[CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)

[Fred Sturm]

Hi Jim,
    The devil, as usual, is in the details. What did Don M mean by wide and
narrow stretch? Perhaps he will weigh in and tell us. I suspect he did what
would be relatively easy, and used, perhaps, RCT, tuning one with the #9
preset, the other with a #1 or #2. Now this certainly meets a definition of
wide and narrow stretch, but it is measured largely focusing on octave size:
choosing that size and using it throughout the range (probably
oversimplification, but true at least in large part).
    For my own part, I dislike the sound of RCT #9 in the midrange. The
octaves it produces are too wide in the midrange to my ear. I personally
begin in RCT with a #5 preset (right in the very middle of the road), and
expand the high treble using ³Custom EQ.² That pretty consistently gives me
results I like. The octaves I tune in octaves 6 and 7, on some pianos, may
be much wider than some would tolerate. I find them quite tolerable there,
and would find the triple octaves produced via narrower octaves to be
objectionable. One man¹s opinions.
    The idea of tuning a piano (specifically stretch) to match repertoire is
not a new one. Horace Greeley has written along those lines many times, for
instance. Of course, this approach leaves the question, what do you do with
a mixed rep concert?
    On the other side of the coin, Richard West wants to have a consensus
opinion about what an ³ideal² concert instrument tuning would be. I¹m more
in favor of ³Vive la difference!² I prefer variety of opinion and practice
(just as well, because that¹s what we are certain to have among crotchety,
opinionated piano techs <G>). We should all experiment, and decide based on
our own ears and experience, not just follow some dictum from whatever guru
we choose to follow. One good reason: we are likely to have misinterpreted
what the guru wanted to say (might be the guru¹s fault, not having said it
precisely enough).
    Going back to Don Mannino¹s class, I think (if I have guessed right
about what Don did) it may illustrate what I was trying to get at in the
beginning of this thread: the problem of focusing on the octave itself, on
the octave¹s own size, as opposed to looking at how that octave fits into an
overall picture. 
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico

 
On 2/1/07 5:33 PM, "Jim Busby" <jim_busby at byu.edu> wrote:

> 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 ³like² (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 don¹t 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070202/1b15e373/attachment.html