Steinway 457cps pitch

[Robin Hufford]

Jason, Ric, Dale
     One of the points I was attempting to make in regard to pitch, in addition to
its higher levels was that the scaling, apparently, was not altered even though
pitch may have been variable on the same instruments.   In the context of todays
generalized "rescaling" for numerical reasons, perhaps, this says something, or
perhaps, not.
Regards, Robin Hufford

Jason Kanter wrote:

> >From http://www.mozartpiano.com/pitch.html
> "The History of Musical Pitch in Tuning the Pianoforte"
> by Edward E. Swenson
>
> (worth checking; it contains a LOT of info):
>
> "Before turning to specific evidence about pitch level measurements for
> tuning pianos, here is a quick overview. It is very important to note, that,
> although pitch was generally much lower from 1600 to 1825, pitch began to
> rise in the early 19th century. A=440 was already recommended as a pitch
> standard in Germany in 1834. It appears that very few musicians found the
> standard pitch desirable. By 1879 Steinway in New York used a tuning fork
> which measured A=457.2 and in London, Steinways were tuned to A=454.7!
> Tuners don't need to worry about tuning Steinways from the late 19th century
> at A=440.
>
> "In England I saw three tuning forks, enclosed in a special box, which were
> used by a Broadwood Piano Co. tuner around 1850. The forks were used for
> piano tuning in different settings. Broadwood's low pitch equalled A=433 and
> was close to the A=435 pitch recommended by a French commission in 1859.
> Broadwood's medium pitch was 445 and the highest fork was tuned to A=454.
> Generally singers preferred low pitch, the medium pitch was probably used
> for home tuning and high pitch was used in tuning pianos to the orchestra
> and in concert settings. In the midst of this chaos, it is little wonder
> that the establishment of a standard, international compromise pitch soon
> became desirable."
>
> || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
> jason kanter * piano tuning * piano teaching
> bellevue, wa * 425 562 4127 * cell 425 831 1561
> orcas island * 360 376 2799
> || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
>
> > From: Conrad Hoffsommer <hoffsoco@martin.luther.edu>
> > Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
> > Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:57:03 -0600
> > To: pianotech@ptg.org
> > Subject: Re: Steinway 457cps pitch
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > At 12:11 03/27/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >> "Bradley M. Snook" wrote:
> >>> Oh I am so sorry, I meant to say etymologically!
> >> Ok so lets plug that one in.... that gives us.
> >>
> >>> It is entomologically absurd, in that it is not reasonable to have a
> >>> completely irrelevant set of pitch levels;
> >>
> >> So... let me see if I understand this.... you are saying we are sort of like
> >> a
> >> bunch of bees that for some reason have this need to buzz a bowl at some
> >> applicatory speed to ...... presumably keep from bumping into each other
> >> ??...
> >
> > No, Herr Brekne, that describes Boolian motion, and the closest this could
> > be related musically is the pitch standard of an elementary school band.
> >
> >> Grin... and this better ???  What does linquistics or linguistic history
> >> have to do with the absurdity of one pitch over any other?
> >
> > Just as much as epistomology, or as this thread seems headed, epidemiology.
> > Or is it just weltanschuung(sp?)?
> >
> >> From humour to confusion... :)
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps 440Hz is the MSRP (musically suggested reasonable pitch) [YMMV]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Conrad Hoffsommer - mailto:hoffsoco@luther.edu
> >
> > College: The place where you have three options--to sleep, to study, or to
> > party - but only get to pick two per semester.
> >