Transposing Piano
Monica Hughes
only compose in F# and used a "transposing piano." What is a
"transposing piano."?
Thanks.
George Ziskind
Berlin had this thing custom-built for him (as opposed to, say, walking into Steinway
Hall and asking "What color Transposing Pianos do you have today?")
It was an upright, and had a lever-like appendage on the underside of the keyboard
(say, near your right knee) which, when slid or manipulated a bit to the right, or
to the left, would move all of the hammer mechanisms correspondingly to the right, or
to the left, thereby striking different sets of strings than would normally be
struck. I have actually heard Berlin's daughter describe this thing, so it did exist.
And, in fact, still exists in some collection somewhere. But - it's sort of hard to
imagine working properly, right? Or should I say, "left"?
George Ziskind
Kurt Hare
Don't you have better things to do than send us viruses?
Gimped Panda
Kurt Hare wrote:
>
> Don't you have better things to do than send us viruses?
--
Troy <tnee...@home.com>
"Hey look! They're giving us a standing ovation....no, wait, they're
leaving."
"Try anything you like, but when I say I'll kill you,
There's nothing you can do but die."
-Himura Battosai
Charles Martin in Seattle
> I was just reading about Irving Berlin. The author says that he could
> only compose in F# and used a "transposing piano." What is a
> "transposing piano."?
>
> Thanks.
>Berlin had this thing custom-built for him (as opposed to, say,
>walking into Steinway Hall and asking "What color Transposing
>Pianos do you have today?")
In fact, according to Laurence Bergreen's "As Thousands Cheer: The Life of
Irving Berlin," transposing pianos were manufactured in quantity around the
turn of the century, and were commonly available. Remember, that was the
era of amateur music, where they would have come in handy.
I think Bergreen said that Berlin's piano was actually an old
mass-produced model, and not a custom-made one, but my copy of the book
is in storage right now, and I can't check it.
Bergreen's is a very good biography, by the way. I haven't read
Jablonski's or Furia's.
o-------= Charles Martin =--o
D Royko
response to my query that came to me via private e-mail from a "disgruntled
former rmb regular" who still reads the group from time to time.
In article <19990506115846...@ngol04.aol.com>, dro...@aol.com
(D Royko) wrote:
>When it comes to the recording of pianos from late-50s through early-'60s, the
>difference between what some classical labels were getting (especially the
>people who recorded for European labels such as Philips) and most jazz labels
>is striking. I've often wondered that level of piano recording was simply
>beyond the capabilities of certain engineers who specialized in jazz, or were
>these aesthetic decisions of the producers?
Both:
"Beyond the capability" of engineers who haven't recorded a lot of
different kinds of music in different settings, etc. Unfortunately -- and
will all due respect for the many fine jazz recordings he's done -- Van
Gelder falls in this category. Did 95% or his work in his own room, and
due to his oft-documented personality quirks, cut himself off from the
input of other top engineers. Same as in any other field, mixing it up
(ouch - no pun intended) and exchanging info with colleagues can be
stimulating.
"aesthetic decisions of the producers" - is another factor. Classical
piano sound is a different production/engineering "style" ... to many
jazzers who've mostly heard the music "up close" in small rooms, classical
piano recordings can sound odd - distant, and too roomy/boomy. And
there's a matter of congruence. You can't drop a classical piano sound
into the middle of a Blue Note style quintet recording, for example. If
the rest of the audio picture (and especially reverb & soundstage) were
unchanged, the "big piano sound" would sound very odd and artificial -
like an odd art-rock studio production trick from the 70s.
Then, there's a technical problem. Classical piano recordings are often
miked from a significantly greater distance than a jazz recording, and
take in a much higher degree of room sound/ambience. Getting this kind of
piano sound in a single room studio (no isolation booths) while even a
small group is playing is very difficult, if not impossible. And, even if
you put the piano in an isolation booth, you might need an awfully big one
... the size of a small recital hall ... to get certain kinds of
"classical" piano sounds.
>I mean, the clean and detailed, yet
>opulent, tonally rich and full sound of so many classical piano recordings of
>that era is a wholly different animal from virtually any jazz piano recordings
>that I know from that same period.
Exactly. Very few exceptions -- you might check out McCoy Tyner's
"Revelations" on Blue Note, a solo piano album rec'd in 1988 by David
Baker. Recorded in a concert hall (not a studio), getting a more
"classical" sound which is in general, a nice change of pace for this type
of music. Unfortunately, Baker (probably not having had much experience
with this kind of sound) inadvertently captured too much mechanical noise
from the piano, which is very distracting in spots.
Andre White
(D Royko) wrote:
>With permission of the person who sent it to me to post it here, here is a
>response to my query that came to me via private e-mail from a "disgruntled
>former rmb regular" who still reads the group from time to time.
>
>In article <19990506115846...@ngol04.aol.com>, dro...@aol.com
>(D Royko) wrote:
>>When it comes to the recording of pianos from late-50s through early-'60s, the
>>difference between what some classical labels were getting (especially the
>>people who recorded for European labels such as Philips) and most jazz labels
>>is striking. I've often wondered that level of piano recording was simply
>>beyond the capabilities of certain engineers who specialized in jazz, or were
>>these aesthetic decisions of the producers?
I've been reading this thread with much interest and more
recently, disappointment. While everyone is entitled to their own tastes
when it comes to listening to examples of recorded jazz, it seems like a
lot of the participants have failed to realize the ground-breaking
innovation of Van Gelder.
I usually don't post much in this news group, but I have been
an avid reader for several years. I'm making these comments because I feel
qualified to do so. I'm a 39 year old Canadian jazz musician who has had
the pleasure of earning a recording degree at McGill University, and I
also free-lance as a recording engineer and producer.
Rudy Van Gelder certainly has a unique piano sound; some
people don't like it, and others love it. Having had the rare opportunity
of visiting the studio in Englewood Cliffs, I can attest to the fact that
the piano sound he gets very closely resembles the piano in that room. The
reverb that was referred to by some posters does also exist in that room
naturally, but it's also true that Rudy was experimenting with different
kinds of reverb from the early fifties. Listen to the drums on any
monaural recording made before 1955, and then listen to Rudy's "living
room" recordings of Miles Davis' Cookin', Steamin' and Relaxin' sessions.
That one change in detail alone should assure Mr. Van Gelder's reputation.
I'm sure some of the posters realize also that jazz is
spontaneous music. It's not unusual therefore that the occasional peak or
distortion can be heard on some of these sessions. The only
compression/limiting that Mr. Van Gelder had available to him in the early
days would be from tube preamps and "tape compression" or saturation. To
say that Mr. Van Gelder mastered the art of tape compression(which,
incidentally is much in evidence on the Frank Sinatra Capitol recordings,
or those of Nat King Cole, George Shearing, or Nancy Wilson) is an
understatement. Any recording engineer who has had to record jazz and the
occasional powerhouse trumpet player can attest to the difficulty in
obtaining a convincing sound without some electronic "help."
The classical piano vs. jazz piano comparison is ridiculous.
Alfred Lion and Rudy were making recordings that emphasized the essential
elements of jazz; its grooviness, the rhythmic and harmonic
sophistication. Hearing a Blue Note record is not supposed to be like
being at a concert; it's supposed to make you feel like you're standing
next to Lee Morgan, like his message is delivered to you. Rudy's
recordings are about a certain kind of intimacy, and his art was in all
the experimentation he underwent to help deliver the message. The horns
separated so that you could tell who was doing what. Art Blakey's hi hat
snapping away so there was no mistaking where the beat was.
I've had opportunities to record many different types of
music, and recording jazz "properly" seems almost impossible sometimes.
Different musicians like different things, just like different RMBer's
like different things. At some point you have to decide what you think
will be the best compromise. Any engineer that has recorded jazz
consistently has to recognize the enormous contribution Rudy has made. He
might very well be eccentric, but he was recording Miles Davis and
Thelonious Monk and Charles Mingus and Sonny Rollins and Jackie McLean.
You don't think those musicians had(have) their eccentricities?
I have noticed that the great jazz recording engineers all
are distinguished by their ability to get a unique drum sound. Rudy,
Jan-Erik Koenshaug (the ECM guy), and James Farber, who in my humble
opinion is the contemporary equivalent of Mr. Van Gelder, all have made
some incredible recordings. Same with the gentleman who recorded "Kind of
Blue" on Columbia. None of my copies of this CD or record credit the
engineer, so if anyone can enlighten me on his name I'd be grateful.
I haven't heard the RVG series, and I don't know whether I
would like it better than vinyl or the 80's CDs. To me it's incredible
that someone could have recorded all that great music so consistently at a
high level. Most of those sessions were four to six hours. I can't think
of anyone who recorded trumpet better at that time, or the electric
guitar, or drums, or the tenor saxophone. There may have been better
trumpet recordings made in the 70's and 80's, but think about all the
great jazz trumpet players; Kenny Dorham, Miles Davis, Art Farmer, Donald
Byrd, Lee Morgan, and countless others. They were all presented to us by
Rudy in a manner that makes them very recognizable.
Anyway, I could go on and on, and if I don't stop now, I
will. I recognize and respect anybody else's likes or dislikes when it
comes to recorded sound. I know musicians who swear by the "ECM" sound and
hate the "Blue Note" sound. That's fine, but it doesn't take away the
incredible artistry of both the men who created that sound. We are so
lucky to have the fantastic playback facilities that we have these days;
Rudy was working sometimes with homemade equipment because there was very
little available. For all the innovation and advances in sound
reproduction, I still have yet to hear any quintet recording that is as
powerful or intimate as Rudy's Blue Notes or Impulses.
And just to set the record straight; Rudy did not record
for Riverside or Atlantic or Columbia.
He did record for Prestige/New Jazz, Savoy(in the fifties),
Blue Note, Impulse, CTI(in the 70's), A+M(in the late 60's) and Verve(late
50's and throughout the 60's). I'm sure there were others, but that's all
I can remember right now.
And, in case anybody is interested, one of my favorite
recordings by Van Gelder has to be Kenny Burrell's "Midnight Blue." All
the soul and groove is captured perfectly on that record. For those that
don't like the piano sound, they should run out and buy this as their own
personal tribute to Rudy; it's pianoless.
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Dim Izhak
<snip-snip-snip>
> I have noticed that the great jazz recording engineers all
> are distinguished by their ability to get a unique drum sound. Rudy,
> Jan-Erik Koenshaug (the ECM guy), and James Farber, who in my humble
> opinion is the contemporary equivalent of Mr. Van Gelder, all have made
> some incredible recordings. Same with the gentleman who recorded "Kind of
> Blue" on Columbia. None of my copies of this CD or record credit the
> engineer, so if anyone can enlighten me on his name I'd be grateful.
The reissue of KOB that I have (Columbia/Legacy CK64935) says:
Recording engineer Fred Plaut.
--
Later,
--Dim.
Charles Martin in Seattle
> The classical piano vs. jazz piano comparison is ridiculous.
>Alfred Lion and Rudy were making recordings that emphasized the essential
>elements of jazz; its grooviness, the rhythmic and harmonic
>sophistication. Hearing a Blue Note record is not supposed to be like
>being at a concert; it's supposed to make you feel like you're standing
>next to Lee Morgan, like his message is delivered to you. Rudy's
>recordings are about a certain kind of intimacy, and his art was in all
>the experimentation he underwent to help deliver the message. The horns
>separated so that you could tell who was doing what. Art Blakey's hi hat
>snapping away so there was no mistaking where the beat was.
This is starting to be interesting. Could anyone suggest the classical
recording of the period whose sound, in his/her opinion, would have been an
improvement over RVG's?
The problem for many of us is that we grew up with the RVG sound --
to us, that sound WAS early Miles, early Coltrane, Monk. It's inseparable
from our memories of that music.
I wonder what would have changed, if anything, had Miles and Trane been
recorded in the Mercury Living Presence series.
o-------= Charles Martin =--o
Victor Eijkhout
> And, even if
> you put the piano in an isolation booth, you might need an awfully big one
> ... the size of a small recital hall ... to get certain kinds of
> "classical" piano sounds.
The result can be interesting though. There is a cd of Jasper van 't
Hoff ploying in the small hall of the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. He
plays his jazz improvisations, but the recording is purely classical:
two mikes several metres away from the Steinway D. The result is some
amount of cognitive dissonance as the room imparts a distinctly romantic
concert atmosphere on his performances.
--
Victor Eijkhout
http://www.eijkhout.net/
Raul Bernardo
recorded all those fabulous Contemporary records. I think is soun is in the
same level as RVG.
Raul
Charles Martin in Seattle wrote in message
<373ad6f1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> The classical piano vs. jazz piano comparison is ridiculous.
>>Alfred Lion and Rudy were making recordings that emphasized the essential
>>elements of jazz; its grooviness, the rhythmic and harmonic
>>sophistication. Hearing a Blue Note record is not supposed to be like
>>being at a concert; it's supposed to make you feel like you're standing
>>next to Lee Morgan, like his message is delivered to you. Rudy's
>>recordings are about a certain kind of intimacy, and his art was in all
>>the experimentation he underwent to help deliver the message. The horns
>>separated so that you could tell who was doing what. Art Blakey's hi hat
>>snapping away so there was no mistaking where the beat was.
>