[CAUT] Old Pianos and Pitch change

[Michael Magness]

On 10/31/07, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:
>
> Just had a real interesting experience with an older Steinway C from
> just after the turn of the century.  It has been pretty well maintained,
> tho it has a very clear case of the killer octave syndrom.  There is a
> certain degree of mystic surrounding it so its kept as is and used for
> various purposes.  Usually its held at 442.  This next two weeks it is
> to be used for a recording session and the requirements for pitch are 436.
>
> Two very curious things came out of the pitch change.  Number one the
> piano took on an entirely different character.  The killer octave and
> the glassy brilliance that the top area had simply disappeared.
> Whatever weakness of tone there was seemed transfered down into the
> middle C area... but was nearly indescernable. The bass had had many
> wild string pairs and this problem all but disappeared. The overall
> sound became in general very rounded off, and more full.  Brilliance was
> definitely there but not glassy.  Actually it became quite beautiful and
> balanced to my ears.
>
> The other thing that happened was that some of the people who are used
> to the instrument expressed deep concern as to how this would affect the
> instrument in the long run.  Indeed the fears raised bordered a
> declaration outright that the instruments tone will have been forever
> damaged by the pitch change.  Where does this kind of idea come from ?
> We are talking about a 23 cent pitch change taken over two days, two
> weeks of play there and then back up to 442 over a couple days.  The
> idea that this should somehow significantly change (read destroy) the
> tonal character of the instrument for ever is one I have never heard
> anyone declare anywhere before. Any comments ?
>
> Expectable enough was the roughly 50 50 split on the subject of whether
> the temporary change in tone was a good thing or not :)
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
> Hi Ric,


Makes perfect sense to me, that is after all very near the pitch rate the
piano was originally designed for, we have convinced ourselves over the
years that the difference between 435 and 440 is minimal but I believe your
observations here prove otherwise, at least on this instrument.

The 50-50 split that also makes perfect sense, a certain percentage felt it
would be a positve change another percentage a negative and others either
had no opinion or were undecided. Some wouldn't change their opinion no
matter if the Steinways themselves showed up and declared it better, others
would be more open-minded, still others would be swayed by those grumbling
about the change, ergo 50-50!

As for comments regarding a mere pitch change, especially a lowering of
pitch, changing the tone forever? How? It would require much more than a
simple pitch change to destroy "forever" the tone of a piano!
Ignorance is everywhere!

Good luck with them,
Mike



-- 
The way some people find fault, you'd think there was some kind of reward.
Michael Magness
Magness Piano Service
608-786-4404
www.IFixPianos.com
email mike at ifixpianos.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071031/9ebeb832/attachment.html