A440 Standard - SHIFT OF LOCATION?

[Stephen Airy]

You asked for a website on historical pitches.  Here
are a couple:

pitch: http://www.uk-piano.org/history/pitch.html
temperament:
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html


--- David Skolnik <skolnik@attglobal.net> wrote:
> All-
> First, I'm surprised that this issue was allowed to
> remain on this list 
> (ptg-l) for this long.  Except for the parts about
> the Guild resolutions, 
> it seems more appropriate for PIANOTECH, or CAUT. 
> Second, I don't think 
> the subject is dead, just confused.  Besides, we
> need something to fill in 
> until the next installment of "The Misbehavior of
> Soundboards".
> 
> The issues raised cover:
> Perfect Pitch
> PTG standards
> Technical and business aspects of pitch change
> Tonal effects of pitch alteration
> Purpose of effectiveness of international standards
> 
> In my opinion, the issue of Perfect Pitch has no
> bearing on the discussion 
> of pitch standard.  That some individuals are gifted
> (or cursed), some 
> extremely so, has nothing to do with the
> desirability of a standard.  There 
> was a worthy post to CAUT  from David Ilvedson (as
> well as Don Rose) on 
> Jan. 29 titled  "Fw: Perfect Pitch"    which
> reprinted an interesting 
> article about Diana Deutsch, as well as providing
> some great web sites.
> 
> http://www.provide.net/~bfield/whatabs.html
> 
> http://www.provide.net/~bfield/abs_pitch.html
> 
> What I miss in these discussions is the historical
> perspective.  I know 
> it's out there, I just don't have the information. 
> Clearly, A440 is as 
> arbitrary a standard as A438, or A435, or any
> historical pitch, not to 
> mention the highly elevated British Military Concert
> Pitch.  (This, unless 
> you share the belief of some that 435, or Verdi
> pitch is directly derived 
> from the vibrations of the universe.)
> 
> Can anyone refer me to source material regarding the
> establishment of pitch 
> standards during the last 200 - 300 years?
> My limited education would necessitate such material
> being in English.
> 
> I am cross posting this to pianotech & caut lists to
> broaden responses to 
> my last question.  I hope it doesn't create more
> confusion.
> 
> Oh yes, regarding floating pitch.  While I practice
> it to a degree, I think 
> A439 - 442 is unacceptably wide for any but the
> loosest of situations.  To 
> me, anything under 440 is unacceptable.  I think of
> floating as between 440 
> and 441.5 for a A440 standard.  The standard most
> likely represents the 
> lowest acceptable pitch in any particular pitch
> environment, thus, allowing 
> the BSO piano to float would seem to give a range of
> 442 to 44? ?
> 
> David Skolnik
> New York, NY
> 
> At 07:32 PM 03/03/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> Sorry to beat a dead subject, but.....I guess it
> would be nice to rely on a 
> standard at A440. However, with the climate change
> around here (Northeast) 
> I've become a huge fan of floating pitch,  A439-A442
> seems reasonable.  If 
> I've got 220 strings in tune with themselves, the
> client's gonna pay when I 
> move it. I'll charge for a pitch raise if I move a
> pianos pitch 10 cents in 
> a home or 5 cents on a stage.  A contract is a
> contract and our Symphony is 
> A442 and The Pops A441. However, Jazz, Pop and Rock
> seem to stick to 
> A440.  In my opinion, I don't mind if a jazz club or
> school stage is at 
> A442 in Auguest or A439.25 in February.  You can
> always move the A (within 
> reason) to hit the dial. If you take the lead from
> our forths, One Hertz 
> don't hurt!! Look at how out of tune our M3rds etc.
> are!
> Just another opinion.
> Fred Mudge
> Boston
>    
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com