A-435 - strings and winds

[Horace Greeley]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

Geoff,

Yes - been there, done that; and, did a huge amount of studio work in 
LA during the same period.  Again, listening carefully to what was 
recorded, it was the winds which drove the pitch up.

On top of that, think about the atmosphere in most studios, 
particularly as to temperature.  Under the lights, it can get very 
warm; and a couple of feet away, the HVAC could have the temperature 
down in the 60s (especially in TV land).  Think about the drop in 
pitch of a piano under similar circumstances and apply the same logic 
to strings.  If they do not start "sharp", they have no hope of 
keeping up with what is going on around them.  This doesn't mean that 
there were folks who were obnoxious about this kind of thing and took 
advantage, of course there were.  There were also a fair number of 
fiddle players who used steel A strings (as well as E) so that their 
sound would cut.  Not all the studios had Neumann, B&K and Schoeps 
mics yet that would replace the older condenser and carbon ribbon 
mics (which are finally making a real comeback).

Studio tuning was different then, too, for that matter.  The standard 
fee ranged between $20 and $25 for most places, $35 - $40 for 
upper-end or solo piano work.  The tuner's day often started around 6 
a.m..  One very well-known tuner in the period used to boast about 
doing 4 - 5 "tunings" before 8:30 a.m..  Most of the pianos were 
pretty nasty, too.  For every good one, there were five or six dogs.

It is important, too, to remember that, being realistic, this is now 
a couple of generations ago.  In general, what passed for a "tuning" 
under most circumstances wouldn't get through the day in a college 
practice room today, to say nothing of temperament.  What 
consistently mattered most was unisons that held through a session 
without needing a touch up.  Considering that one often had 30 
minutes or less to "tune" (and, oh, by the way, "touch up" the 
voicing and regulation...for no additional charge), the most that 
"normally" got done was fixing bad unisons.  Were there exceptions, 
of course.  Group IV, Capital/Decca, Fox, MGM (later Sony), and A&M 
to name just a few took pretty good care of their instruments and 
their tuners.  They were in the minority.  As for the rest, there is 
no need to make any of this up.  The evidence is there in thousands 
of movies and TV shows.

Actually, the evidence is there for all of this whole thread.  Just 
shut your eyes and listen carefully to the music tracks, filtering 
out the sound effects and dialogue when there is any.

Cheers.

Horace






At 09:27 PM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>Back in my youth when I was a recording engineer I frequently found 
>the studios having to accommodate for tunings to A441. It was ALWAYS 
>the string players that forced this. Woodwinds, brass, rhythm, they 
>pretty much didn't care as long as the piano was actually in tune. 
>It got to the point that when a producer was booking time at the 
>studio the studio manager would ask if this was a date that needed 
>to accommodate strings, and would automatically have the piano tuned 
>accordingly. (Our after-the-fact fix was to speed the tape machine 
>up by approximately that same amount. Seemed to work.) I think many 
>of us thought the string players were making this demand simply 
>because they could. I don't mean to dis string players, but as a 
>rule the more we accommodated their needs the more they found stuff 
>to complain about. These were the "A" studio session players in Los 
>Angeles in the 70's. (And I don't mean to include all of them. It 
>only took a few, ya know?) The tuner didn't seem to mind, and it 
>wasn't really a huge inconvenience. And I was too naive about the 
>subject to know, or care, about what may really have been going on. 
>All I saw was a bunch of string players that couldn't be satisfied, 
>but played extraordinarily well.
>
>-- Geoff Sykes
>-- Assoc. Los Angeles.
>
>Happy T-day everyone. Thanks to all for making this list available 
>and for sharing knowledge and experiences.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] 
>On Behalf Of Horace Greeley
>Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:52 PM
>To: Pianotech
>Subject: Re: A-435 - strings and winds
>
>
>Israel,
>
>Comments interspersed:
>
>At 08:22 PM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>>At 04:13 PM 11/23/2005, Stan Ryberg wrote:
>>>This is a most informative posting, wrapping up a number of 
>>>threads that have appeared periodically.  I would like to suggest 
>>>an alternative theory concerning the rise of orchestral pitch (a 
>>>fact, not a theory...it's been 442 in Chicago for years  at Orchestra Hall).
>>
>>Same at Symphony Hall in Boston.
>
>And, in nearly 45% of all major venues in the U.S..
>
>>>  After years of playing in a variety of orchestras, I've seen 
>>> wind players having to scramble to reach the pitch level of the 
>>> strings...the manufacturers are only responding to what the 
>>> players have reported that they need on the job.  Having played 
>>> on...uh..."outdated" equipment myself, I've found it necessary to 
>>> have the instruments cut to reach modern pitch 
>>> levels.  Violinists, in particular, strive for the brilliance 
>>> that a "slightly" raised pitch level affords...but in old violins 
>>> especially, that can eventually lead to the instrument going 
>>> "dead" as it accustoms itself to the higher 
>>> tension.  Solution?  Raise the ! pitch again!  (Until the 
>>> instrument implodes...)  These are very small increments, to be 
>>> sure, but they add up to as high as 444 in some orchestras...and 
>>> MOST wind players will have difficulty with their equipment at 
>>> that level!  Cause and effect, yes, but I'm not convinced the 
>>> cause began with the wind instruments.
>>
>>You are absolutely correct about pitch being constantly pushed up 
>>by the string players - and wind instrument manufacturers merely 
>>following the trend. I believe several major makers are now 
>>pitching their instruments at A=442 precisely for that reason. The 
>>only reason I mentioned wind instruments in my previous post was 
>>because that's what affected me personally in my professional 
>>life... We were doing fine at A=440 until the clarinettists 
>>squawked. The string players in the program haven't yet reached the 
>>prima-donna stage where they can throw their weight around, but if 
>>the clarinet can't tune down to the piano - well, that's a problem 
>>that I am expected to address...
>
>Sorry - I respectfully disagree.
>
>If one listens very carefully to just about any orchestral 
>recording, what one finds is that it is consistently the second 
>chair woodwinds, especially second clarinet and bassoon which are 
>the culprits.  They are followed, depending on the band and the 
>orchestration in use at the time by various brass, most notably 
>second and fourth horn, and first and second trombone.  One of my 
>personal favorites is the needle-brained oboist who plays one pitch 
>while staring fixedly at some electronic device or other and then 
>plays at a different pitch level once the music starts.
>
>Where this argument really fails on its premise is specifically with 
>the clarinet, by the way.  Clarinet manufacturers use the same bores 
>for A, Bb and C instruments.  By the time you get to the C, the 
>scale is so much shorter that (assuming that you are using Boehm, 
>not Wurlitzer, Mazzeo or Albert key systems and therefore tunings) 
>the instrument is hopeless out of tune with itself.  If used with a 
>piano, the piano really needs to be no higher than 440 (or, 442, 
>depending on what the instrument is built for), or playing "in tune" 
>(whatever that means to begin with) is simply impossible...and, for 
>that matter, the C instruments I have worked with really only sound 
>"in tune" if the piano is under 440.  Same for another anachronism, 
>the "C Melody" Saxophone.  On the other hand, if you are using 
>Wurlitzer, Mazzeo or Albert system clarinets, then all of this goes 
>out the window.
>
>The strings, while certainly not perfect, take it in the neck all 
>the time on this and they simply are not the ones causing the 
>problem.  The root of the problem is very clearly back in the wind 
>section...and, very consistently traceable to the folks playing in 
>first inversion...they are still listening for ET thirds, and that 
>forces everything above them up in pitch to compensate.
>
>All of this said, the biggest thing affecting orchestral pitch is 
>the set of ears in front of the band.  If the conductor cannot/will 
>not work with pitch problems, they are simply not going to get 
>solved no matter who is "right" or "wrong".  Pick your favorite 
>group and then listen to it under different batons.  While no longer 
>as clearly discernable as it once was, you will be able to 
>distinguish differences of tuning in direct relation to the 
>competency of the conductor.
>
>For a very long time, the tuners at a very well known concert hall 
>in the East were known to simply move the A from 440 to 442/whatever 
>and back as necessary, leaving the rest of the instrument 
>alone...I'm not suggesting something that inane and unscrupulous...I 
>am suggesting being reasonable; and fighting over stuff like this 
>with groups/halls/artists just isn't.
>
>It really is all a tempest in a teapot anyway.  Figure out where the 
>orchestra you tune for plays, and tune the piano 
>accordingly.  Either that, or don't, and then don't be surprised if 
>someone else winds up with your gig.
>
>Hope everyone has a truly wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday.  Take a 
>break - we've all earned it!
>
>Best.
>
>Horace

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/69/0e/af/33/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--