[CAUT] tuning paradigm (was P12ths)

[Tim Coates]

Fred,

I think I understand what you are saying here.  It is not up to  
technicians to decide what is a correct tuning?  That is my  
philosophy.  As I commented earlier when talking about Fernando  
Ortega, recording artists prefer tunings that have very narrow  
octaves.  From what I can tell it is because of how the octaves  
interact making the unisons sound out of tune.  It is not for me to  
tell Fernando or Jim Brickman what they should prefer.  A piano used  
for accompanying a choir seems to work better tuned very narrow.  Now  
Olga Kern sounds better with a quite wide tuning.   My job is to make  
the artist happy.

Tim Coates

On Oct 18, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:

> On Oct 18, 2008, at 7:19 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote:
>
>> Part of the problem in evaluating any tuning, electronic or aural,  
>> is the lack of a concrete tuning paradigm in our profession.  Good  
>> tuners all understand the variables and the problems but when I  
>> see attempts to describe our tunings, I don't see an adequate  
>> unified description of an aural tuning other than in general  
>> terms.  Whenever I hear people say the thirds are "too wide,"  I  
>> always want to know what "too wide" is. There was a time when  
>> anything wider than a pure third was "too wide."  Therefore it  
>> seems that trying to judge a tuning  without having a paradigm to  
>> use as a measuring stick is futile, whether the tuning is a result  
>> of electronic "judgements" or aural "judgements."
>
> 	Interesting post, Richard. You raise excellent points. I guess I  
> don't believe it is possible to arrive at even a rough consensus  
> for a paradigm. We might be able to agree on a "range of stretch"  
> appropriate for this or that circumstance, but I think that's about  
> as far as we would get, and it would need to be a pretty large  
> range. As for the width of the M3/M10/M17, it follows naturally  
> from the stretch (assuming ET). Or, if you prefer, a decision about  
> the relatively minor variance possible in M3 rates will determine  
> the stretch.
> 	One can focus on alignment of various partials as a paradigm, and  
> this will yield different results in different circumstances  
> (inharmonicity bulges, overall inharmonicity of scale): any  
> absolute choice will create distortions somewhere else.
> 	Unless we accept some absolute standard, such as the one Stopper  
> proposes, we are left making compromises based on our own best  
> judgment. Personally, I have no problem with a variety of tuners  
> producing a variety of tuning styles. I prefer that, frankly.
> 	I believe that we should look beyond the piano to get a little  
> better perspective. I talk to various professors and students  
> (violin, guitar, band, oboe, etc) about the issue of intonation on  
> a frequent basis. Our "sea of contradictions" is far narrower than  
> theirs. The violinist, for instance, has certain principles of  
> intonation when playing solo (the "violin to itself" relative to  
> the open strings), a second when playing in ensemble with string  
> quartet or orchestra, and a third when playing with piano.  
> Decisions of tuning are all "contextual" and have to be made  
> instantaneously on the spot. EG, M3, m3 and M6 are "just" (in  
> context) except with piano, where it becomes problematic (what  
> notes are sounded on the piano at that instant?). Where melodic  
> considerations predominate over harmonic "blending,", a different  
> aesthetic of "pitch-bending" is often used.
> 	Other instruments have similar issues: the guitarist deals with  
> fret placement, brass deal with overtone series and breath speed,  
> etc, etc. All deal with the idiosyncrasies of their individual  
> instrument. IOW, our "problems" in coming up with a standard, and  
> our arguments about detail, are miniscule in comparison. We are the  
> sea of tranquility, the standard that they conform to or deviate  
> from, depending on context. Our differences are far smaller than  
> theirs, and, in fact, I find that they are often unable to hear  
> differences on the piano (varied temperament for instance, unless  
> it is a big difference on the order of Valotti) that are obvious to  
> me.
> 	I should note that stretch, besides its basis in inharmonicity and  
> human psychology, has a practical  basis in at least wind  
> instruments, due to the speed of breath in producing high notes  
> (pitches go sharp). Strings go sharp on high notes as well, but I  
> think that is "psycho-acoustic" (what the ear wants to hear). A  
> violinist seeking that C7 does so "by instinct" and hits something  
> fairly widely stretched as a rule. (I have asked violinists to play  
> high notes, and have checked them against my tuning of those notes  
> on a piano). So I think stretch is based on far more than the  
> experiences and practices of piano tuners.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> fssturm at unm.edu
>
>
>