You asked for a website on historical pitches. Here are a couple: pitch: http://www.uk-piano.org/history/pitch.html temperament: http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html --- David Skolnik <skolnik@attglobal.net> wrote: > All- > First, I'm surprised that this issue was allowed to > remain on this list > (ptg-l) for this long. Except for the parts about > the Guild resolutions, > it seems more appropriate for PIANOTECH, or CAUT. > Second, I don't think > the subject is dead, just confused. Besides, we > need something to fill in > until the next installment of "The Misbehavior of > Soundboards". > > The issues raised cover: > Perfect Pitch > PTG standards > Technical and business aspects of pitch change > Tonal effects of pitch alteration > Purpose of effectiveness of international standards > > In my opinion, the issue of Perfect Pitch has no > bearing on the discussion > of pitch standard. That some individuals are gifted > (or cursed), some > extremely so, has nothing to do with the > desirability of a standard. There > was a worthy post to CAUT from David Ilvedson (as > well as Don Rose) on > Jan. 29 titled "Fw: Perfect Pitch" which > reprinted an interesting > article about Diana Deutsch, as well as providing > some great web sites. > > http://www.provide.net/~bfield/whatabs.html > > http://www.provide.net/~bfield/abs_pitch.html > > What I miss in these discussions is the historical > perspective. I know > it's out there, I just don't have the information. > Clearly, A440 is as > arbitrary a standard as A438, or A435, or any > historical pitch, not to > mention the highly elevated British Military Concert > Pitch. (This, unless > you share the belief of some that 435, or Verdi > pitch is directly derived > from the vibrations of the universe.) > > Can anyone refer me to source material regarding the > establishment of pitch > standards during the last 200 - 300 years? > My limited education would necessitate such material > being in English. > > I am cross posting this to pianotech & caut lists to > broaden responses to > my last question. I hope it doesn't create more > confusion. > > Oh yes, regarding floating pitch. While I practice > it to a degree, I think > A439 - 442 is unacceptably wide for any but the > loosest of situations. To > me, anything under 440 is unacceptable. I think of > floating as between 440 > and 441.5 for a A440 standard. The standard most > likely represents the > lowest acceptable pitch in any particular pitch > environment, thus, allowing > the BSO piano to float would seem to give a range of > 442 to 44? ? > > David Skolnik > New York, NY > > At 07:32 PM 03/03/2002 -0500, you wrote: > Sorry to beat a dead subject, but.....I guess it > would be nice to rely on a > standard at A440. However, with the climate change > around here (Northeast) > I've become a huge fan of floating pitch, A439-A442 > seems reasonable. If > I've got 220 strings in tune with themselves, the > client's gonna pay when I > move it. I'll charge for a pitch raise if I move a > pianos pitch 10 cents in > a home or 5 cents on a stage. A contract is a > contract and our Symphony is > A442 and The Pops A441. However, Jazz, Pop and Rock > seem to stick to > A440. In my opinion, I don't mind if a jazz club or > school stage is at > A442 in Auguest or A439.25 in February. You can > always move the A (within > reason) to hit the dial. If you take the lead from > our forths, One Hertz > don't hurt!! Look at how out of tune our M3rds etc. > are! > Just another opinion. > Fred Mudge > Boston > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC