even tone?

[Delwin D Fandrich]

A few comments are mixed in below...Del

----------------------------------------------



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.
>
> 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.

To repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my response to Michael Jorgensen:It
is not possible to make the tonal character of a 2,000+ mm long, high-tension
copper-wrapped string equal that of a 52 mm plain steel tri-chord.  But the
tone color should blend smoothly from one extreme to the other.  Also, pianos
can be designed for a particular type of tone color.  It can be hard and
brassy.  It can be pure and clean.  It can be relatively consistent throughout
its volume -- generally not considered a good thing -- or it can have
wonderful broad tone color changes through its range.  Etc.  It is fairly easy
to "pre-voice" a piano by design.  It can be a "long-scale" or a "short-scale"
piano.  It can be designed with a relatively high tension or a low tension
scale.  The soundboard can be massive and stiff -- as altogether too many are
these days -- or it can be light and relatively flexible.  There is an
extremely broad range of possibilities to suit most any musical palette.

So I'm not sure I'd call the modern piano "even toned" as much as consistent,
or progressive.  It is true; words don't really convey the meaning well.



> The curious thing is that similarity of spectra is not a characteristic of
> 18th and 19th C pianos,

But, was this by design and intent?  Or just the way things were at that stage
of development?


> 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.



Dear Reader,

Prepare yourself for some sweeping generalities here...

> 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)

To say that "tonal colour that has been bred out of the modern instrument" is
surely a bit of a stretch.  Pianos built during the early days of the "modern
piano age" were widely acclaimed for their tone color, their broad dynamic
range and, yes, for their power.  But power was almost an afterthought.  It
was their tone and range that was praised.  It is true that certain classes of
really modern instruments have much less tonal color than has been considered
desirable through most of its history, but this is a result of manufacturing
practices that encourage vast quantities of production rather than musical
values.  There are specific reasons for the tonal failure of these
instruments, but these failures do not exist in all pianos of modern design.
There is nothing in the design evolution of the modern piano that precludes
tonal color.  And, it is quite possible to find modern instruments with great
dynamic range and color.

In fact, one of the things that strikes me as I listen to music performed on
early instruments is how uniform and lacking in dynamic range the sound is.
True, the tone color varies -- sometimes dramatically -- from register to
register.  But generally less than I am accustomed to from ppp to fff.



> 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.

All of this makes me wonder...does the composer write a piece of music for the
tonal characteristics of a specific instrument -- for example the ca 1800
Viennese piano described above -- and then require it to be played only on
that instrument forever?  Or is it the task of the piano designer to design
instruments only for specific pieces of music?  Sounds good to me -- I'd
certainly be kept busier.

Regards,

Del