Piano History

My question makes certain pre-suppositions, primary among which are the my un-pursued fascination with this topic and my utmost respect for those of you who have done so.  As a former (modern) oboist, the religion of 440 still lies, implanted, in my DNA.  Since the question(s) I have are more conceptual than factual, I'm not sure they even belong on this list, and I would be happy if, before there were too many responses (heaven forbid!), someone made a convincing case for a more suitable home.

So, with the picture emerging that there has tended, historically, to be very little 'absolute' standard, at least one based upon any musical or cosmic truths (Keplar, Plato and LaRouche not withstanding), what are the historic, cultural and/or economic forces that have contributed to the illusion of a standard?  And where does the recognition of the seeming arbitrariness of such standards leave us? 
If symbols could be incorporated as part of email addresses, would Ed Foote's be A?A   ?

Seriously, the questions, I believe, are significant.  The economic impact on manufacturers is huge... not nearly so much on pianos as for wind and melodic orchestral percussion instruments.  The absence of a standard implies that no one is wrong, or that no once is necessarily correct.  It implies that the audience cannot discern a difference, or doesn't care.  It implies that the development of a kinesthetic pitch center (ability to play/sing in tune by the learned physical sensations) is irrelevant.

I recently visited with a principal of a large rebuilding operation in this area.  I asked why they had adopted 442 as their pitch standard.  I was told that the owner thought the pianos sounded better at that pitch. 

So, combine arbitrary with economic muscle and music historians of the future should have a field day.

Thanks again to you all that have spent the time to know what you're talking about.
-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-22-2014 11:26
From: Anne Acker
Subject: standard pitch, USA

As Paul points out, Bruce Haynes History of A is essential for your bookshelf if you are serious about these matters.  

Another question of course, is which pitches were used for home bound pianos such as square pianos and uprights vs. concert instruments? I have asked Lucy Coad why she chooses A415 for her early square piano restorations, and she has no good answer other than modern convention and supposition.   

AA

-------------------------------------------
Anne Acker
Anne Acker Early Keyboards
912-704-3048
a.acker@comcast.net

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-22-2014 11:01
From: Paul Poletti
Subject: standard pitch, USA

So much of this stuff is based on Ellis' study, which if you actually read it, is highly questionable in modern terms. Don't forget that there was no really verifiable way to determine frequency accurately until modern electronics. Before then, there were only two vaguely objectively verifiable methods:

1. Elegant beat-counting methods which involved tuning a series of pure intervals so as to produce a known error, such as the syntonic or Pythagorean comma, and then counting the beats between the two slightly different tones.

2. After Helmholtz, the mechanical siren, with mechanical counters to know the number of revolutions within a given time.

Neither method is infallible, though method 2 is preferable.

Yes, pitch was somewhat sloppy, but there's tons of texts which indicate the four levels I mentioned previously. Half-step differences are also indicated by instruments made with sliding keyboards (sometime pedal boards!) for transposing by a half step, a whole step, or a minor third.

I highly recommend Bruce Haynes' monumental work, The Story of A.

-------------------------------------------
Paul Poletti
Builder/restorer historic keyboard instruments
Poletti Pianos
Barcelona

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-22-2014 10:16
From: Donald McKechnie
Subject: standard pitch, USA

Hi Fred,

Here is a link to Ed Swenson's article on pitch:

http://www.mozartpiano.com/en/articles/pitch.php

According to Ellis pitch was up and down quite a bit in the 19th century. Of course most of the readings listed were in Europe, not the US. A certain lack of standard in the US might explain why that Estey reed organ I encountered last week was at 449. Someone may have tuned it that high back in the 19th century.

Regards,
Don

-------------------------------------------
[Don] [McKechnie,] [RPT]
[Piano Technician]
[Ithaca College]
[dmckech@ithaca.edu]
[Shop 607.274.3908]
[Home 607.277.7112]
[http://staff.ithaca.edu/dmckech/]

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-22-2014 09:34
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

I was recently reading at bit in Piano Tone Building (Published by Vestal Press as "Secrets of Piano Construction" and republished as Piano Tone Building recently by Del Fandrich, with commentary). A sentence caught my eye. William Braid White commented that his "first factory fork" (I guess when he first started working on pianos, working in a factory) was C275. That would be C4, middle C. The C fork we used to use (maybe some still do), based on A440, is 523.3 for C5. His C5 would be 550, or 26.7 Hz higher, about a semi-tone. The year of the comment was 1916, when he was past middle aged I believe (I can't locate a birth year for him), so he would be referring to the second half of the 19th century. Perhaps his fork was from 1885 or earlier, and probably part of a tradition going back farther.

This is in keeping with what was going on in England, where a common standard pitch for pianos was that of military bands, generally a half step above the pitches in more common use on the continent. It's a confusing subject, but the upshot, for some practical purposes, is that apparently at least some American pianos were being made to a pitch considerably higher than current standard pitch during the late 19th century. It wasn't until the 1910s that A435 was established as standard pitch in the US, resulting in a lowering of tension. It is interesting that conversations in Piano Tone Building often mention excess tensions of the past, and note that the lower standard pitch helped in the right direction.

In any case, when people talk about what pitch older instruments were built for, and mention the A435 stamped on the plate, that pitch was a considerable lowering of the prevailing standards of the decades before 1915 or so.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------

My question makes certain pre-suppositions, primary among which are the my un-pursued fascination with this topic and my utmost respect for those of you who have done so.  As a former (modern) oboist, the religion of 440 still lies, implanted, in my DNA.  Since the question(s) I have are more conceptual than factual, I'm not sure they even belong on this list, and I would be happy if, before there were too many responses (heaven forbid!), someone made a convincing case for a more suitable home.

So, with the picture emerging that there has tended, historically, to be very little 'absolute' standard, at least one based upon any musical or cosmic truths (Keplar, Plato and LaRouche not withstanding), what are the historic, cultural and/or economic forces that have contributed to the illusion of a standard?  And where does the recognition of the seeming arbitrariness of such standards leave us? 
If symbols could be incorporated as part of email addresses, would Ed Foote's be A?A   ?

Seriously, the questions, I believe, are significant.  The economic impact on manufacturers is huge... not nearly so much on pianos as for wind and melodic orchestral percussion instruments.  The absence of a standard implies that no one is wrong, or that no once is necessarily correct.  It implies that the audience cannot discern a difference, or doesn't care.  It implies that the development of a kinesthetic pitch center (ability to play/sing in tune by the learned physical sensations) is irrelevant.

I recently visited with a principal of a large rebuilding operation in this area.  I asked why they had adopted 442 as their pitch standard.  I was told that the owner thought the pianos sounded better at that pitch. 

So, combine arbitrary with economic muscle and music historians of the future should have a field day.

Thanks again to you all that have spent the time to know what you're talking about.
-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------

I have a collection of old tuning forks, most of them are Philharmonic 'C'. One of them is 'Old C Philharmonic. I shall measure them against my ETD - but that will only read to 1 cent. Will post my findings later.

Michael (UK)

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






Original Message:
Sent: 02-12-2014 05:05
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

Reading onward in Piano Tone Building (I am slogging my way through the whole thing, in dribs and drabs), I found reference to "Philharmonic pitch," also referred to as "concert pitch," and definitely distinct from and sharp of  "International pitch" (A 435). This was written in 1918, and it seemed that everyone knew exactly what they were talking about, that there was 435, and then there was the pitch used by orchestras.

I wonder if anyone has reliable information about that concert pitch, how sharp it was of 435. From the context where this appears (p 114 of the Vestal Press reprint) I get the impression it was higher than 440. They are talking about how high pitch should be on a new piano leaving the factory, so it won't settle too much. Philharmonic pitch is recommended as a maximum.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2014 14:14
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

I was recently reading at bit in Piano Tone Building (Published by Vestal Press as "Secrets of Piano Construction" and republished as Piano Tone Building recently by Del Fandrich, with commentary). A sentence caught my eye. William Braid White commented that his "first factory fork" (I guess when he first started working on pianos, working in a factory) was C275. That would be C4, middle C. The C fork we used to use (maybe some still do), based on A440, is 523.3 for C5. His C5 would be 550, or 26.7 Hz higher, about a semi-tone. The year of the comment was 1916, when he was past middle aged I believe (I can't locate a birth year for him), so he would be referring to the second half of the 19th century. Perhaps his fork was from 1885 or earlier, and probably part of a tradition going back farther.

This is in keeping with what was going on in England, where a common standard pitch for pianos was that of military bands, generally a half step above the pitches in more common use on the continent. It's a confusing subject, but the upshot, for some practical purposes, is that apparently at least some American pianos were being made to a pitch considerably higher than current standard pitch during the late 19th century. It wasn't until the 1910s that A435 was established as standard pitch in the US, resulting in a lowering of tension. It is interesting that conversations in Piano Tone Building often mention excess tensions of the past, and note that the lower standard pitch helped in the right direction.

In any case, when people talk about what pitch older instruments were built for, and mention the A435 stamped on the plate, that pitch was a considerable lowering of the prevailing standards of the decades before 1915 or so.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------

I have downloaded an Audio Frequency reader from: www.techmind.org where, in 'Contents' select 'Frequency Counter' then download:       <  tuner1v3.exe >

Putting an electret microphone in a quiet box and plugging it in to my desktop mic-in I read the following frequencies from my collection of tuning forks:

1. British Standard   A =  440 Hz

2  British Standard   C = 523.5 Hz

3. New Philharmonic  C = 522.6 Hz  (1 of 3)

4. New Philharmonic  C = 522.9 Hz  (2 of 3)

5. New Philharmonic  C = 522.0 Hz  (3 of 3)

6. Old Philharmonic  C = 539.5 Hz

7. Philharmonic  C = 534.2 Hz

8. Philharmonic  B = 490.0 Hz

9. Uncredited    C = 517.0 Hz

10. Uncredited    C = 516.0 Hz

11. Uncredited    A = 445.3 Hz

The accreditation is from the stampings on the 'handle' of each fork. The last three have no stampings. Some have a maker. 

From a case of eight new tuning forks I was given (only two had been opened) made by Ragg of Sheffield: the frequencies are stamped:

C = 256 Hz    D = 288 Hz  E = 320 Hz   F = 341.3 Hz   G = 384 Hz   A = 426.6 Hz   B = 480 Hz   C = 512 Hz

So I wonder (a) what temperament these are tuned to and (b) where does A=426.6 fit into the scheme of things?

Anyone??

Michael (UK)

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

I have a collection of old tuning forks, most of them are Philharmonic 'C'. One of them is 'Old C Philharmonic. I shall measure them against my ETD - but that will only read to 1 cent. Will post my findings later.

Michael (UK)

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






Original Message:
Sent: 02-12-2014 05:05
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

Reading onward in Piano Tone Building (I am slogging my way through the whole thing, in dribs and drabs), I found reference to "Philharmonic pitch," also referred to as "concert pitch," and definitely distinct from and sharp of  "International pitch" (A 435). This was written in 1918, and it seemed that everyone knew exactly what they were talking about, that there was 435, and then there was the pitch used by orchestras.

I wonder if anyone has reliable information about that concert pitch, how sharp it was of 435. From the context where this appears (p 114 of the Vestal Press reprint) I get the impression it was higher than 440. They are talking about how high pitch should be on a new piano leaving the factory, so it won't settle too much. Philharmonic pitch is recommended as a maximum.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2014 14:14
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

I was recently reading at bit in Piano Tone Building (Published by Vestal Press as "Secrets of Piano Construction" and republished as Piano Tone Building recently by Del Fandrich, with commentary). A sentence caught my eye. William Braid White commented that his "first factory fork" (I guess when he first started working on pianos, working in a factory) was C275. That would be C4, middle C. The C fork we used to use (maybe some still do), based on A440, is 523.3 for C5. His C5 would be 550, or 26.7 Hz higher, about a semi-tone. The year of the comment was 1916, when he was past middle aged I believe (I can't locate a birth year for him), so he would be referring to the second half of the 19th century. Perhaps his fork was from 1885 or earlier, and probably part of a tradition going back farther.

This is in keeping with what was going on in England, where a common standard pitch for pianos was that of military bands, generally a half step above the pitches in more common use on the continent. It's a confusing subject, but the upshot, for some practical purposes, is that apparently at least some American pianos were being made to a pitch considerably higher than current standard pitch during the late 19th century. It wasn't until the 1910s that A435 was established as standard pitch in the US, resulting in a lowering of tension. It is interesting that conversations in Piano Tone Building often mention excess tensions of the past, and note that the lower standard pitch helped in the right direction.

In any case, when people talk about what pitch older instruments were built for, and mention the A435 stamped on the plate, that pitch was a considerable lowering of the prevailing standards of the decades before 1915 or so.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------

I have a collection of old tuning forks, most of them are Philharmonic 'C'. One of them is 'Old C Philharmonic. I shall measure them against my ETD - but that will only read to 1 cent. Will post my findings later.

Michael (UK)

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






Original Message:
Sent: 02-12-2014 05:05
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

Reading onward in Piano Tone Building (I am slogging my way through the whole thing, in dribs and drabs), I found reference to "Philharmonic pitch," also referred to as "concert pitch," and definitely distinct from and sharp of  "International pitch" (A 435). This was written in 1918, and it seemed that everyone knew exactly what they were talking about, that there was 435, and then there was the pitch used by orchestras.

I wonder if anyone has reliable information about that concert pitch, how sharp it was of 435. From the context where this appears (p 114 of the Vestal Press reprint) I get the impression it was higher than 440. They are talking about how high pitch should be on a new piano leaving the factory, so it won't settle too much. Philharmonic pitch is recommended as a maximum.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2014 14:14
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: standard pitch, USA

I was recently reading at bit in Piano Tone Building (Published by Vestal Press as "Secrets of Piano Construction" and republished as Piano Tone Building recently by Del Fandrich, with commentary). A sentence caught my eye. William Braid White commented that his "first factory fork" (I guess when he first started working on pianos, working in a factory) was C275. That would be C4, middle C. The C fork we used to use (maybe some still do), based on A440, is 523.3 for C5. His C5 would be 550, or 26.7 Hz higher, about a semi-tone. The year of the comment was 1916, when he was past middle aged I believe (I can't locate a birth year for him), so he would be referring to the second half of the 19th century. Perhaps his fork was from 1885 or earlier, and probably part of a tradition going back farther.

This is in keeping with what was going on in England, where a common standard pitch for pianos was that of military bands, generally a half step above the pitches in more common use on the continent. It's a confusing subject, but the upshot, for some practical purposes, is that apparently at least some American pianos were being made to a pitch considerably higher than current standard pitch during the late 19th century. It wasn't until the 1910s that A435 was established as standard pitch in the US, resulting in a lowering of tension. It is interesting that conversations in Piano Tone Building often mention excess tensions of the past, and note that the lower standard pitch helped in the right direction.

In any case, when people talk about what pitch older instruments were built for, and mention the A435 stamped on the plate, that pitch was a considerable lowering of the prevailing standards of the decades before 1915 or so.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------