[CAUT] Steinway stretch (was Re: Steinway Verticals)

[Fred Sturm]

On 11/30/04 5:00 AM, "Phil Bondi" <phil@philbondi.com> wrote:

> Fred, thanks for the explanation about this. Most of the people reading
> this have alot more experience than me, but I must say that the 'D' that
> I care for is unique in its character as far as temperament. I will
> admit a strict ET, done visually with my SATll, sounds shall we
> say..pedestrian. Take away the visual aide and do a strict aural tuning
> listening to "everything", and it starts to open up much more,
> especially Octave 6.
Hi Phil,
    Interesting observation. I tend to agree. The SAT I or II "standard
tuning" (FAC) is "very nice" but rather dead. I attribute this to two
factors: temperament and stretch. The stretch is very slightly wide 4:1
double octaves throughout. This is a reasonable middle of the road stretch,
to satisfy the general market (I'm talking market of piano tuners, not the
public here) as near as possible. Al Sanderson says he prefers more stretch,
himself, eg. But he used to say he would have complaints if he made that
standard. Of course now the SAT III has more flexibility, and is capable of
producing wider stretch. And one could always customize and save whatever
one wanted (which was my approach when using SAT).
    The other aspect is temperament. I have long wondered if the prejudice
against "machine tunings" and in favor of aural tuning isn't in part due to
the nearly inevitable variances in temperament: the fact that temperaments
tuned aurally in the real world are rarely precisely ET (though we certainly
try hard). 
    Added to this, we should consider that the vast majority of "concert
tunings" in the most prestigious halls, in front of the most discerning
audiences and for the top pianists, are what I would describe as "unison
touch-ups." The tuner does not make absolutely sure every interval
progresses; rather, he/she accepts the piano where it is and refines
unisons. Sometimes the refinement of unisons is the only tuning the piano
will get for several weeks, before there is enough time available to go
through the whole piano. Who complains? Who notices?
    And then there is the increasingly common usage of non-equal
temperaments of various sorts. Which brings up another interesting point. We
are fortunate that one Alexander Ellis measured and recorded several actual
tunings from the 1880's. These tunings were intended as ET, and done by
professional and highly qualified tuners of the time. And yet they are very
far from ET, especially by current standards. One of my favorites, listed in
the RCT as "Broadwood's best tuner #4," is remarkably unequal and really a
well temperament: the difference between CE and C#E# is astounding.
    Are current standards really better? I wonder. I've done a good bit of
stealth non-equal tuning for discerning audiences (including the two D's in
my recital hall), and my conclusion is that, first, nobody notices, and
second, maybe it sounds better. What is most striking is how little
difference it makes (listening to the piano being played). Less noticeable
than a couple unisons at about a one cent width, hard to tell if maybe it
wasn't the voicing instead that made the piano sound a wee bit, I dunno,
"warmer."
    Talk to professional musicians who play "non-fixed pitch" instruments
(winds and strings) and you'll find that ET is mostly an annoyance. When
they are forced to play with a piano, instead of in a orchestra, band or
ensemble of peer instruments, they have to make enormous adjustments, which
they find un-musical. They are used to bending pitch to blend, which means,
essentially (best I am able to decipher), narrowing major thirds and sixths
to beatless.
    Bottom line: keep an open mind, and open ears.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico