I wish I could speak to this issue with better recollection of its history and knowledge of its current manifestations, which I'd love to re-research, but for now, I have to settle for expressing an marginally informed (former oboist) point of view. That said, it would be much appreciated if someone could remind me (us) of some of the authoritative contributions that have been made to this discussion over the last ten or so years, by some of our members. Ed Swenson's article is still a fascinating entre into the subject. http://www.mozartpiano.com/en/articles/pitch.php and I know there are many others. The issue is multi-faceted. It has, and continues to exist, totally apart from the limited aspects affecting us as piano people. It's about economics, and politics, psychology, psycho-acoustics, and, if Mr. LaRouche is correct, the fundamental vibrations of the universe, or not. Clearly, the PTG needs a new committee, or maybe assign the Standards committee to weigh in on this. For us, the issue seems three-fold. 1) Are the design parameters different for a piano destined to be tuned at 440 than one similarly fated at 443?(Ron's latest post) 2) Are there negative structural impacts ascribable to frequent changing of underlying pitch? (Damage? Instability?) 3) Is there a definable increase in the tech-time required to accommodate multiple standards? Duh!(*) And then there's the big 4 & 5. 4) Is anyone actually listening (or hearing?) 5) In the age of AUTO-TUNE, (to quote Joy Behar - or at least her SNL parody) "So what? Who cares?" (*) With the reality coming to be represented, not by a new standard, but, in fact, the absence of any real standard, accountability is much more fluid. It would be fascinating (and feasible, I think) to create a map showing distribution of pitch standards. David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 11:38 PM 11/9/2009, you wrote: >On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Jim Busby wrote: > >>All, >> >>Once again there is a push here at BYU to set >>A442 as our pitch standard. The Director of the >>School of Music is behind it, and is also the >>Philharmonic Orch conductor. The problem I see >>is that most guest artists specify A440. >>Sooooo if someone visits we’ll have to drop >>down, then back up, back down, up, down I’m >>getting dizzy just thinking about it. >> >>Any strong arguments against? Or am I just >>“bein’ contrary” as my kinfolk would say?? >> >>Thanks. >>Jim Busby BYU > >Very practically speaking, do all your wind >players (students) have 442 instruments? Are all >BYU owned wind instruments 442? The question >should be asked. Conductors and directors don't >necessarily think in these practical terms. It >takes quite a financial investment to make a >pitch change actually happen. Talk to your wind faculty. >Back in the late 19th century, when the French >were trying to standardize to 435, the main >reason pitch moved back up was because all the >winds were made at higher pitch, and nobody was >paying the musicians to replace their >instruments (in fact, lots of winds at that time >were at 456 or so, from a history of "Chorton >versus Kammerton," essentially church pitch >(415) versus military band pitch (460 or so)). >It wasn't actually the strings so much as the >winds who pushed pitch back up, and it was >simply a matter of the pitch their instruments >were made at. We are closer today, but there are >still practical issues of people needing to buy >a new instrument to play decently in tune at >either 440 or 442. They aren't interchangeable >for winds. (Or percussion - but percussion pitch is far less critical). >Regards, >Fred Sturm >University of New Mexico ><mailto:fssturm at unm.edu>fssturm at unm.edu > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20091110/b8ead399/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC