Why be tossed to and fro on the waves of acoustic relativism? Wherever I have gone, we have discussed the issues thoroughly and come up with numerous solid reasons to maintain A-440: pitch instability, creation of false beats, risk of breaking strings, added expense of pitch-raise & lower, plus subsequent stabilization problems mentioned before, though generally imperceptible, damper function may suffer on wound strings with older felts (this may be a stretch, but is theoretically possible). Numerous other things could be added to the list, all of which have a price tag attached in the long haul. Given the budget issues most institutions/venues face, this approach (list delivered in non-threatening, but solemn tones) will usually have the desired effect. Monetary issues are potent persuaders, as well as matters which may have a direct effect on subsequent performances, ie: "While we may be able to get this thing stable by then, your (or your star pupil's) recital is X hours/days away. Do you want to risk that for the sake of one performer's one-night-stand in a venue, on a piano, you have to live with over the long haul?" This puts things in a personal light, & the consensus usually developes pretty quickly. Even the strong-willed head of a department will usually see the light when faced with the prospect of mutiny from his/her underlings who see their success and credibility threatened. If the tech. cannot be sure of the stability of the instrument, it can produce great anxiety in the performer, & that's the last thing they need to worry about on the eve of a performance. The vast majority of the world still tunes to 440. Those who tour should be able to adjust to this fact, not vice versa. Otto - Original Message ----- From: "Gary Mushlin" <gmushlin@mindspring.com> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: Re: A 440 Hz Standard > Hi Fred, > > Thanks for the excellent response, including a great explanation of > problems wind players experience trying to "stretch" or "shrink" their > instruments in order to tune to one note. The article or specification > I read indicated that A-442 wind instruments are being made for and > sold in this country as well. > > My point here is that for piano technicians who what to take a stance > against anything other than A-440, the battle looks rather hopeless. > > Sincerely, > Gary Mushlin, MME, RPT > > > > > > I get the impression that many piano technicians think that > On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 02:06 PM, fssturm@unm.edu wrote: > > > Hi Gary, > > I can confirm that wind instruments are made for A-442 and for > > A-445. Our > > oboist lived for several years in Europe, and got a new 440 instrument > > when he > > returned to the US. He tells me that 442 is beyond the capability of > > the 440 > > instrument, that he could use shorter reed tubes and barely reach that > > pitch, but > > the overall intonation would suffer (ie, you have changed the entire > > length of the > > instrument, thus the relationships when using the various keys will > > have > > changed). Our clarinetist tells me (in response to my asking him) that > > he has > > various length barrels (a short section that goes between mouthpiece > > and body) > > which can set the pitch of the instrument. But he concurs about the > > intonation > > problems, and says if he had to play at 442 (or whatever) all the > > time, he would > > need a new instrument. Flautist agrees. Brass folks say the same to > > varying > > extents. Strings: not a problem. Does affect the timbre of the > > instrument. Which is > > why European orchestras (and many American) use the higher pitch. > > Regards, > > Fred Sturm > > University of New Mexico > > > > Quoting Gary Mushlin <gmushlin@mindspring.com>: > > > >> It has been called to my attention that wind instruments are now > >> being > >> built to A-442. Does anyone have any any information to confirm this? > >> > >> Are all wind instruments being built at A-442, or just a select > >> group? > >> Or maybe my information is wrong. > >> > >> This certainly would complicate the problem. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Gary Mushlin, MME, RPT > >> > >> > >> On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 10:03 AM, stephen kabat wrote: > >> > >>> Jim - I tune in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Cleveland Orchestra tunes > >> to > >>> A-440. > >>> I also had the opportunity recently to ask the head tuner at the > >>> Juillard School in NYC what they tuned to, and he told me that the > >> head > >>> of the school wanted A-441. From the way the tech described the > >>> situation, it seems to me that he simply accepted the > >> administrator's > >>> decision rather than make waves. I can understand that, sortof. > >> Having > >>> said that, though, it seems to me that there really is a confusion > >> in > >>> the minds of musicians and orchestra administrators between what > >>> constitutes pitch and what constitutes timbre. Several years ago, > >> the > >>> principal violist of the Philadelphia orchestra came here to do > >> some > >>> recording with our piano faculty head, and he wanted our piano > >> raised > >>> to > >>> 442, because that's what he was used to in Philly. I told him(with > >> > >>> flame > >>> suit at the ready!!) that we tuned to 440 because if it was good > >>> enough > >>> for George Szell it was good enough for me! He was surprised that > >> the > >>> Cleveland Orchestra tuned to 440; he thought it tuned to 442. I > >>> assured > >>> him that no, the Cleveland Orch. tuned to 440, thank you very > >> much. > >>> Sorry for the length of this post, but this topic is something > >>> that gets my goat. Why is this (accepting standard pitch) so hard? > >> I > >>> wish someone would write a scholarly article, couched in the > >>> appropriate > >>> ivory-tower legalize, that would convince these people to leave > >> the > >>> pitch at 440 and tell the string players to deal with it. Maybe > >> Owen > >>> Jorgensen or someone else has already done so, and we could mail > >> the > >>> Administrators our thoughts. > >>> A Petition, as it were. > >>> Regards, Steve Kabat > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf > >> Of > >>> James Ellis > >>> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:08 AM > >>> To: caut@ptg.org > >>> Subject: A 440 Hz Standard > >>> > >>> The National Symphony Orchestra from Washington DC is giving a > >> concert > >>> in > >>> Oak Ridge TN on April 23. Their manager has informed the ORCMA > >> manager > >>> in > >>> Oak Ridge that the piano must be tuned to A 442, and they even > >> sent > >>> general > >>> instructions about how and when to do it. I'm just wondering: > >> What > >>> orchestras are there out there that play at various different > >> pitches > >>> other > >>> than A=440 Hz, and what are those pitches? If 442 is better than > >> 440, > >>> why > >>> then is 443 not better than 442, or 444, 445, 446, or even 447 not > >> a > >>> lot > >>> better than any of the former? Once upon a time, I'm told, a yard > >> was > >>> equal to the distance between the king's nose and the tip of his > >>> outstretched finger. I'm glad we got beyond that. Whatever > >> happened > >>> to > >>> the idea of standards, anyway? It seems to me that some people > >> just > >>> have > >>> to be different. > >>> > >>> Sincerely, Jim Ellis > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC