even tone?

[Michael Jorgensen]

Hi Steven,
       Thoughts entered below:


Stephen Birkett wrote:

> I'm interested to hear peoples comments on what the term "even tone"
> means. My understanding is that this is one of those vague piano terms
> that is used without really a proper definition, and may have changed
> meaning over the years. Here's my drift:
>
> 1) In 19th C it appears to be used in the limited, and logical, context
> that notes should not stand out from their neighbours in terms of the tone
> quality...i.e. even capabilities in scale passages, no tonal bumps.

This is my definition of even tone or eveness

>
>
> 2) In modern pianos there seems to be an extension from 1) to include the
> (now considered desirable) factor that tonal spectra across all registers
> should be as similar as possible. This characteristic of the modern piano
> is certainly frequently cited, and I believe that is also included in the
> term "even tone" nowadays. Let's call this aspect similarity of spectra to
> distinguish it.

 I call this balance,  my goal is to balance the percieved power of
registers.   As for trying to make the bass equal the treble in character, I
don't really enjoy pianos that do a "better job"  at this as well as the ones
that don't.  (from a musical standpoint).  Yet I do try to mask the bass
break, but I'm not sure this matters that much if the break is in the right
spot for the music.

>
>
> The curious thing is that similarity of spectra is not a characteristic of
> 18th and 19th C pianos, and, in fact, composers frequently took advantage
> of tonal differences between registers, both conciously, for instance when
> passages are repeated at the octave (e.g. Pathetique, 2nd mvt.) and
> unconciously, when thick textures retain individual voice clarity, as in
> contrapuntal passages, or passages with inside tenor voices that tend to
> get lost on the modern instrument. Registral variety also goes part and
> parcel with a general desirability for a huge palette of tonal colour in
> the pianos of the period.

Fascinating concepts!   Del Fandrich made a point awhile back  that  from a
design standpoint, it makes sense to have  more bass notes than the typical
20 note bass of Baldwin and Steinways.  Yet  the  pianos which have extra
bass notes do not to agree with me musically.  One example is the 9' Conover
which (I believe had f# was the lowest tenor string).   The change of
register seems in the wrong place musically and is most annoying on certain
classical music.

>
>
> Now this get's back to Ed's tuning aesthetics re: musical sense. The
> modern piano, with its spectral similarity and pre-defined tone, as per
> how it is voiced, gives comparatively little opportunity for the pianist
> to vary tonal colours. Which is perhaps why tuning h.t.'s for musical
> aesthetics (as Ed has described frequently here) is so successful on
> modern pianos - since it gives back some of the tonal colour that has been
> bred out of the modern instrument. In the context of the period keep in
> mind that tuning was generally a much more haphazard affair than all the
> recent, and past, flaming here would have us believe. If it sounds ok it
> is ok would have been the attitude of most musicians and consumers
> pre-20th C. As for musical dramatics that arise from key colours these may
> exist for us now, but it is unlikely that would have been critically
> noticed originally for three reasons: 1) tuning was generally ad hoc, so
> no pre-conceived plan would have been possible; (exception here is the use
> of wolf tones in meantone tunings) 2) any dramatic effect from key colours
> would have been swamped by the huge changes in tonal colour across
> registers, and between different instruments that co-existed. (Well-I
> guess that is only two reasons)

Last week I had a harpsichord voicing lesson with Keith Hill, the harpsichord
builder.  He is an advocate of each adjacent tone having a unique
color/timbre so that the inner voices will stand out.
He also likes variation of character between registers.   he made me  re
think some long engrained values.

> On a five octave ca 1800 Viennese piano, the dramatic effect of beginning
> Op 10 No 3 third mvt, after the gloomy darkness of the slow mvt, is
> phenomenal - there is no other way to describe it than the sunrise - but
> that is due to the change in register more than anything else. I suspect
> perceived benefits of key colours on the modern piano have more to do
> with improving the transcription of 18th and 19th C music for the modern
> piano, than to anything else. The same rule can be applied here: if it
> sounds good it is good (once we de-tune our e.t. ears). That get's back
> to personal preference - a good thing - but key colours will have to be
> given a fair shot before deciding it is good (or bad) because it sounds
> good (or bad)...any posturing and sermonizing on the subject can only
> alienate and factionize - a bad thing.

     Try improvising/composing in HT!  The creativity is enhanced by  the
limitation of avoiding certain intervals and keys due to thier beat speed
tensions.  This forces creative thinking i.e working to avoid intervals in
certain instances eliminating the possiblilty for predictable music.  The
result is better music.  Is this why there are no composers today born of ET
who rival or even come close to the old masters?

I'll be back monday with flame suit on just incase.

Mike Jorgensen