[CAUT] Harpsichord tuning tips/string setting

[Ron Nossaman]

Fred Sturm wrote:
> On 12/3/05 10:47 AM, "Don McKechnie" <dmckech@ithaca.edu> wrote:
> 
>     Mike and Fred,
> 
>     Some years ago I had some one on one instruction from Bill Dowd on
>     regulating, tuning and voicing. Bill was of the same opinion as
>     Mike's harpsichordist. For the most part, that is how I have tuned
>     ever since. It does not always work with certain pins, certain
>     instruments. One just has to adjust some times. I believe Bill
>     Garlick was in favor of this method as well but he got a good bit of
>     his training from Dowd. BTW, I can't see how people can use the
>     gooseneck to tune a harpsichord. :-) Bill & Bill were in favor of
>     the T handle as well.
> 
>     Don
> 
> Hi Don,
>     Yes, I am very aware that these opinions are widespread among the 
> harpsichord community, and rise from very authoritative sources. Being 
> one of those ornery people who can’t seem to accept what an 
> authoritative source says without having personally verified it, I 
> choose to disagree based on my own experience, which is reasonably 
> extensive.
>     In the end, it comes down to doing what works for you. I can tune a 
> harpsichord with square headed pins five or six minutes faster, and with 
> less concentration and effort, using a gooseneck rather than a T hammer. 
> If it has a four foot, I’d make that 10 to 15 minutes faster. I just 
> find the T hammer more frustrating to use for minute turns. It’s easier 
> to do a controlled push or pull motion with the fingers at a greater 
> leverage advantage than it is to do a twist of the wrist. For me, anyway.
>     As for the pull up to pitch notion, I don’t think it has any more 
> validity than the notion that one has to do the same with a piano. There 
> is an old school of thought that incorporates so-called “pin setting” 
> with overall hammer technique: “pull it sharp a bit, then settle the pin 
> back.” This can be a very effective automatic physical technique for 
> achieving a stable tuning. But it is also quite possible to move a 
> string to pitch and stability by other means. For instance, one can turn 
> the pin in the block in such a way that the string doesn’t come quite to 
> pitch (from either direction), by having the lever at an angle that 
> doesn’t flagpole/twist the pin in the direction you are moving pitch, 
>  and then pull the string through the bearing friction points using 
> jerking/flagpoling/twisting action and set it at dead stable. It all 
> depends on the minutia of your hammer technique, and there are infinite 
> variables available.
>     In the end, on harpsichord or piano, one must move the pin in the 
> block the precise amount needed, and, separately or at the same time, 
> stabilize the string and pin. A technique that does all at the same time 
> can be the most efficient, and “pull from below” is probably intended in 
> that light – and it will work assuming your hammer technique is correct, 
> accounting for any flagpoling and twist (sometimes you find harpsichords 
> with tight enough blocks that this is a real issue). But, as I wrote in 
> my earlier post, if you are above pitch to begin with, it is just as 
> possible to move directly down to stable pitch, with the same variables 
> in play.
>     So the “pull from below” advice might make for a good set of 
> automatic motions to learn, but it doesn’t really have an absolute 
> physical validity, IMO.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico


Authoritative sources aside, I personally tune harpsichords just 
like I tune pianos, except for test blows for settling in. I pull 
them up or drop them down to pitch, as usual, then alternately turn 
and jiggle the pin back and forth to find the point where it will be 
most likely to stay where I leave it - then leave it. I don't have a 
template. I don't have a checklist. I don't have a conditional set 
of programmed movements I use in each of a specific number of 
defined circumstances. I attempt to read what each and every pin and 
string it telling me and leave it in the most stable condition I can 
from the information it gives me. It makes life simpler. There is 
only one infinitely variable hammer technique - whatever the 
feedback tells me is working to my satisfaction, and my tunings are 
more stable than most, if not as shiny as some. I've always 
considered this to be a no-brainer. As I listen and read about the 
near infinitely detailed absolute conditional techniques for dealing 
with each narrowly, but nebulously defined contingent, I am always 
baffled that the tuning lever operator didn't immediately give up 
the ego, attempting to force it into a, arbitrary proprietary 
category, and just adjust as necessary to make it work as the 
physical reality requires. I find that the "technique" changes from 
pin to pin, as well as from piano to piano to harpsichord to guitar 
to whatever, and in my opinion, if the tuner isn't able to 
recalibrate automatically, mindlessly, and effortlessly on the fly 
(or Denro), on a moment by moment basis, he's just pretending.

But what do I know?

Ron N