'inharmonicity'?

Michael   UK

<quotebtn>

 All key/chords? Assumes major?

</quotebtn>
Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 20:40
From: Horace Greeley
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hi, Ryan,

On 1/13/2017 3:06 PM, Ryan Sowers via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
>
> Agreed! Thank you Horace for the very thoughtful reply!

Thanks, but it's only just a very brief start on a much larger set of
topics.

> Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned: Stretch.

Actually, I did:

"Note that since many bands and orchestras often use pianos to fill out
the parts that would otherwise be played by "missing" instruments, it's
best not to have the tuning either to "straight" or too
"stretched"...but, should one err, it should be on the side of greater,
rather than lesser, stretch."

And, that is because:

> Wind and string instruments have no inharmonicity so their octaves will be more or less exact doubling of frequencies. So it could be argued that a piano tuned at A440 will be a little sharp in the 5th octaves and even sharper in the 6th and 7th octaves.

I respectfully disagree.

Winds and strings definitely do have "inharmonicity"...it simply does
not usually manifest in the way that piano technicians are taught to
think about it. Further, it's also a question of degree of
inharmonicity, as well. So, for myself, it's not simply whether or not
it occurs. Rather, it's a question of how much, and where; and,
importantly, in what ways does it become objectionably noticeable in
various settings.

For example, while it's considered obvious to the point of legend that
"strings play sharp", if one listens carefully (sometimes at half-speed
or less) to the recordings of virtually any orchestral group one
chooses, one will probably hear that the real issues around "string"
intonation actually have very much to do with which of the winds (WW and
Brass) are playing chords voiced with the lowest "voices" being in first
inversion. The "bottom" 3rd being sharp makes tuning virtually
impossible for anyone voiced relative to that inversion. While this is
usually most noticeable in 2nd Clarinet and 2nd Bassoon, it is often
also heard in 3rd and/or 4th Horn, and/or 1st Trombone, depending on
the instrumentation.

There always seems to be some degree of confusion around these things.
After more thinking than I presently care to think about, I've (over a
period of some decades) come to think (yes...sorry) that the major
differences in understanding among technicians, let alone adding in
instrumentalists to the discussion, is that, it really seems as if the
filters used for performers and technicians...or, at least the
understanding of them...is somewhat at cross purposes...both within each
group, and, certainly between the two.

To try to make that more clear, envision tuning data as a vast hologram
of various kinds of data..."true" or "real" pitches (whatever those
might actually be), "relative pitches" (ditto), balance among various
overtones/partials of each pitch in each set of pitches (often thought
of as timbr??). Then add to that mix all the variables that have to do
with what (little) we often actually "know" (that's a nod to Ron
Nossman, with thanks for his endless push for verifiable data on which
to base conclusions) about a given composer, their general catalog of
works, their lives (very important for competent development of
interpretation choices in performance), the makes, kinds, brands, etc of
the instruments on which they performed. With all of that dumped into
an unimaginably large and complex data base, what we get out of it (as
the old joke goes) has a great deal to do with what we put into it.

That is, the work which we put into developing our overall knowledge of
each of the data points above (and, others which we might add) to the
point that we have a reasonable sense of being able to develop our own
sets of filters (or, since we're dealing with this really huge database,
our SQL search terms and criteria) directly affects what we might glean
(if anything) from the knowledge at hand.

More simply yet, while the overall raw data with which performers and
technicians are presented may, in fact, be _precisely_ the same, the
differences in our understanding of those "facts" has specifically to do
with the filters which we use to understand those data or "facts".
And, those understandings, in turn, have specifically to do with how we
perceive intonation (among other things), and, crucially, how and what
we do as a result.

Remembering that we're painting with a very wide (and, sloppy) brush,
here is one way in which to constellate this rambling into something
that might make more sense:

Leaving aside things like organs, harps, and celestes, let's think about
how one might approach tuning specific instruments for specific
composers/periods.

- For Bach (J.S.), Handel, early Hadyn and Mozart, and early Czerny,
one probably would use very little of what we now call stretch.
Exceptions might be if one is tuning for something that uses winds (of
whatever flavour), in which case, one might adjust for instruments
which, upon hearing, demonstrate vagaries of pitch which can be (sort
of) duplicated on a keyboard instrument. Note that this does _not_ mean
trying to duplicate specific notes. Rather, a general sense of what the
instruments require to produce the psycho-acoustic appearance of being
"in tune".

- For composers like Beethoven and Schubert (and their
contemporaries), one has to exercise caution. For some work, mostly,
but not exclusively, earlier ones, "tighter" octaves may well be the
order of the day...(assuming that the instrument will take them without
sounding nasty). For their later works, at least some stretch (in the
modern sense) is definitely in order...how much depending on numerous
factors...what the instrument will take, what the room will allow, what
the performer has in their head, etc.

- For later Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, and from then forward into
the 20th C., varying (often quite large) amounts of stretch are in
order. In the days when pianists used to think in terms of "key
centers" for their recitals, and, one could get the program in time, it
was often very useful to figure out not only the actual "key center"
(which might be different from the one in the performer's mind), and to
structure some flavour of non-ET around that; adjusting stretch so that
the "most important" piece of a given program was going to have the best
chance of sounding stellar. Like any other skill, this is one which
requires time, serious work, and application to develop; but, the
rewards can be remarkable.

- Throughout the rest of the 19th C, up to into the first part of the
20th C, these variations in tuning and stretch can be used to good
advantage. That's not to say that one should always and forever stretch
or not...it is, for me, a matter of discretion.

- By the time we get to folks like Webern, Schoenberg, some
Stravinsky, &c, we've got two distinct needs. One firmly in place; and
the other developing. On the one hand, there are still composers
working well into the 20th C whose works seem to sound best with at
least some stretch. On the other, counting the composers noted above
among many others, there is the equally valid school of having very
precise (which is not the same things as non-stretched) octaves. While
these two understandings of tunings are not necessarily always at odds
with one another, they're also not necessarily mutually
complimentary...all the more reason for the technician to know more
about the literature. Unfortunately, one of the things lost as the
literature has expanded and the century has closed has been the concept
of a "key center" for programs. Obviously, this is a personal
thought...YMMV.

For a more down-to-earth example of the kinds of things I'm talking
about, I'll relate a fairly short story from my own career which
unfolded over a fairly long period of time.

At one point, I wound up tuning for the old Beaux Arts Trio. (Isadore
Cohen, violin; Bernard Greenhouse, 'cello; and Menachem Pressler, piano.)

After tuning for them a dozen or so times, I noticed in one of their
rehearsals that, while Cohen was very precisely in tune with the upper
end of the piano, Greenhouse was consistently increasingly sharp as he
went lower in the range of the 'cello (especially as compared with the
piano). Pressler was usually quite happy with the pianos. As an
experiment, on one concert when they were performing the Schubert Trio
in Eb, D. 929, I tuned the middle and upper ranges of the piano as I had
previously done; but tuned the based very slightly, but increasingly
sharp as the scale proceeded into the bass. Fortunately, I managed to
nail what Greenhouse had in his head. They had a marvelous performance;
and were quite ecstatic. Interestingly, of the three, I think that
Pressler was the only one who figured out what I had done. At the post
concert reception, he commented that the "setting" of the piano was
"most harmonious". The point is not that I am (or was) that wonderful;
but that artists do notice these things, that they appreciate them when
they are done; and that as technicians, we can always work to improve
whatever it is we are doing.

As previously noted, this barely scratches the surface of these topics.

> Theoretically if A440 is tuned at 439.5 and the pianos octaves are stretched .5 hz at the 2:1 level (which would not be unusually at all) then the piano will be "in tune" the next octave up.

In all probability, that works at least part of the time. It just does
not seem to me that any of these issues ever really boil down to a
one-size-fits-all solution. It's simply not the actual nature of the beast.

Kind regards.

Horace



>
>
> ------------------------------
> Ryan Sowers
> Olympia WA
> 360-705-4160
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-13-2017 17:48
> From: Ruth Zeiner
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> Goodness! Thank you, Horace, for all this information. Ruth Zeiner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=8e6f7054-4591-4fbb-a605-f8e908bb6fb0&MID=669997&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669997&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>

Original Message------

Goodness!  Thank you, Horace, for all this information.  Ruth Zeiner

Original Message------

Hello,

I think that Roger's question is a very important; and pretty complex one.

There are some thoughts on tuning with/for woodwind and brass
instruments that I would like to share with the group. In doing so, I
want to be clear that, while they may not speak accurately to all
individual instances, there is enough commonality within groups of
instruments which make the various points nominally valid.

The exceptionally short version of an answer to Roger's question is that
much depends on the ability of the individual player; and, which
instrument they are playing.

From Roger's question, I am assuming that, in the scenario he is
describing, the pianos that are being tuned/set up are used by a fairly
wide variety of solo and ensemble performers, with ages ranging from
around 11 or 12 to later High School...16, 17, or 18 years of age. If
that is correct, then, there's going to be such a huge variation in
individual capability that the kind of float being discussed is going to
be well within any reasonably expected tolerance (by a secondary school
band or orchestra director who has not already left the cuckoo nest).

From a piano-tuning standpoint, this translates to: no lower than
A=439Hz to nor higher than A=442Hz. (Note that since many bands and
orchestras often use pianos to fill out the parts that would otherwise
be played by "missing" instruments, it's best not to have the tuning
either to "straight" or too "stretched"...but, should one err, it should
be on the side of greater, rather than lesser, stretch. Much depends on
the percentage of players in the ensemble who take private lessons, the
amount of practicing their are doing regularly...which goes to the
development of their embouchure, without which, no stable pitch is
possible.)

Once you get beyond HS, players (and expectations of them) will depend
strongly on more, and more advanced, instruction. Even then, there are
some caveats..which, sadly exist even amongst may otherwise truly
professional players. This latter is partly to do with the design and
construction of the individual instruments.

Here are some thoughts on individual instrument groups which may/may not
be helpful/useful:

- Piccolo - Generally pitch OK in the lower ranges; but often
unpredictably sharp and/or flat as one goes up the scale.

- Flute - Especially with instruments like older Haynes and Murumatsu
flutes, there is a tendency for the lower ranges to be a bit flat; the
midranges semi-OK; and the higher ranges tending flat.

- Oboe - Here, much depends on who made the oboe. Loree, Marigaux,
Miraphone, Boosey & Hawkes, Yamaha, and Fox, all have their own concept
of oboe tone; and, with that, very different concepts of how to apply
the "Plateau" key system with which oboes are still inflicted. Those
tonal concepts affect intonation quite strongly, as does the style of
reed used by the performer. The précis version of this catastrophe is
that, while oboists _can_ play fairly well in tune, when "tuning, many
of them have discovered that blowing directly into their version of an
ETD by raising the bell and poking it at the "microphone" in the "tuner"
lets them give a nice, low A, while then allowing them to play as sharp
as they want when actually playing. (This is a latter-day version of
what the great Marcel Tabuteau taught all of his students...which was to
partially close the fingers of the Right hand while fingering A with the
left, while, at the same time, pulling the body of the oboe as close as
possible to their chest and stomach...a more primitive, but equally
successful way to throw off generations of string players.)

- Clarinet - While much depends on which clarinet (nominally A, Bb,
and the dreaded C), and which brand of clarinet is being used, in
general, the lower ranges are often fairly good; the middle tones (right
around the break in the scale, often called "throat tones") can vary
wildly...most often "blowing" flat, especially as the dynamic range
changes; and the treble going sharp, especially in softer passages.

(NOTE: All three of the instruments mentioned above are bored using the
same dimension tools. That is, even for some first-rank makers, the
same boring mandrel is used for drilling each of the three instrument
bores. While this sort of mostly works between the A and the Bb...where
there is only 1/2-step change in "base" pitch", the step from the A to
the C is obviously a m3rd...and, the pitch discrepancies and tonal
variations between notes that can more easily be masked on an A or a Bb
are treacherously obvious on a C.) Only FWIW, one of the worst
experiences I've had yet in over 50 years of studio work involved live
recordings of a Klezmer band in which the clarinetist was playing only a
C instrument, he was the owner/leader of the band. The piano had to be
perfectly on 440, relatively, throughout the range, or the poor guy
could not keep the clarinet in tune. The nightmare came when he would
change reeds, and all bets were off.

- Bassoon - Sadly, bassoons are most often increasingly sharp as they
go down in their range; and, generally, increasingly sharp as they go
up. Yes, it doesn't have to be that way...but, it takes a good deal of
work.

- Fr. Horn - As with the Oboe, much depends on the maker. Variations
here involve different materials used in different parts of the (very
long) tubing of the instrument, different diameters, different flares
(especially to the bell), differing valves, and what additional changes
may be made on the fly by the performer. For some decades, it was
usually fairly often to be able to tell when a player was using either
the F or the Bb "side" of the horn because the Bb side was almost always
sharp by comparison to the F. "Alexander" type horns (most often heard
in Russian and other European orchestras) generally have a thinner tube
wall and a more narrow diameter bore for longer along the length before
a final flare.
These most often have a more clarion-style sound, and are often played
with a good deal of vibrato. "American" style horns were, for many
years, much larger and heavier, with thicker walls in the tubing, a
wider, "faster" flare in the bell; and are often (but not exclusively)
played sensa vibrato. Either style is often noticeably sharp in the
extremes of the range, both low and high.

- Trumpets - Trumpets have changed a good deal throughout the 20th
Century. Earlier on, and up through the end of WWII, they were largely
(but not exclusively) more strident, clarion sounding, capable of
holding a piece of paper on the back wall of a concert hall. After
WWII, the concept of sound started changing, and with that, the way in
which trumpets were designed and built. Generally, the walls of the
tubing became somewhat thicker, the length and flare of the bell were
more gradual; and the mouthpieces had deeper and somewhat wider cups.
Minor changes were also made to the lengths of piping added to the three
valves. The best examples of these kinds of horns are still the
"Burbank" Benge instruments of the early- to mid-1950's. To hear the
differences as things unfolded, listen to a range of recordings of Adolf
Herseth, legendary Principal Trumpet of the Chicago Symphony. He was at
Chicago for most of his career, playing different instruments as times
changed. Unfortunately, for many players, trumpets still have an
unfortunate tendency to blow flat.

- Trombones - A very similar transition through the 20th Century to
what developed for trumpets, with similar outcomes. Most notable for
most trombonists is their ability to blow increasingly sharp as they
move more air (play louder).

- Tubas - These mammoths still manage to retain some of their original
nationalistic sound and response after 150+ years of development. Many
players own multiple instruments for the simple reason that different
tubas match different literatures better than others. Sadly, they're
still most often sharp in the lower ranges, and flat in the upper ones.

And, on top of all of that, especially in ensemble playing, a very great
deal depends on the ear of the conductor, and their willingness to use it.

Again, all of this is painting with a very wide brush. Individual,
specific instances will be very different.

All of which is a very long way around the barn to support what I think
was the original thought that one probably has much more latitude for
tuning for these kinds of things than one might for solo wind
performances. As noted, while I would be careful not to let things get
below 440, I'd be quite happy with 442.

While it's now somewhat dated, H.E. Adkins "Treatise on the Military
Band" (1931, revised a few times since), in the earlier editions had
some interesting thoughts on tone and tuning. Reading them, it would be
important to remember that, being English, he was writing for English
bands, which have a very different sound for winds in general v.
American bands. That said, it's still a very good reference because the
during which it was written and in larger use roughly corresponds to a
period of time during which some of the changes I note were beginning to
unfold.

I should note that, in a previous lifetime, in addition to studying
harmony and theory with a student of Boulanger, and conducting with a
former conductor of the Berlin Opera and master classes with Herbert
Blomstedt (for which I played bassoon for 15 years), I played and taught
bassoon professionally for thirty years. Coupled with doing largely
concert and warranty work with pianos for over 50 years, it's been an
interesting life.

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I
would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or
tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the
result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are
still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That
said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned
professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself,
you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer
discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to
either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing
their job...and, neither are the players.

Please use whatever of this might be useful, and can the rest.

Kind regards.

Horace

On 1/13/2017 10:26 AM, William Ballard via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than 8 from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
> interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.
>
> In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.
>
> ------------------------------
> William Ballard RPT
> WBPS
> Saxtons River VT
> 802-869-9107
>
> "Our lives contain a thousand springs
> and dies if one be gone
> Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
> should keep in tune so long."
> ...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
> From: Roger Gable
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Gable
> Gable Piano
> Everett WA
> 425-252-5000
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=de0a1749-f928-49b3-99dc-6c3d5ff4b007&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>

Thanks, Horace, for your post. I now know 100 times more than before reading it. Just to clear up any uncertainties in my post, yes, the warpage is the result of changing the length of the tubes.

Also, my sentences:
"But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances."
say exactly what I wanted them to say. Which is in fact, in agreement with your comment "you really cannot have one without the other". If the embouchure is being put 100% on the job restoring order to intonation of an instrument being tuned well away from its stated pitch, the other aspects of musicianship which the embouchure is involved in lose out. No, you can't have one without the other, no matter whether this is an orchestral concert or a solo recital. The either/or remains.

Again, thanks for your post.<quotebtn></quotebtn>

------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107

"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 17:12
From: Horace Greeley
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hello,

I think that Roger's question is a very important; and pretty complex one.

There are some thoughts on tuning with/for woodwind and brass
instruments that I would like to share with the group. In doing so, I
want to be clear that, while they may not speak accurately to all
individual instances, there is enough commonality within groups of
instruments which make the various points nominally valid.

The exceptionally short version of an answer to Roger's question is that
much depends on the ability of the individual player; and, which
instrument they are playing.

From Roger's question, I am assuming that, in the scenario he is
describing, the pianos that are being tuned/set up are used by a fairly
wide variety of solo and ensemble performers, with ages ranging from
around 11 or 12 to later High School...16, 17, or 18 years of age. If
that is correct, then, there's going to be such a huge variation in
individual capability that the kind of float being discussed is going to
be well within any reasonably expected tolerance (by a secondary school
band or orchestra director who has not already left the cuckoo nest).

From a piano-tuning standpoint, this translates to: no lower than
A=439Hz to nor higher than A=442Hz. (Note that since many bands and
orchestras often use pianos to fill out the parts that would otherwise
be played by "missing" instruments, it's best not to have the tuning
either to "straight" or too "stretched"...but, should one err, it should
be on the side of greater, rather than lesser, stretch. Much depends on
the percentage of players in the ensemble who take private lessons, the
amount of practicing their are doing regularly...which goes to the
development of their embouchure, without which, no stable pitch is
possible.)

Once you get beyond HS, players (and expectations of them) will depend
strongly on more, and more advanced, instruction. Even then, there are
some caveats..which, sadly exist even amongst may otherwise truly
professional players. This latter is partly to do with the design and
construction of the individual instruments.

Here are some thoughts on individual instrument groups which may/may not
be helpful/useful:

- Piccolo - Generally pitch OK in the lower ranges; but often
unpredictably sharp and/or flat as one goes up the scale.

- Flute - Especially with instruments like older Haynes and Murumatsu
flutes, there is a tendency for the lower ranges to be a bit flat; the
midranges semi-OK; and the higher ranges tending flat.

- Oboe - Here, much depends on who made the oboe. Loree, Marigaux,
Miraphone, Boosey & Hawkes, Yamaha, and Fox, all have their own concept
of oboe tone; and, with that, very different concepts of how to apply
the "Plateau" key system with which oboes are still inflicted. Those
tonal concepts affect intonation quite strongly, as does the style of
reed used by the performer. The précis version of this catastrophe is
that, while oboists _can_ play fairly well in tune, when "tuning, many
of them have discovered that blowing directly into their version of an
ETD by raising the bell and poking it at the "microphone" in the "tuner"
lets them give a nice, low A, while then allowing them to play as sharp
as they want when actually playing. (This is a latter-day version of
what the great Marcel Tabuteau taught all of his students...which was to
partially close the fingers of the Right hand while fingering A with the
left, while, at the same time, pulling the body of the oboe as close as
possible to their chest and stomach...a more primitive, but equally
successful way to throw off generations of string players.)

- Clarinet - While much depends on which clarinet (nominally A, Bb,
and the dreaded C), and which brand of clarinet is being used, in
general, the lower ranges are often fairly good; the middle tones (right
around the break in the scale, often called "throat tones") can vary
wildly...most often "blowing" flat, especially as the dynamic range
changes; and the treble going sharp, especially in softer passages.

(NOTE: All three of the instruments mentioned above are bored using the
same dimension tools. That is, even for some first-rank makers, the
same boring mandrel is used for drilling each of the three instrument
bores. While this sort of mostly works between the A and the Bb...where
there is only 1/2-step change in "base" pitch", the step from the A to
the C is obviously a m3rd...and, the pitch discrepancies and tonal
variations between notes that can more easily be masked on an A or a Bb
are treacherously obvious on a C.) Only FWIW, one of the worst
experiences I've had yet in over 50 years of studio work involved live
recordings of a Klezmer band in which the clarinetist was playing only a
C instrument, he was the owner/leader of the band. The piano had to be
perfectly on 440, relatively, throughout the range, or the poor guy
could not keep the clarinet in tune. The nightmare came when he would
change reeds, and all bets were off.

- Bassoon - Sadly, bassoons are most often increasingly sharp as they
go down in their range; and, generally, increasingly sharp as they go
up. Yes, it doesn't have to be that way...but, it takes a good deal of
work.

- Fr. Horn - As with the Oboe, much depends on the maker. Variations
here involve different materials used in different parts of the (very
long) tubing of the instrument, different diameters, different flares
(especially to the bell), differing valves, and what additional changes
may be made on the fly by the performer. For some decades, it was
usually fairly often to be able to tell when a player was using either
the F or the Bb "side" of the horn because the Bb side was almost always
sharp by comparison to the F. "Alexander" type horns (most often heard
in Russian and other European orchestras) generally have a thinner tube
wall and a more narrow diameter bore for longer along the length before
a final flare.
These most often have a more clarion-style sound, and are often played
with a good deal of vibrato. "American" style horns were, for many
years, much larger and heavier, with thicker walls in the tubing, a
wider, "faster" flare in the bell; and are often (but not exclusively)
played sensa vibrato. Either style is often noticeably sharp in the
extremes of the range, both low and high.

- Trumpets - Trumpets have changed a good deal throughout the 20th
Century. Earlier on, and up through the end of WWII, they were largely
(but not exclusively) more strident, clarion sounding, capable of
holding a piece of paper on the back wall of a concert hall. After
WWII, the concept of sound started changing, and with that, the way in
which trumpets were designed and built. Generally, the walls of the
tubing became somewhat thicker, the length and flare of the bell were
more gradual; and the mouthpieces had deeper and somewhat wider cups.
Minor changes were also made to the lengths of piping added to the three
valves. The best examples of these kinds of horns are still the
"Burbank" Benge instruments of the early- to mid-1950's. To hear the
differences as things unfolded, listen to a range of recordings of Adolf
Herseth, legendary Principal Trumpet of the Chicago Symphony. He was at
Chicago for most of his career, playing different instruments as times
changed. Unfortunately, for many players, trumpets still have an
unfortunate tendency to blow flat.

- Trombones - A very similar transition through the 20th Century to
what developed for trumpets, with similar outcomes. Most notable for
most trombonists is their ability to blow increasingly sharp as they
move more air (play louder).

- Tubas - These mammoths still manage to retain some of their original
nationalistic sound and response after 150+ years of development. Many
players own multiple instruments for the simple reason that different
tubas match different literatures better than others. Sadly, they're
still most often sharp in the lower ranges, and flat in the upper ones.

And, on top of all of that, especially in ensemble playing, a very great
deal depends on the ear of the conductor, and their willingness to use it.

Again, all of this is painting with a very wide brush. Individual,
specific instances will be very different.

All of which is a very long way around the barn to support what I think
was the original thought that one probably has much more latitude for
tuning for these kinds of things than one might for solo wind
performances. As noted, while I would be careful not to let things get
below 440, I'd be quite happy with 442.

While it's now somewhat dated, H.E. Adkins "Treatise on the Military
Band" (1931, revised a few times since), in the earlier editions had
some interesting thoughts on tone and tuning. Reading them, it would be
important to remember that, being English, he was writing for English
bands, which have a very different sound for winds in general v.
American bands. That said, it's still a very good reference because the
during which it was written and in larger use roughly corresponds to a
period of time during which some of the changes I note were beginning to
unfold.

I should note that, in a previous lifetime, in addition to studying
harmony and theory with a student of Boulanger, and conducting with a
former conductor of the Berlin Opera and master classes with Herbert
Blomstedt (for which I played bassoon for 15 years), I played and taught
bassoon professionally for thirty years. Coupled with doing largely
concert and warranty work with pianos for over 50 years, it's been an
interesting life.

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I
would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or
tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the
result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are
still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That
said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned
professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself,
you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer
discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to
either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing
their job...and, neither are the players.

Please use whatever of this might be useful, and can the rest.

Kind regards.

Horace

On 1/13/2017 10:26 AM, William Ballard via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than 8 from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
> interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.
>
> In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.
>
> ------------------------------
> William Ballard RPT
> WBPS
> Saxtons River VT
> 802-869-9107
>
> "Our lives contain a thousand springs
> and dies if one be gone
> Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
> should keep in tune so long."
> ...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
> From: Roger Gable
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Gable
> Gable Piano
> Everett WA
> 425-252-5000
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=de0a1749-f928-49b3-99dc-6c3d5ff4b007&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>

I guess I should chime in on this discussion as I am a working professional orchestral clarinetist. There have a been some very intriguing comments put forth, especially from Horrace and Bill. I am one of those orchestral musicians who lives in the trenches of the concert world, and also one playing double duty preparing the pianos for many of those performances.  I also keep an active clarinet studio for the developing students, as well as conduct a very good youth symphony ,so my 2 cents might add some more perspective.
First of all, the better designed instruments are worth their weight in gold. This also goes for the mouthpieces that are designed to provide the important nuances needed in the orchestral world.  I personally have played Buffet Prestige clarinets for most of my adult life and found them to be rather nice in terms of tonal, pitch, and projection. I recently upgraded my horns to the Tosca line of clarinets and the difference has been nothing short of amazing. Some of the diatonic pitch issues I used to have to deal with my previous set up, are now a thing of a past. The clarity of projection and not having to work hard to be heard is noteworthy. So there's that.
2. One small correction is that the throat tones for the clarinet (1st space F, F#,G, G#, A, and A#/Bb) have a tendency to ride sharp. We correct those pitches by either adding the right hand ( which will lowered by a cent or 2) or with our embouchure. However one small note that with students who haven't developed a good embouchure and air stream, the throat tones will sound flat.  But as a general rule, most clarinets will ride sharp in that range.
3. Just Intonation hasn't been added discussion, which really needs to be understood better in order understand the tuning nuances that defines the orchestral and ensemble world. Just Intonation is the floating of pitch that occurs constantly. Yes, we all take an A from the oboe and put our instruments in as close to the pitch as possible. But that's just the starting point.
Even when the orchestra has just been freshly tuned, and depending upon how the parts have been scored, changes in pitch from the players changes as the situation changes. Case in point,  lets say the Violins  are playing the root, say G on the stop of the staff, and because they might be in an 5th position hand position, they might have a tendency to ride that note sharp. If they  pull that sharp,  and I'm playing a high D above that, I have I have to raise my pitch for that particular instant to accommodate the tuning of that harmonious moment. As a seasoned player, we generally just regard this as having a fine ear and the ability to adjust as needed.  But if with younger players who haven't developed that fine sense of the scale, and even though they might have fairly advance finger technique, they haven't develop the ability to hear and adjust quickly as the music demands. This is what defines a very good pro orchestra vs the Julliard School Orchestra,vs a very good high school orchestra, vs a middle school group.
One of the analogies that I use to with my youth symphony is think of a camera with an auto-focus ability. The better the camera, the better the camera focuses in on the subject and takes a clear pictures.. But take a camera that has a low battery, and the focusing element reacts much slower and many times the picture is taken out of focus. With that analogy, I try to get the students listen and react as quickly as possible. Usually at the beginning of the year, its painfully slow. But by mid semester, you hear the adjustments being made quicker and quicker. By the end of the year, they start sounding extremely nice to even a good seasoned listener. This is where my world as a concert technician, having gained critical listening skills needed for our line of work,  has been able to influence the developing musician.
4. Developing a good ear with students
One of things I constantly work on with my students is to intuitively feel what a clean diatonic scales sounds like. Learning to adjust to certain key signatures based upon some of the problematic areas of the clarinet, forces them to start hearing how out of tune their instruments naturally are. From that point, they start to listen and learn how to make those adjustments.
My big beef with most students going through the music schools is that too much emphasis is place on the finger technique, which has its place, but unfortunately to the detriment of good tone and pitch. Getting the developing musician to learn valuable listening skills is a whole world within itself. This is where having the wonderful opportunity to work within the piano technical world has given me  a perspective and understanding of pitch much more refined than my peers.


------------------------------
Tom Servinsky
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 20:12
From: William Ballard
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself, you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing their job...and, neither are the players.

Horace Greeley,  2 hours ago

Thanks, Horace, for your post. I now know 100 times more than before reading it. Just to clear up any uncertainties in my post, yes, the warpage is the result of changing the length of the tubes.

Also, my sentences:
"But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances."
say exactly what I wanted them to say. Which is in fact, in agreement with your comment "you really cannot have one without the other". If the embouchure is being put 100% on the job restoring order to intonation of an instrument being tuned well away from its stated pitch, the other aspects of musicianship which the embouchure is involved in lose out. No, you can't have one without the other, no matter whether this is an orchestral concert or a solo recital. The either/or remains.

Again, thanks for your post.<quotebtn></quotebtn>

------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107

"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 17:12
From: Horace Greeley
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hello,

I think that Roger's question is a very important; and pretty complex one.

There are some thoughts on tuning with/for woodwind and brass
instruments that I would like to share with the group. In doing so, I
want to be clear that, while they may not speak accurately to all
individual instances, there is enough commonality within groups of
instruments which make the various points nominally valid.

The exceptionally short version of an answer to Roger's question is that
much depends on the ability of the individual player; and, which
instrument they are playing.

From Roger's question, I am assuming that, in the scenario he is
describing, the pianos that are being tuned/set up are used by a fairly
wide variety of solo and ensemble performers, with ages ranging from
around 11 or 12 to later High School...16, 17, or 18 years of age. If
that is correct, then, there's going to be such a huge variation in
individual capability that the kind of float being discussed is going to
be well within any reasonably expected tolerance (by a secondary school
band or orchestra director who has not already left the cuckoo nest).

From a piano-tuning standpoint, this translates to: no lower than
A=439Hz to nor higher than A=442Hz. (Note that since many bands and
orchestras often use pianos to fill out the parts that would otherwise
be played by "missing" instruments, it's best not to have the tuning
either to "straight" or too "stretched"...but, should one err, it should
be on the side of greater, rather than lesser, stretch. Much depends on
the percentage of players in the ensemble who take private lessons, the
amount of practicing their are doing regularly...which goes to the
development of their embouchure, without which, no stable pitch is
possible.)

Once you get beyond HS, players (and expectations of them) will depend
strongly on more, and more advanced, instruction. Even then, there are
some caveats..which, sadly exist even amongst may otherwise truly
professional players. This latter is partly to do with the design and
construction of the individual instruments.

Here are some thoughts on individual instrument groups which may/may not
be helpful/useful:

- Piccolo - Generally pitch OK in the lower ranges; but often
unpredictably sharp and/or flat as one goes up the scale.

- Flute - Especially with instruments like older Haynes and Murumatsu
flutes, there is a tendency for the lower ranges to be a bit flat; the
midranges semi-OK; and the higher ranges tending flat.

- Oboe - Here, much depends on who made the oboe. Loree, Marigaux,
Miraphone, Boosey & Hawkes, Yamaha, and Fox, all have their own concept
of oboe tone; and, with that, very different concepts of how to apply
the "Plateau" key system with which oboes are still inflicted. Those
tonal concepts affect intonation quite strongly, as does the style of
reed used by the performer. The précis version of this catastrophe is
that, while oboists _can_ play fairly well in tune, when "tuning, many
of them have discovered that blowing directly into their version of an
ETD by raising the bell and poking it at the "microphone" in the "tuner"
lets them give a nice, low A, while then allowing them to play as sharp
as they want when actually playing. (This is a latter-day version of
what the great Marcel Tabuteau taught all of his students...which was to
partially close the fingers of the Right hand while fingering A with the
left, while, at the same time, pulling the body of the oboe as close as
possible to their chest and stomach...a more primitive, but equally
successful way to throw off generations of string players.)

- Clarinet - While much depends on which clarinet (nominally A, Bb,
and the dreaded C), and which brand of clarinet is being used, in
general, the lower ranges are often fairly good; the middle tones (right
around the break in the scale, often called "throat tones") can vary
wildly...most often "blowing" flat, especially as the dynamic range
changes; and the treble going sharp, especially in softer passages.

(NOTE: All three of the instruments mentioned above are bored using the
same dimension tools. That is, even for some first-rank makers, the
same boring mandrel is used for drilling each of the three instrument
bores. While this sort of mostly works between the A and the Bb...where
there is only 1/2-step change in "base" pitch", the step from the A to
the C is obviously a m3rd...and, the pitch discrepancies and tonal
variations between notes that can more easily be masked on an A or a Bb
are treacherously obvious on a C.) Only FWIW, one of the worst
experiences I've had yet in over 50 years of studio work involved live
recordings of a Klezmer band in which the clarinetist was playing only a
C instrument, he was the owner/leader of the band. The piano had to be
perfectly on 440, relatively, throughout the range, or the poor guy
could not keep the clarinet in tune. The nightmare came when he would
change reeds, and all bets were off.

- Bassoon - Sadly, bassoons are most often increasingly sharp as they
go down in their range; and, generally, increasingly sharp as they go
up. Yes, it doesn't have to be that way...but, it takes a good deal of
work.

- Fr. Horn - As with the Oboe, much depends on the maker. Variations
here involve different materials used in different parts of the (very
long) tubing of the instrument, different diameters, different flares
(especially to the bell), differing valves, and what additional changes
may be made on the fly by the performer. For some decades, it was
usually fairly often to be able to tell when a player was using either
the F or the Bb "side" of the horn because the Bb side was almost always
sharp by comparison to the F. "Alexander" type horns (most often heard
in Russian and other European orchestras) generally have a thinner tube
wall and a more narrow diameter bore for longer along the length before
a final flare.
These most often have a more clarion-style sound, and are often played
with a good deal of vibrato. "American" style horns were, for many
years, much larger and heavier, with thicker walls in the tubing, a
wider, "faster" flare in the bell; and are often (but not exclusively)
played sensa vibrato. Either style is often noticeably sharp in the
extremes of the range, both low and high.

- Trumpets - Trumpets have changed a good deal throughout the 20th
Century. Earlier on, and up through the end of WWII, they were largely
(but not exclusively) more strident, clarion sounding, capable of
holding a piece of paper on the back wall of a concert hall. After
WWII, the concept of sound started changing, and with that, the way in
which trumpets were designed and built. Generally, the walls of the
tubing became somewhat thicker, the length and flare of the bell were
more gradual; and the mouthpieces had deeper and somewhat wider cups.
Minor changes were also made to the lengths of piping added to the three
valves. The best examples of these kinds of horns are still the
"Burbank" Benge instruments of the early- to mid-1950's. To hear the
differences as things unfolded, listen to a range of recordings of Adolf
Herseth, legendary Principal Trumpet of the Chicago Symphony. He was at
Chicago for most of his career, playing different instruments as times
changed. Unfortunately, for many players, trumpets still have an
unfortunate tendency to blow flat.

- Trombones - A very similar transition through the 20th Century to
what developed for trumpets, with similar outcomes. Most notable for
most trombonists is their ability to blow increasingly sharp as they
move more air (play louder).

- Tubas - These mammoths still manage to retain some of their original
nationalistic sound and response after 150+ years of development. Many
players own multiple instruments for the simple reason that different
tubas match different literatures better than others. Sadly, they're
still most often sharp in the lower ranges, and flat in the upper ones.

And, on top of all of that, especially in ensemble playing, a very great
deal depends on the ear of the conductor, and their willingness to use it.

Again, all of this is painting with a very wide brush. Individual,
specific instances will be very different.

All of which is a very long way around the barn to support what I think
was the original thought that one probably has much more latitude for
tuning for these kinds of things than one might for solo wind
performances. As noted, while I would be careful not to let things get
below 440, I'd be quite happy with 442.

While it's now somewhat dated, H.E. Adkins "Treatise on the Military
Band" (1931, revised a few times since), in the earlier editions had
some interesting thoughts on tone and tuning. Reading them, it would be
important to remember that, being English, he was writing for English
bands, which have a very different sound for winds in general v.
American bands. That said, it's still a very good reference because the
during which it was written and in larger use roughly corresponds to a
period of time during which some of the changes I note were beginning to
unfold.

I should note that, in a previous lifetime, in addition to studying
harmony and theory with a student of Boulanger, and conducting with a
former conductor of the Berlin Opera and master classes with Herbert
Blomstedt (for which I played bassoon for 15 years), I played and taught
bassoon professionally for thirty years. Coupled with doing largely
concert and warranty work with pianos for over 50 years, it's been an
interesting life.

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I
would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or
tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the
result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are
still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That
said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned
professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself,
you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer
discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to
either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing
their job...and, neither are the players.

Please use whatever of this might be useful, and can the rest.

Kind regards.

Horace

On 1/13/2017 10:26 AM, William Ballard via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than 8 from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
> interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.
>
> In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.
>
> ------------------------------
> William Ballard RPT
> WBPS
> Saxtons River VT
> 802-869-9107
>
> "Our lives contain a thousand springs
> and dies if one be gone
> Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
> should keep in tune so long."
> ...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
> From: Roger Gable
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Gable
> Gable Piano
> Everett WA
> 425-252-5000
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=de0a1749-f928-49b3-99dc-6c3d5ff4b007&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>

Thomas, thank you for your real world experience. With that in mind, how would you answer Roger's original question? With the RH running around 35% lately, many instruments are running a few cents (or more) flat. As a piano tuner and a conductor how much leeway are you comfortable giving the piano during a period of low humidity? 

------------------------------
Ryan Sowers
Olympia WA
360-705-4160
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-16-2017 08:19
From: Thomas Servinsky
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

I guess I should chime in on this discussion as I am a working professional orchestral clarinetist. There have a been some very intriguing comments put forth, especially from Horrace and Bill. I am one of those orchestral musicians who lives in the trenches of the concert world, and also one playing double duty preparing the pianos for many of those performances.  I also keep an active clarinet studio for the developing students, as well as conduct a very good youth symphony ,so my 2 cents might add some more perspective.
First of all, the better designed instruments are worth their weight in gold. This also goes for the mouthpieces that are designed to provide the important nuances needed in the orchestral world.  I personally have played Buffet Prestige clarinets for most of my adult life and found them to be rather nice in terms of tonal, pitch, and projection. I recently upgraded my horns to the Tosca line of clarinets and the difference has been nothing short of amazing. Some of the diatonic pitch issues I used to have to deal with my previous set up, are now a thing of a past. The clarity of projection and not having to work hard to be heard is noteworthy. So there's that.
2. One small correction is that the throat tones for the clarinet (1st space F, F#,G, G#, A, and A#/Bb) have a tendency to ride sharp. We correct those pitches by either adding the right hand ( which will lowered by a cent or 2) or with our embouchure. However one small note that with students who haven't developed a good embouchure and air stream, the throat tones will sound flat.  But as a general rule, most clarinets will ride sharp in that range.
3. Just Intonation hasn't been added discussion, which really needs to be understood better in order understand the tuning nuances that defines the orchestral and ensemble world. Just Intonation is the floating of pitch that occurs constantly. Yes, we all take an A from the oboe and put our instruments in as close to the pitch as possible. But that's just the starting point.
Even when the orchestra has just been freshly tuned, and depending upon how the parts have been scored, changes in pitch from the players changes as the situation changes. Case in point,  lets say the Violins  are playing the root, say G on the stop of the staff, and because they might be in an 5th position hand position, they might have a tendency to ride that note sharp. If they  pull that sharp,  and I'm playing a high D above that, I have I have to raise my pitch for that particular instant to accommodate the tuning of that harmonious moment. As a seasoned player, we generally just regard this as having a fine ear and the ability to adjust as needed.  But if with younger players who haven't developed that fine sense of the scale, and even though they might have fairly advance finger technique, they haven't develop the ability to hear and adjust quickly as the music demands. This is what defines a very good pro orchestra vs the Julliard School Orchestra,vs a very good high school orchestra, vs a middle school group.
One of the analogies that I use to with my youth symphony is think of a camera with an auto-focus ability. The better the camera, the better the camera focuses in on the subject and takes a clear pictures.. But take a camera that has a low battery, and the focusing element reacts much slower and many times the picture is taken out of focus. With that analogy, I try to get the students listen and react as quickly as possible. Usually at the beginning of the year, its painfully slow. But by mid semester, you hear the adjustments being made quicker and quicker. By the end of the year, they start sounding extremely nice to even a good seasoned listener. This is where my world as a concert technician, having gained critical listening skills needed for our line of work,  has been able to influence the developing musician.
4. Developing a good ear with students
One of things I constantly work on with my students is to intuitively feel what a clean diatonic scales sounds like. Learning to adjust to certain key signatures based upon some of the problematic areas of the clarinet, forces them to start hearing how out of tune their instruments naturally are. From that point, they start to listen and learn how to make those adjustments.
My big beef with most students going through the music schools is that too much emphasis is place on the finger technique, which has its place, but unfortunately to the detriment of good tone and pitch. Getting the developing musician to learn valuable listening skills is a whole world within itself. This is where having the wonderful opportunity to work within the piano technical world has given me  a perspective and understanding of pitch much more refined than my peers.


------------------------------
Tom Servinsky
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 20:12
From: William Ballard
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself, you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing their job...and, neither are the players.

Horace Greeley,  2 hours ago

Thanks, Horace, for your post. I now know 100 times more than before reading it. Just to clear up any uncertainties in my post, yes, the warpage is the result of changing the length of the tubes.

Also, my sentences:
"But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances."
say exactly what I wanted them to say. Which is in fact, in agreement with your comment "you really cannot have one without the other". If the embouchure is being put 100% on the job restoring order to intonation of an instrument being tuned well away from its stated pitch, the other aspects of musicianship which the embouchure is involved in lose out. No, you can't have one without the other, no matter whether this is an orchestral concert or a solo recital. The either/or remains.

Again, thanks for your post.<quotebtn></quotebtn>

------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107

"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2017 17:12
From: Horace Greeley
Subject: Woodwind tuning limits

Hello,

I think that Roger's question is a very important; and pretty complex one.

There are some thoughts on tuning with/for woodwind and brass
instruments that I would like to share with the group. In doing so, I
want to be clear that, while they may not speak accurately to all
individual instances, there is enough commonality within groups of
instruments which make the various points nominally valid.

The exceptionally short version of an answer to Roger's question is that
much depends on the ability of the individual player; and, which
instrument they are playing.

From Roger's question, I am assuming that, in the scenario he is
describing, the pianos that are being tuned/set up are used by a fairly
wide variety of solo and ensemble performers, with ages ranging from
around 11 or 12 to later High School...16, 17, or 18 years of age. If
that is correct, then, there's going to be such a huge variation in
individual capability that the kind of float being discussed is going to
be well within any reasonably expected tolerance (by a secondary school
band or orchestra director who has not already left the cuckoo nest).

From a piano-tuning standpoint, this translates to: no lower than
A=439Hz to nor higher than A=442Hz. (Note that since many bands and
orchestras often use pianos to fill out the parts that would otherwise
be played by "missing" instruments, it's best not to have the tuning
either to "straight" or too "stretched"...but, should one err, it should
be on the side of greater, rather than lesser, stretch. Much depends on
the percentage of players in the ensemble who take private lessons, the
amount of practicing their are doing regularly...which goes to the
development of their embouchure, without which, no stable pitch is
possible.)

Once you get beyond HS, players (and expectations of them) will depend
strongly on more, and more advanced, instruction. Even then, there are
some caveats..which, sadly exist even amongst may otherwise truly
professional players. This latter is partly to do with the design and
construction of the individual instruments.

Here are some thoughts on individual instrument groups which may/may not
be helpful/useful:

- Piccolo - Generally pitch OK in the lower ranges; but often
unpredictably sharp and/or flat as one goes up the scale.

- Flute - Especially with instruments like older Haynes and Murumatsu
flutes, there is a tendency for the lower ranges to be a bit flat; the
midranges semi-OK; and the higher ranges tending flat.

- Oboe - Here, much depends on who made the oboe. Loree, Marigaux,
Miraphone, Boosey & Hawkes, Yamaha, and Fox, all have their own concept
of oboe tone; and, with that, very different concepts of how to apply
the "Plateau" key system with which oboes are still inflicted. Those
tonal concepts affect intonation quite strongly, as does the style of
reed used by the performer. The précis version of this catastrophe is
that, while oboists _can_ play fairly well in tune, when "tuning, many
of them have discovered that blowing directly into their version of an
ETD by raising the bell and poking it at the "microphone" in the "tuner"
lets them give a nice, low A, while then allowing them to play as sharp
as they want when actually playing. (This is a latter-day version of
what the great Marcel Tabuteau taught all of his students...which was to
partially close the fingers of the Right hand while fingering A with the
left, while, at the same time, pulling the body of the oboe as close as
possible to their chest and stomach...a more primitive, but equally
successful way to throw off generations of string players.)

- Clarinet - While much depends on which clarinet (nominally A, Bb,
and the dreaded C), and which brand of clarinet is being used, in
general, the lower ranges are often fairly good; the middle tones (right
around the break in the scale, often called "throat tones") can vary
wildly...most often "blowing" flat, especially as the dynamic range
changes; and the treble going sharp, especially in softer passages.

(NOTE: All three of the instruments mentioned above are bored using the
same dimension tools. That is, even for some first-rank makers, the
same boring mandrel is used for drilling each of the three instrument
bores. While this sort of mostly works between the A and the Bb...where
there is only 1/2-step change in "base" pitch", the step from the A to
the C is obviously a m3rd...and, the pitch discrepancies and tonal
variations between notes that can more easily be masked on an A or a Bb
are treacherously obvious on a C.) Only FWIW, one of the worst
experiences I've had yet in over 50 years of studio work involved live
recordings of a Klezmer band in which the clarinetist was playing only a
C instrument, he was the owner/leader of the band. The piano had to be
perfectly on 440, relatively, throughout the range, or the poor guy
could not keep the clarinet in tune. The nightmare came when he would
change reeds, and all bets were off.

- Bassoon - Sadly, bassoons are most often increasingly sharp as they
go down in their range; and, generally, increasingly sharp as they go
up. Yes, it doesn't have to be that way...but, it takes a good deal of
work.

- Fr. Horn - As with the Oboe, much depends on the maker. Variations
here involve different materials used in different parts of the (very
long) tubing of the instrument, different diameters, different flares
(especially to the bell), differing valves, and what additional changes
may be made on the fly by the performer. For some decades, it was
usually fairly often to be able to tell when a player was using either
the F or the Bb "side" of the horn because the Bb side was almost always
sharp by comparison to the F. "Alexander" type horns (most often heard
in Russian and other European orchestras) generally have a thinner tube
wall and a more narrow diameter bore for longer along the length before
a final flare.
These most often have a more clarion-style sound, and are often played
with a good deal of vibrato. "American" style horns were, for many
years, much larger and heavier, with thicker walls in the tubing, a
wider, "faster" flare in the bell; and are often (but not exclusively)
played sensa vibrato. Either style is often noticeably sharp in the
extremes of the range, both low and high.

- Trumpets - Trumpets have changed a good deal throughout the 20th
Century. Earlier on, and up through the end of WWII, they were largely
(but not exclusively) more strident, clarion sounding, capable of
holding a piece of paper on the back wall of a concert hall. After
WWII, the concept of sound started changing, and with that, the way in
which trumpets were designed and built. Generally, the walls of the
tubing became somewhat thicker, the length and flare of the bell were
more gradual; and the mouthpieces had deeper and somewhat wider cups.
Minor changes were also made to the lengths of piping added to the three
valves. The best examples of these kinds of horns are still the
"Burbank" Benge instruments of the early- to mid-1950's. To hear the
differences as things unfolded, listen to a range of recordings of Adolf
Herseth, legendary Principal Trumpet of the Chicago Symphony. He was at
Chicago for most of his career, playing different instruments as times
changed. Unfortunately, for many players, trumpets still have an
unfortunate tendency to blow flat.

- Trombones - A very similar transition through the 20th Century to
what developed for trumpets, with similar outcomes. Most notable for
most trombonists is their ability to blow increasingly sharp as they
move more air (play louder).

- Tubas - These mammoths still manage to retain some of their original
nationalistic sound and response after 150+ years of development. Many
players own multiple instruments for the simple reason that different
tubas match different literatures better than others. Sadly, they're
still most often sharp in the lower ranges, and flat in the upper ones.

And, on top of all of that, especially in ensemble playing, a very great
deal depends on the ear of the conductor, and their willingness to use it.

Again, all of this is painting with a very wide brush. Individual,
specific instances will be very different.

All of which is a very long way around the barn to support what I think
was the original thought that one probably has much more latitude for
tuning for these kinds of things than one might for solo wind
performances. As noted, while I would be careful not to let things get
below 440, I'd be quite happy with 442.

While it's now somewhat dated, H.E. Adkins "Treatise on the Military
Band" (1931, revised a few times since), in the earlier editions had
some interesting thoughts on tone and tuning. Reading them, it would be
important to remember that, being English, he was writing for English
bands, which have a very different sound for winds in general v.
American bands. That said, it's still a very good reference because the
during which it was written and in larger use roughly corresponds to a
period of time during which some of the changes I note were beginning to
unfold.

I should note that, in a previous lifetime, in addition to studying
harmony and theory with a student of Boulanger, and conducting with a
former conductor of the Berlin Opera and master classes with Herbert
Blomstedt (for which I played bassoon for 15 years), I played and taught
bassoon professionally for thirty years. Coupled with doing largely
concert and warranty work with pianos for over 50 years, it's been an
interesting life.

Bill Ballard's comments are also spot on. While I'm not sure that I
would call the change of (essentially) pulling out the mouthpiece or
tuning slide "warpage", the term certainly accurately describes the
result...especially for woodwind instruments, which, by-and-large, are
still saddled with all the tuning difficulties of the Boehm system. That
said, I do disagree with the characterization that "seasoned
professionals" would sacrifice tuning for "musicianship"...for myself,
you really cannot have one without the other...but, that's a much longer
discussion...the short version of which, if the players "refuse" to
either play in tune or musically, then the conductor simply isn't doing
their job...and, neither are the players.

Please use whatever of this might be useful, and can the rest.

Kind regards.

Horace

On 1/13/2017 10:26 AM, William Ballard via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Back many years ago (maybe '94) when I wrote an article on pitch floating, I talked with a tech support (?) person at Selmer Musical Instruments for the factory's answer to this question. His answer (technically speaking) was that an instrument's intonation was not guaranteed for more than 8 from its stated pitch. But the salient part of this was that the further from stated pitch the instrument was tuned (mouthpiece on cork), the more the instrument's inherent tuning would warp. At that point, it would be up to the individual player to correct for this warpage. You can see the difficulty of depending on the individual player. Inexperienced players would not have the skill (or even the ears) to correct this. Well-trained, professional players would have some ability to bend this warpage back in shape (the limits being the degree of warpage existing at extremes of the distance from stated pitch). But with seasoned professionals, what their embouchure could do on this task would
> interfere with other aspects of phrasing (at the vary least, by giving intonation full priority in what the embouchure was applied to). These players would simply refuse to deliver their best musicianship in such circumstances.
>
> In general, it's only the strings whose timbre changes by tuning at higher pitches. The winds and the piano sound pretty much the same. An interesting example is the saxophone for whom perfect intonation doesn't really exist, even with the best makers. Ordinarily, the bottom of the tube plays sharp, and the top, flat. Even at stated pitch. But a good maker can reduce this "structural" warpage (similar to structural unemployment) to the point where the ear and embouchure work at a barely noticeable level.
>
> ------------------------------
> William Ballard RPT
> WBPS
> Saxtons River VT
> 802-869-9107
>
> "Our lives contain a thousand springs
> and dies if one be gone
> Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
> should keep in tune so long."
> ...........Dr. Watts, "The continental Harmony,1774
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 01-12-2017 18:31
> From: Roger Gable
> Subject: Woodwind tuning limits
>
> This is the beginning of the school band ensemble adjudication season where I provide multiple pianos for the weekend to numerous school districts in the area. It is also the time of the year where all pianos are low in pitch due to the cold weather. I usually tune the pianos within + or - 1 cent of standard pitch but wonder if going outside those parameters is a challenge for the woodwind instrument tuning. Letting the pianos "float" is desirable to ensure stability. How far can I deviate from standard pitch before there is a problem with band instruments tuning to the piano?
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Gable
> Gable Piano
> Everett WA
> 425-252-5000
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to Sender : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=de0a1749-f928-49b3-99dc-6c3d5ff4b007&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
> Reply to Discussion : http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=669993&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253c456468&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.
>