[CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)

[Jim Busby]

Fred, Richard,

 

Don Mannino gave a class a few years ago where he tuned two same
model/similarly voiced, etc. grands; one stretched to (or beyond) the
normal limits and one way under (not enough stretch). He hired a pianist
to come and play for the class. This class was a revelation for me
because it clearly showed a stark difference what the two pianos seemed
to "like" (My words) as far as repertoire goes. IMO the stretched piano
sounded much better on the melodic and faster pieces whereas it sounded
too active on sustained chords, etc. The other piano sounded great on
the ballads and awful (or at least not near as good) on the quicker
and/or more high range melodic numbers. Of course, Don put the pianos at
extremes. 

 

My point is that the repertoire might require more or less stretch.
(???) Maybe Jazz needs more and Bach needs less??? I don't know, but
maybe Don can address it. A happy middle ground might not be as easy to
get for every kind of music.

 

Jim busby BYU

 

 

________________________________

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Fred Sturm
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:03 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)

 

On 1/23/07 8:46 AM, "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote:

 

We technicians claim that the "artistry" of tuning is a matter of
personal choice.  Some people choose wider octaves than others.  On some
level I agree.  But I also believe that the degree of choice is a lot
narrower than has been described to me over the years.  In other words a
good concert tuning doesn't have as much lattitude for choosing as we've
come to believe. 

 

    After thinking a little longer, I'd like to address this a little
differently. First, I agree with Richard's statement for the most part.
I doubt there is a significant difference in the range of, say, C2 to G6
in most concert tunings (9' grand). Differences, where they occur, are
chiefly in the bottom octave and the top octave and a half. There are
those who go for wider octaves in the bottom octave (I don't happen to
be among them), probably less than half of all tuners at a guess, but a
substantial number. And there are those who go for pushing the stretch
limit on the sharp side in the high treble (I am among those), probably
again less than half at a guess, but a substantial number. 

        The differences are perhaps smaller than the rhetoric would lead
one to believe, and this is especially true from the point of view of
the average listener to music. There won't be anything obvious, "this
one sounds really weird" or the like. I do think there can be a
perceptible difference in the sense of "The piano sounds really alive
and sparkling tonight" versus "The piano sounds fine, the unisons are
clear" or perhaps "The piano sounds a bit dull." At least the romantic
in me wants to believe this. Little details adding up to make a
difference to the whole, something on the order of what happens when a
piano is prepped. The piano is "fine" and to spec to begin with. Someone
who knows what he's doing spends two days on it, tweaking travel,
square, alignment, mating, aftertouch, yadda yadda. Result? "Wow! What
did you do to the piano? It's like a different instrument!" Only tiny
details have changed, but the overall effect can be enormous.

        What started this exchange was a comment I made about focus on
octaves. There seems to be a bit of an obsession about octaves seen
individually these days. From one angle, the ETDs all have various
"octave styles," either pre-sets or "on the fly" decisions. From another
angle, perhaps rising largely from Virgil Smith's teaching, we have the
aural "listen to the whole octave" notion, coming up with the very best
sound for that particular octave.

        My reaction to this is to say "Look at the larger picture. The
individual octave is just a building block." I like to look at a tuning
as the weaving of partial ladders, trying to come up with the optimum
overall meshing of all those partials. In practical terms: 

        In the bass, I try to match the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th
partials of the note being tuned as closely as possible to the notes an
octave, 12th, double octave, 19th, and triple octave above. This usually
works quite well without undue problem, with compromises needed usually
only over large inharmonicity breaks. Where there are problems, I often
sacrifice the sound of the individual octave to the larger intervals.
(On concert grands, 12th and 16th partials may come into play as well).
Aurally, the m3M17 test is basic for this style of tuning. Following the
m3M6, play the M17 (eg, A1C2, C2A2, C2E4). These are all focused on the
partial at E4. If you want a wide 19th, A1C2 should be slower than C2E4
(and, obviously, if you choose a narrow, or a beatless 19th, A1C2 will
be slower or equal). Using an ETD with 6th partial being read for
tuning, it is simply a matter of playing the note a 19th above and
observing which way the display moves.

        In the mid/high treble, I am matching the first partial of the
note to be tuned with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th partials of the
notes an octave, 12th, double octave, 19th, and triple octave below.
This tends to work well especially on larger pianos, at least through
C6, often higher, with very little compromise needed. At some point,
usually above C6, there usually is a divergence between 19th and triple
octave and the smaller intervals. I used to compromise between them. For
the last few years I have experimented with ignoring the smaller
intervals and matching 19th and triples. I have found acceptance without
comment of this changed tuning style. I think it sounds better myself.
Aurally, again, the m3M17 test is basic for this approach. With ETD, one
is tuning the first partial in this area, so one just plays notes 3
octaves, 19th, 2 octaves, 12th, octave below and observes the lights to
see what the relationships are.

        In sum, I am not so much urging everyone to tune in the same
style as I do. Rather, I am urging everyone to pay attention to the
larger picture, to know where the note is tuned in relation to larger
intervals, instead of "seeking perfect octaves."

Regards,

Fred Sturm

University of New Mexico

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070201/ae2be20e/attachment.html