Conductors with perfect Pitch
ansermetniac
Cantelli
Reiner
Previn
Any others?
Abbedd
Jenn
ansermetniac <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Many. There are three in my little town. Others that I know of: MTT,
Fennell, Apo Hsu, Salonen, Nagano.
George Orwell
When did they let you out of the looney bin, miserable cunthole?
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Thornhill
Szell, Boulez, Solti...
There are many.
Romy the Cat
perfect pitch. Moro or less they all have it. What is interesting is
to think about conductors who DO NOT have perfect pitch. Also,
conductors’ perfect pitch is fine but the perfect pitch that they have
is relevant perfect pitch. I wonder if any of them had non-relevant or
abstract perfect pitch. I do not think they do and I am not sure it
ever exists and it does then I think it is very seldom
M forever
As always, you are not making any sense! What are you babbling about
now?
ansermetniac
wrote:
I have the same question
Abbedd
Romy the Cat
Educate yourself about deference between absolute perfect pitch and
relevant perfect pitch and then you will have rights to understand or
do not understand what I was talking about.
ansermetniac
You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Abbedd
O
<f03a044d-e3f2-4c18...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Romy the Cat <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
-Owen
Romy the Cat
> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
Not really. To call out a note is very simple and any very basically
trained or naturally tuned musician shall be doing it. Still, in most
cases they used relieve perfect pitch as the notes are evaluated in
reference to other harmonic structures. I have no problem to pick up
anything off-tune. In regards to absolute perfect pitch I am
absolutely deaf. The absolute perfect pitch is a huge rarity, some
argue that it does not exist, and those people who claim to have it
are able to discriminate pitch with no reference of anything. If you
give to most of the people C at 523.3Hz and then A at 440Hz then they
would identify it as A. But how about if you would like to retune your
orchestra to A at 465Hz or to 430Hz. From the sound of orchestra you
can get (most of the time) that orchestra tunes upper or lower but
will you able to get the same conclusion if juts one note A presented
at let say 465Hz, and the most important: will you be able to do it
with no reference to any other harmonics? I am not able to do it and I
do not know anybody who does. The history has many examples when very
famous conductors and musicians who have perfect pitch did slides in
their judgments just because the references were set wrongly for them.
There are some people who claim that they can do it. This is a complex
subject anyhow…
This is not an audio issue and I hope that local people will not
express thier typically-idiotic views. I would be interested to hear
if anybody knows any documented stories when conductors were define
the absolute perfect pitch. I have a theory that if they do it then
they do it still in reference to harmonics of acoustic hall as no one
was able to do it anechoicly. However, I do not what to dive into my
thiory in here as it near-audio subject and I do not want to fuck up
the thread with the local ever-presant idiotst to re-declare own
existence.
ansermetniac
<Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>Not really. To call out a note is very simple and any very basically
>trained or naturally tuned musician shall be doing it.
You must be kidding. Are you that clueless????
Abbedd
O
<df79a90e-4ab4-40c0...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Romy the Cat <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:07 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> > think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
>
> Not really. To call out a note is very simple and any very basically
> trained or naturally tuned musician shall be doing it. Still, in most
> cases they used relieve perfect pitch as the notes are evaluated in
> reference to other harmonic structures. I have no problem to pick up
> anything off-tune. In regards to absolute perfect pitch I am
> absolutely deaf. The absolute perfect pitch is a huge rarity, some
> argue that it does not exist, and those people who claim to have it
> are able to discriminate pitch with no reference of anything. If you
> give to most of the people C at 523.3Hz and then A at 440Hz then they
> would identify it as A. But how about if you would like to retune your
> orchestra to A at 465Hz or to 430Hz. From the sound of orchestra you
> can get (most of the time) that orchestra tunes upper or lower but
> will you able to get the same conclusion if juts one note A presented
> at let say 465Hz, and the most important: will you be able to do it
> with no reference to any other harmonics? I am not able to do it and I
> do not know anybody who does. The history has many examples when very
> famous conductors and musicians who have perfect pitch did slides in
> their judgments just because the references were set wrongly for them.
> There are some people who claim that they can do it. This is a complex
> subject anyhow…
>
So what you are saying is that you regard perfect pitch as being able
to detect when a specific note has gone too far away from what its
ideal (or intended) pitch would be?
-Owen
rje
> In article
> <df79a90e-4ab4-40c0-92e7-4d1733849...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I think Romy's talking about relative pitch, the ability to recognize
any interval relative to a reference pitch. This is a far more common
ability among musicians than perfect (absolute) pitch.
Ray
Romy the Cat
> to detect when a specific note has gone too far away from what its
> ideal (or intended) pitch would be?
Yes, but you need to add in your definition the condition “without
reference”. Without reference is the key. You see it is like looking
in the window of train and to see the other train is moving slowly. If
you see other objects then you can judge who moves but if you do not
then it is bit tricky. The problem is that there is ideal vs. intended
pitches is not so straight. There is no ideal pitch and that fact the
A is at 440Hz is just a convention, a convection in this country and
nowadays. Some years back A was at very different frequency and the
orchestra in Europe and Asia are tunes upper or lower. In fact any
orchestra or any instrumentalist might nowadays to tune itself to any
reference of A and many conductors retune the orchestras depending of
what type music then plays or what the leading instrument can play.
Here is the situation – a piano is tuned to have A at 453Hz, perfectly
tunes but a bit higher – this is a very legitimate tune. A conductor
can get it by seeing how the piano tune relates to other sections of
his orchestra. The question is if they can do it with reading the tune
of other instruments. For instance the piano tuners who worked with
the greatest conductors in the past who did have perfect pitch
reported that the conductors were not able to.
To understand the non-referenced (absolute) perfect pitch thinks about
pitch like we think about tempo. There is no absolute tempo and it is
given only in reference to something, but if there is no reference
than there is no absolute tempo. Any conductor knows that tempo is not
only artistic expression but also a subject of many of other
circumstances. For instance the same absolute tempo played in concert
hall with longer reverberation time will produce very different
perceived tempo, so conductors constantly do assessment of decay time
and adjust tempo accordingly.
Romy the Cat
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Romy the Cat
>
> >Not really. To call out a note is very simple and any very basically
> >trained or naturally tuned musician shall be doing it.
>
> You must be kidding. Are you that clueless????
Nope, I am not clueless, the ball is in your court. If you feel that
to call out a note is such a complicated procedure then I would warn
you that when your “unique” friends demonstrate those “unique skills”
then they do it by calling out the referenced notes, or the notes
that came from musical instilments or testing devises that were tune
to a specific reference. Will you friends be able to identify that the
reference is off, that A is not 440Hz but 10 Hz up? I do not think so.
It is like going across see in sailboat without any instruments, you
can’t say your speed if you have no stationary object in reference to
which your speed can be assessed. The posting at internet is very much
the same. The people who have challenged integrity of own experiences
always feel that data out there is ether too much for them or too
little…
ansermetniac
To be able to recognize a pitch with no reference, you must be born
with Pitch Memory (Perfect Pitch)
Abbedd
Romy the Cat
>
> - Show quoted text -
And his is the whole key: a Pitch Memory with no referral to a
reference pitch practically does not exist.
ansermetniac
Except for those born with Perfect Pitch
Abbedd
Romy the Cat
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:07:19 -0700 (PDT), Romy the Cat
>
>
>
>
>
Abbedd, I do not have time to explain it, I have to go. The “Perfect
Pitch” is a “consumer” phrase that implies an ability to utilize
relative pitch with very high degree of discrimination and precision.
The absolute pitch with no points of reference does not exist by
nature. Consult with any good professional instrument tuner they will
explain it to you. I admit that some people do feel that absolute
pitch with no points of reference exists and there ARE/WERE some
people who were able to demonstrate it. There WERE also many instances
where the people with PROVEN absolute pitch were left in lost and
disoriented pitch-wise where tonal reference were reset by different
means.
Heck51
> <f03a044d-e3f2-4c18-8de8-9d511c588...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.>>
exactly yes - I've known quite a few musicians who had perfect pitch.
if you went to a piano keyboard and thumped out any tone cluster your
fingers happened to hit, they'd name every pitch sounded.
ansermetniac
<Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>On Aug 18, 8:26 am, ansermetniac <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:07:19 -0700 (PDT), Romy the Cat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Abbedd, I do not have time to explain it, I go to go. The “Perfect
>Pitch” is a “consumer” phrase that implies an ability to utilize
>relative pitch with very high degree of discrimination and precision.
>The absolute pitch with no points of reference does not exist by
>nature. Consult with any good professional instrument tuner they will
>explain it to you. I admit that some people do feel that absolute
>pitch with no points of reference exists and there ARE/WERE some
>people who were able to demonstrate it. There WERE also many instances
>where the people with PROVEN absolute pitch were left in lost and
>disoriented pitch-wise where tonal reference were reset by different
>means.
You are totally wrong
Abbedd
Mark Stratford
like you can go a long way without it !!
Heck51
wrote:
> Conductors without Perfect Pitch include Abbado and Bernstein. Seems
> like you can go a long way without it !!>>
for sure - when Bernstein was working on Tin Pan Alley, scratching out
a living - he would copy popular tunes for "fake books". the story has
it that on one listening, he would have the melody, bass-line and all
of the chord changes.
I knew a few people who could do that, esp amongst the Theory
"geeks"....
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:180820100007098200%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
I once heard Laszlo Varga, rehearsing a student orchestra, call out that
there was a single wrong note from one of the winds -- in a very dense
orchestral passage.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
M forever
Yes, perfect pitch does not really exist. It is just a "consumer
phrase" - it is a conspiracy. The same people are behind it who are
also behind the high end speaker industry. The same people who you
fight so courageously and tirelessly.
Seriously now, how do you manage to be so consistent in your idiocy?
No matter what subject you touch, you come up with amazing BS.
Impressive!
Jenn
Terry <bo...@clown.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:02:14 +1000, rje wrote
> (in article
> <7fd44ee3-6aac-4622...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
> >>> subject anyhow?
> >>
> >> So what you are saying is that you regard perfect pitch as being able
> >> to detect when a specific note has gone too far away from what its
> >> ideal (or intended) pitch would be?
> >>
> >> -Owen
> >
> > I think Romy's talking about relative pitch, the ability to recognize
> > any interval relative to a reference pitch. This is a far more common
> > ability among musicians than perfect (absolute) pitch.
> >
> > Ray
>
> More useful, too. Many of the early music practitioners regularly play at a
> pitch different from the fairly-common A = 415Hz. A can be at 392, 409, 415
> and 466 Hz on different occasions and in different repertoire. It's hard to
> imagine that "absolute pitch" would be any kind of an asset.
>
> There is an anecdote associated with Andre Previn to the effect that when he
> took over the reins of one of his orchestras (the London Symphony Orchestra,
> perhaps?) the musicians, prior to the first rehearsal, agreed to play a joke
> on him. Instead of sounding an A, the oboist played a semitone off that pich
> and the rest of the orchestra followed suit. Previn detected it immediately,
> and made the orchestra play the entire movement at the correct pitch, which
> meant they had to transpose the semitone "on the fly". They were really
> sweating by the finish. Maybe someone can recall the details of the story
> more accurately than I've been able to do. If so, I'd welcome the true
> version.
Any conductor standing in front of any ensemble that Previn would
conduct (LSO, LAPO, et al) who wouldn't instantly recognize that the
given tuning pitch is Ab or A#, shouldn't be in that position.
Gerard
>
> There is an anecdote associated with Andre Previn to the effect that
> when he took over the reins of one of his orchestras (the London
> Symphony Orchestra, perhaps?) the musicians, prior to the first
> rehearsal, agreed to play a joke on him. Instead of sounding an A,
> the oboist played a semitone off that pich and the rest of the
> orchestra followed suit. Previn detected it immediately, and made the
> orchestra play the entire movement at the correct pitch, which meant
> they had to transpose the semitone "on the fly". They were really
> sweating by the finish. Maybe someone can recall the details of the
> story more accurately than I've been able to do. If so, I'd welcome
> the true version.
Is it this version:
ansermetniac
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>to be typed in news:180820100007098200%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
>
>> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
>> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
>
>I once heard Laszlo Varga, rehearsing a student orchestra, call out that
>there was a single wrong note from one of the winds -- in a very dense
>orchestral passage.
If he couldn't do that, he should not be on the podium
BTW his section is superb on Cantellis's NY Phil 1955 PIT V4
Abbedd
ansermetniac
wrote:
>Seriously now, how do you manage to be so consistent in your idiocy?
>No matter what subject you touch, you come up with amazing BS.
>Impressive!
Is he your twin-separated at birth
Abbedd
Romy the Cat
> More useful, too. Many of the early music practitioners regularly play at a
> pitch different from the fairly-common A = 415Hz. A can be at 392, 409, 415
> and 466 Hz on different occasions and in different repertoire. It's hard to
> imagine that "absolute pitch" would be any kind of an asset.
>
> took over the reins of one of his orchestras (the London Symphony Orchestra,
> perhaps?) the musicians, prior to the first rehearsal, agreed to play a joke
> on him. Instead of sounding an A, the oboist played a semitone off that pich
> and the rest of the orchestra followed suit. Previn detected it immediately,
> and made the orchestra play the entire movement at the correct pitch, which
> meant they had to transpose the semitone "on the fly". They were really
> sweating by the finish. Maybe someone can recall the details of the story
> more accurately than I've been able to do. If so, I'd welcome the true
> version.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Terry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Terry, yes, I have mentioned it that in context of orchestral sound
the value of the absolute pitch might be recognized relatively simple
by trained people. An individual presented note, like strike on piano
key, or blow of a cooper , or hit a string is much more complicated
to reference to a specific frequency. I head a few stories about
conductors who had as perfect pitch as it is imaginable (Ormandy for
instance) and they did flank the experiments. The difference between
415Hz and the “standard” 440Hz is possible to detect without
reference, the difference between 440Hz and 447Hz with no objective
reference is practically imposable.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:0001HW.C8922DA4...@news.tpg.com.au:
> There is an anecdote associated with Andre Previn to the effect that when
> he took over the reins of one of his orchestras (the London Symphony
> Orchestra, perhaps?) the musicians, prior to the first rehearsal, agreed to
> play a joke on him. Instead of sounding an A, the oboist played a semitone
> off that pich and the rest of the orchestra followed suit. Previn detected
> it immediately, and made the orchestra play the entire movement at the
> correct pitch, which meant they had to transpose the semitone "on the fly".
> They were really sweating by the finish. Maybe someone can recall the
> details of the story more accurately than I've been able to do. If so, I'd
> welcome the true version.
I've heard that story from multiple sources.
bassppn
I did that easily as a kid, but now in my older age it is not as
easy...... I did have a lot of trouble playing a piano that was over
a 1/2 tone flat and could not play a simple melody by ear becuase the
notes sounded different from what I had expected.
AB
Dontait...@aol.com
> Toscanini
> Cantelli
> Reiner
> Previn
>
> Any others?
>
> Abbedd
Arthur Fiedler.
Don Tait
Romy the Cat
>
> - Show quoted text –
I would say that it is impressive. I think I can be sold to Google as
pH indicator for internet idiocy. Any subject I touch built around my
postings an aura of very idiosyncratic retards with a very peculiar
but highly predictable reaction. There is something magnificent in me
if I arouse in people like you so much identical behavioral patterns.
I think I might act as a weapon in right hands…. BTW, to the rest
folks – pay attention – like in ALL other cases these people have no
personal opinion, no investment into subject and no background to base
own views upon. What they do have is a hate of anything that does not
sound like thier pre-chewed white trash equilibrium and that does not
conform with the common denomination of thier comfortably-numb
awareness.
David Oberman
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
>> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
>
>I once heard Laszlo Varga, rehearsing a student orchestra, call out that
>there was a single wrong note from one of the winds -- in a very dense
>orchestral passage.
I question the veracity of Anton Schindler's comment: "This is what
Beethoven meant when he said that he could recognize a key even if it
were pitched as much as a whole-tone higher or lower than usual. He
could still hear a C as a C, even if it were higher than a D-flat in
frequency."
Now, I believe that keys do have a musical character, particularly to
a musical mind of that order, whether or not a piece is in equal
temperament. The key of G today (A=440Hz) would I suppose have sounded
like G sharp in Beethoven's day (give or take). But how do we account
for Schindler's claim that Beethoven could "recognize" a "C" even if
it were played a whole tone higher or lower (whatever the Hz tuning in
practice at the time)?
Beethoven was said to regard B minor as a "black" key. Scriabin
explored this area of -- color? -- in great depth. If this awareness
of color has any merit at all in terms of objectivity of impression,
wouldn't all these composers have to have had perfect pitch?
Romy the Cat
> I question the veracity of Anton Schindler's comment: "This is what
> Beethoven meant when he said that he could recognize a key even if it
> were pitched as much as a whole-tone higher or lower than usual. He
> could still hear a C as a C, even if it were higher than a D-flat in
> frequency."
An interesting comment. I would agree with Schindler. I do not know
what Beethoven meant but what Schindler descries has own very
elegant explanation.
Jenn
<75e1fed0-ac05-406e...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
bassppn <abac...@att.net> wrote:
The most amazing display of "ears" that I've ever experienced was at a
rehearsal at UCLA by Boulez, hearing not only wrong notes but small
intonation problems by a single player in hugely dense and complex tone
clusters.
Christopher Howell
> of color has any merit at all in terms of objectivity of impression,
> wouldn't all these composers have to have had perfect pitch?
Benjamin Britten once stated (in an interview in Gramophone IIRC) that
he used to have perfect pitch but it seemed to have dropped so that
the Mastersingers Overture, for example, now sounded to him to be
played in C sharp.
There are several questions one would have liked to ask, revolving
around whether he continued to write his own music as he heard it in
his head (so we hear it a semitone higher), or whether he adjusted by
writing it all a semitone below how it sounded in his head (he didn't
write at the piano AFAIK)
Chris Howell
JohnGavin
The most convincing theory I've heard on absolute pitch sense is that
all infants possess it, but most become desensitized to it in one way
or another. I recall reading studies that showed that there are
higher incidences of perfect pitchers in China, where the language
depends on pitch fluctuations.
JohnGavin
>
> > of color has any merit at all in terms of objectivity of impression,
> > wouldn't all these composers have to have had perfect pitch?
>
> Benjamin Britten once stated (in an interview in Gramophone IIRC) that
> he used to have perfect pitch but it seemed to have dropped so that
> the Mastersingers Overture, for example, now sounded to him to be
> played in C sharp.
Others reported the same exact thing, S. Richter and DeLarrocha. It
seems to be a by-product of aging.
That is the reason why Richter started playing from scores more and
more.
M forever
Yes, you are magnificent - a magnificent moron! And yes, in ALL cases
when people think what you say is nonsense, what protest against is
really your towering genius, your courageous questioning of
conventional wisdom, your tireless quest to bring the light of
knowledge to people who live in the shadows of ignorance.
You are a figure of mythical, epic dimensions.
M forever
>
> >> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> >> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
>
> >I once heard Laszlo Varga, rehearsing a student orchestra, call out that
> >there was a single wrong note from one of the winds -- in a very dense
> >orchestral passage.
>
> I question the veracity of Anton Schindler's comment: "This is what
> Beethoven meant when he said that he could recognize a key even if it
> were pitched as much as a whole-tone higher or lower than usual. He
> could still hear a C as a C, even if it were higher than a D-flat in
> frequency."
>
> Now, I believe that keys do have a musical character, particularly to
> a musical mind of that order, whether or not a piece is in equal
> temperament. The key of G today (A=440Hz) would I suppose have sounded
> like G sharp in Beethoven's day (give or take). But how do we account
> for Schindler's claim that Beethoven could "recognize" a "C" even if
> it were played a whole tone higher or lower (whatever the Hz tuning in
> practice at the time)?
That story doesn't make sense at all. Schindler made up a lot of
stuff, but this sounds very "far out there". Are you sure the story is
correctly quoted?
> Beethoven was said to regard B minor as a "black" key.
Nononono! B minor is not "black". It's dark brown (with a slight
golden-orange tint). Don't listen to what deaf people say about music!
M forever
So you don't know what Beethoven meant but you think Schindler
described it very elegantly? Are you a complete idiot? Or are you on
drugs?
Doug McDonald
performance of a whole solo piece, by the subtle tonal differences
in notes. That is, different notes have different ratios
of the frequencies and intensities, compared to the fundamental.
Even adjacent notes on the scale can differ enough to tell,
in some cases.
This of course applies more to some instruments that others.
I suppose you could get get a pipe organ where you could not tell
without perfect pitch.
Doug McDonald
ansermetniac
The above is total crap. Par for McDonald's course
Abbedd
M forever
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
> With some instruments it is possible to tell keys, at least in
> performance of a whole solo piece, by the subtle tonal differences
> in notes. That is, different notes have different ratios
> of the frequencies and intensities, compared to the fundamental.
> Even adjacent notes on the scale can differ enough to tell,
> in some cases.
I guess a very sensitive ear can detect subtle differences in timbre
even between adjacent notes even on a very well manufactured and
tonally balanced piano - but how would that amount to various *keys*
having a noticeably different sound? That would mean that all the
notes particular to a given key - or at least its basic triad - would
vary in timbre in the same way from other notes. And many keys
actually share several of the same notes. And also in various octaves.
That is highly unlikely.
Peter Greenstein
"M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:197de688-ec03-4ea8-ad2d-7
>I guess a very sensitive ear can detect subtle differences in timbre
>even between adjacent notes even on a very well manufactured and
>tonally balanced piano - but how would that amount to various *keys*
>having a noticeably different sound? That would mean that all the
>notes particular to a given key - or at least its basic triad - would
>vary in timbre in the same way from other notes. And many keys
>actually share several of the same notes. And also in various octaves.
>That is highly unlikely.
I kind of get what you're saying. But I do feel that with my saxophone,
every note has its own "sound" or character. So the tonic, the fifth, the
leading tone for each key are in a differnt part of the horn and I tend to
feel every key has its own, unique sound. Or maybe it's just my funky
playing!
peter
Doug McDonald
> On Aug 19, 11:36 am, Doug McDonald
> <mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
>> With some instruments it is possible to tell keys, at least in
>> performance of a whole solo piece, by the subtle tonal differences
>> in notes. That is, different notes have different ratios
>> of the frequencies and intensities, compared to the fundamental.
>> Even adjacent notes on the scale can differ enough to tell,
>> in some cases.
>
> I guess a very sensitive ear can detect subtle differences in timbre
> even between adjacent notes even on a very well manufactured and
> tonally balanced piano - but how would that amount to various *keys*
> having a noticeably different sound?
A piano is not the ideal case. Attempts are made ... just as you say ...
to have an even tonal scale.
Now consider a bassoon.
That would mean that all the
> notes particular to a given key - or at least its basic triad - would
> vary in timbre in the same way from other notes.
No, not at all. It's the pattern of differences, spread over octaves,
that gives the clues.
An analogy is how the ears and brain use similar subtle clues
based on phase and frequency differences caused by eternal ear size
and position to locate sounds in space.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
And perhaps even the mouthpiece brand could be detected?
Could could tell, for example, whether the maker was or was not
in jail? Whether the milling machine programmer was or was
not prone to dips at 900 Hz?
Doug McDonald
rkhalona
> I think it is irrational to think about conductors who had/have
> perfect pitch. Moro or less they all have it. What is interesting is
> to think about conductors who DO NOT have perfect pitch. Also,
> conductors’ perfect pitch is fine but the perfect pitch that they have
> is relevant perfect pitch. I wonder if any of them had non-relevant or
> abstract perfect pitch. I do not think they do and I am not sure it
> ever exists and it does then I think it is very seldom
Did you mean *relative* perfect pitch?
RK
Peter Greenstein
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4jmlm$26h$2...@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
> On 8/19/2010 11:29 AM, Peter Greenstein wrote:
>>
>> "M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:197de688-ec03-4ea8-ad2d-7
>>> I guess a very sensitive ear can detect subtle differences in timbre
>>> even between adjacent notes even on a very well manufactured and
>>> tonally balanced piano - but how would that amount to various *keys*
>
>> every note has its own
>> "sound" or character. So the tonic, the fifth, the leading tone for each
>> key are in a differnt part
>> of the horn and I tend to feel every key has its own, unique sound. Or
>> maybe it's just my funky
>> playing!
>>
>>
> Exactly! The saxophone is an ideal case for what I am saying.
>
> And perhaps even the mouthpiece brand could be detected?
> Could could tell, for example, whether the maker was or was not
> in jail? Whether the milling machine programmer was or was
> not prone to dips at 900 Hz?
>
> Doug McDonald
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far!
To be honest, I'd like to try one of those high end mouthpieces. But I
couldn't invest in one since I have the bad habit of wearing down the top of
a mouthpiece with my two front teeth. Mine looks like Bucky Beaver's been
working on it!
peter
ansermetniac
I designed the mouthpieces you jealous asshole
Abbedd
Gerard
>
>
> I designed the mouthpieces you jealous asshole
>
I've never seen the mouthpieces you jealous asshole in any store.
Where can they be obtained?
Bob Lombard
"Gerard" <ghendrik_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2a69$4c6d6f58$5ed13b3d$13...@cache4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
name (except in specialty shops).
bl
J.Martin
>
> Exactly! The saxophone is an ideal case for what I am saying.
>
I was thinking the same thing. I don't have perfect pitch, but as an
amateur saxist, I can usually call out notes being played on the
instrument, I suppose because of the different tonal qualities. It's
even more obvious what note's being played when the saxophonist
employs a non-standard fingering, which tends to give a pronounced
tonal difference. I would guess this is true of many instruments.
> And perhaps even the mouthpiece brand could be detected?
> Could could tell, for example, whether the maker was or was not
> in jail? Whether the milling machine programmer was or was
> not prone to dips at 900 Hz?
>
Nope. But then I have trouble separating the music and the audio, too.
J.Martin
> a mouthpiece with my two front teeth. Mine looks like Bucky Beaver's been
> working on it!
>
Me, too. I wish I could figure out a way to break that habit. Any
suggestions?
ansermetniac
How about e,learning to play witht he proper embouchure
Abbedd
Bob Lombard
"J.Martin" <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0b6a6e5-b5be-48cc...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Some (not many) clarinetists bring the upper lip between the incisors and
the mouthpiece. I think this changes some of the timbres, maybe because the
teeth/hard palate no longer vibrate. If you are a strong mouthpiece chewer,
you probably have to develop a callus.
:)
bl
Peter Greenstein
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m80r661v9mak3ld7p...@4ax.com...
Yes, I know you're right, though I think even with proper embrocher the
teeth may eventually leave SOME marks.
Anyway, its just a matter of pure laziness that I haven't gotten together
with a good teacher to work on this. I do use those little mouthpiece rubber
pads but I chew through them, too!
peter
Gerard
Could be.
However I always buy my mouthpieces here around the corner, together with the
beer:
http://www.cvmirandas.nl/assets/images/Piranja_met_een_rietje_3.PNG
ansermetniac
It's called double lip. A shit embochure
Abebdd
ansermetniac
Use a a plastic patch -made by Runyon
Abbedd
Dontait...@aol.com
> Terry <b...@clown.invalid> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed innews:0001HW.C8922DA4...@news.tpg.com.au:
>
> > There is an anecdote associated with Andre Previn to the effect that when
> > he took over the reins of one of his orchestras (the London Symphony
> > Orchestra, perhaps?) the musicians, prior to the first rehearsal, agreed to
> > play a joke on him. Instead of sounding an A, the oboist played a semitone
> > off that pich and the rest of the orchestra followed suit. Previn detected
> > it immediately, and made the orchestra play the entire movement at the
> > correct pitch, which meant they had to transpose the semitone "on the fly".
> > They were really sweating by the finish. Maybe someone can recall the
> > details of the story more accurately than I've been able to do. If so, I'd
> > welcome the true version.
>
> I've heard that story from multiple sources.
Quite by coincidence, I came across a version of it this morning
while re-reading "In the Orchestra" by the English clarinettist (and
broadcaster) Jack Brymer (Hutchinson, 1987). Here's his version.
After writing how greatly gifted Andre Previn is musically, he
writes: "At the age of eighteen he made his debut as a concert pianist
with great success, and shortly thereafter became known as a composer.
Soon he was to be found in the famous MGM studios in Hollywood,
directing some of the finest of all American orchestral musicians --
the tough bunch of expert professional film-fitters, the West Coast
'Session Boys.' There is a rather nice little story about the debut of
'The Kid' as Benny Goodman always used to describe Andre. It
illustrates quite perfectly the surprising awareness he has always
manifested, without the slightest consciousness that he is so doing.
Like the apprentice on the building site who is usually sent to get
'chimney nails' or 'the long stand' (which simply involves having to
stand in a corner for half an hour), young conductors can be subjected
to certain ritual tests. On this occasion the entire orchestra was
assembled, on time as usual, and ready to see what the young genius,
who had composed the music he was about to conduct, had to offer. With
thirty seconds to go before the first downbeat was expected, and the
conductor not yet on the podium, they took the tuning note from the
first oboe -- a nicely modulated B flat instead of the universally
accepted A natural. It didn't take long -- the string players are
fairly adaptable in that part of the world, and soon the entire
orchestra fell silent, prepared to play a semitone sharp. Andre
entered, quite quietly and with due modesty. He did not, however, give
the downbeat immediately, having heard that tuning note from a
distance. Instead, just before he did so, he said quite quietly, 'Of
course, I assume you'll all transpose this piece down a semitone. It
might be better that way!' From then on it was quite obvious that here
was a young man with a firm grasp of the situation, and for several
years these studios were the focus of his musical life." (Pp. 212-13.)
That's Jack Brymer's version, anyway. Terry, I hope this is of some
value. I must re-read Previn's book "No Minor Chords," which is
primarily about his life in Hollywood. Perhaps he tells the story.
Don Tait
Peter Greenstein
Thanks so much for the tip. I'll give them a try.
peter
Heck51
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:> A piano is not the
ideal case. Attempts are made ... just as you say ...
> to have an even tonal scale.
>
> Now consider a bassoon.>
good example. I can often tell what pitch a bassoon is playing simply
by the sound of the note...different notes tend to different timbral
characteristics.
Heck51
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:> Exactly! The saxophone
is an ideal case for what I am saying.
>
> And perhaps even the mouthpiece brand could be detected?
> Could could tell, for example, whether the maker was or was not
> in jail? Whether the milling machine programmer was or was
> not prone to dips at 900 Hz?>>
Haha!!
but yes - the type of different clarinet mouthpieces [material, that
is] may well be determined by close listening.
Doug McDonald
>> And perhaps even the mouthpiece brand could be detected?
>> Could could tell, for example, whether the maker was or was not
>> in jail? Whether the milling machine programmer was or was
>> not prone to dips at 900 Hz?
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
>
> I designed the mouthpieces you jealous asshole
>
> Abbedd
My apology. Should have been whether the huckster was or was not in jail,
but I clearly did not imply the milling machine programmer was or was not in jail.
Doug
Ricky Jimenez
I think that conductors, without absolute pitch who can conduct atonal
music well, are pretty rare. However singers who can handle the 12
tone stuff without that ability are more common. They rely on rote
memorization.
As far as musicians of the past, I have seen contradictory statements
as to who had it. While most references say that Schumann and Wagner
didn't have it (but have never read how that is known), biographical
information about Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky is contradictory. I
think the archives have a discussion from a few years back as to
whether Leonard Bernstein did. I believe he denied having it but some
still argue.
As to my post yesterday, I would be amazed if somebody could quote a
reliable source that said that Crosby, Elvis or Sinatra had it. What
about Bill Clinton? Maybe statments saying he is pitch perfect refer
to his political sense.
Heck51
However singers who can handle the 12
> tone stuff without that ability are more common. They rely on rote
> memorization.>>
I've known a couple of singers who could sight-sing atonal music very
accurately, essentially at tempo - one had perfect pitch, the other
had great relative pitch and could instantly pick off the
intervals..neither relied on memorization. .
Bob Lombard
Hah! Could be. A few virtuoso/teachers in the early 19th Century favored it.
Some of them also favored other methods than the tongue for stopping notes.
Maybe the "double lip" was a way to avoid inhaling shavings from the wooden
mouthpiece?
(There is a small attempt at humor at work here, Jeff.)
bl
ansermetniac
<thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
>"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7s2r669vlhfbsfl7b...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:23:14 -0400, "Bob Lombard"
>> <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Some (not many) clarinetists bring the upper lip between the incisors and
>>>the mouthpiece. I think this changes some of the timbres, maybe because
>>>the
>>>teeth/hard palate no longer vibrate. If you are a strong mouthpiece
>>>chewer,
>>>you probably have to develop a callus.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>bl
>>>
>>
>> It's called double lip. A shit embochure
>>
>> Abebdd
>
>Hah! Could be. A few virtuoso/teachers in the early 19th Century favored it.
>Some of them also favored other methods than the tongue for stopping notes.
>Maybe the "double lip" was a way to avoid inhaling shavings from the wooden
>mouthpiece?
>
>(There is a small attempt at humor at work here, Jeff.)
>
>bl
>
Leave the humor to the Landsmen and Pisan. Can you name 5 WASP
comedians from the golden age?
Abbedd
Bob Lombard
But Jeff, _this_ is the golden age.
(See, more humor)
bl
ansermetniac
<thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
Have you seen comics unleashed. This ain't the golden age.
Some nice person posted most of the Dean Martin Roasts in the TV
group. THAT is the golden age
I am a WASP too
White
Ashkenazi
Semitic
Person
Abbedd
Bob Lombard
Wonderful for you. I am not WASP in any version.
bl
ansermetniac
<thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
>"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:itdr66dui144hjdtk...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:57:09 -0400, "Bob Lombard"
>> <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Leave the humor to the Landsmen and Pisan. Can you name 5 WASP
>>>> comedians from the golden age?
>>>>
>>>> Abbedd
>>>
>>>But Jeff, _this_ is the golden age.
>>>
>>>(See, more humor)
>>>
>>>bl
>>>
>>
>> Have you seen comics unleashed. This ain't the golden age.
>>
>> Some nice person posted most of the Dean Martin Roasts in the TV
>> group. THAT is the golden age
>> I am a WASP too
>>
>> White
>> Ashkenazi
>> Semitic
>> Person
>>
>> Abbedd
>
>Wonderful for you. I am not WASP in any version.
>
>bl
>
Then what is the derivation of the name Lombard?
Abbedd
Romy the Cat
> Did you mean *relative* perfect pitch?
Well, as the local ever-present idiots come to the thread I have
jumped out and let them to keep the garbage level of discord that they
are accustomed. The continuation of the thread in way as it going was
unavoidable.
Still, I would like to make one more comment – I know that there are
some folks out there for whom a definition of own interest spread
further then own parochial trailer and Jerry Springer show.
What interests me in the subject is relevancy of unbound pitch. As I
mention before: the absolute perfect pitch, without any reference to
anything else, arguably hardly exists. This fact itself leads to many
interesting further observations. For instance somebody mention in the
thread Scrabin’s colorization of sound (in fact he took after Rimsky),
or our normal emotional, ethical or esthetic human reaction to
specific notes – that all in a debate nature vs. nurture leads toward
to the nurture side. We acquired our behavioral reaction to pitch as
out hearing mechanism and our brain get developed. If you look as the
evolution of instrument design and playing proactive then you will see
that they all accommodate to the accepted tune with Middle A is the
440Hz and plus minis a few dozen cycles. Tune the Middle A 30Hz up and
some sections, primary string will be crying to play many things.
Again, we are taking about the instruments that were built and the
playing techniques that we agree to call as conventional.
I understand that some people do not understand it. Some do not do it
because they are idiots that were so demonstrably presented in this
thread but some do not get it as they did not think about it. In
contrary I did research this subject in my past, consulted with
musicians, instruments historians, instruments tuners, read a few
books, did my own research and thinking. Ironically the motivation
that made me to think about it was… audio, no surprises in here. In
the past, when people record on 78s, there was no congenital speed and
people record from 60 to 90 rotations per minute – it could be
anything. So, playing 78 I was asking myself what would be right
speed. The most common answer would be to tuna the speed by the pitch
of reference instruments. Hm… this is a bit tricky and the resolution
of tuning gets increase. The right tonal difference between the 78
rotations per minute and 79 rotations per minute is heard but it would
have different value with respect to … what I ate or what mood I am
in. I went then to piano tuners and began to ask… it was years back.
If some of you have still play LP you can experiment with very minor
offset of speed and in SOME instance you will find that to override
SOME (primary chamber) performances to own pitch is beneficial. Warn
you that some LPs have idiots-engineers wrote artificial reverberation
into them - those LP have hardly adjustable pitch, there are reasons
for it but the explanation is way beyond hat this forum can handle.
Anyhow, the subject of relative absolute pitch is interesting one. The
“relative absolute” – does it sound like oxymoron? Yes and no….
M forever
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:52:38 -0400, "Bob Lombard"
>
>
>
>
> >"ansermetniac" <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:itdr66dui144hjdtk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:57:09 -0400, "Bob Lombard"
> >> <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Leave the humor to the Landsmen and Pisan. Can you name 5 WASP
> >>>> comedians from the golden age?
>
> >>>> Abbedd
>
> >>>But Jeff, _this_ is the golden age.
>
> >>>(See, more humor)
>
> >>>bl
>
> >> Have you seen comics unleashed. This ain't the golden age.
>
> >> Some nice person posted most of the Dean Martin Roasts in the TV
> >> group. THAT is the golden age
> >> I am a WASP too
>
> >> White
> >> Ashkenazi
> >> Semitic
> >> Person
>
> >> Abbedd
>
> >Wonderful for you. I am not WASP in any version.
>
> >bl
>
> Then what is the derivation of the name Lombard?
Lombard comes from the name of a German tribe, the Lombards or
Langobardi ("Long Beards") which invaded Northern Italy and settles
there in the 6th century. The region around Milano is still called
Lombardia.
Bob Lombard
"M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50640f2d-ac50-43c1...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
My Lombard ancestory is traceable only to the late 11th Century in Flanders.
I don't know if they came there from Italy, or by the more direct route. By
the time they were transported to England (by William Rufus maybe) they were
peasants, that I'm pretty sure of.
bl
M forever
wrote:
I don't think there was any Langobard or Lombard "tribal identity"
anymore in either Italy or Germany in the 11th century and so I assume
by that time, the name was usually associated only with the region or
the kingdom of Lombardia, so a person named "Lombard" was very likely
someone who came from there. Especially when he showed up in another
region. In many regions in Europe in the 11t century, commoners did
not yet use family names in our modern sense, and they were often
referred to by their provenance, their father's name, their
profession, etc in place of a permanent family name. So you often find
people whose last name reflects where they or their immediate
ancestors had come from in the recent past.
Lena
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:40:21 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"
>
> <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> >> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
>
> >I once heard Laszlo Varga, rehearsing a student orchestra, call out that
> >there was a single wrong note from one of the winds -- in a very dense
> >orchestral passage.
>
> I question the veracity of Anton Schindler's comment: "This is what
> Beethoven meant when he said that he could recognize a key even if it
> were pitched as much as a whole-tone higher or lower than usual. He
> could still hear a C as a C, even if it were higher than a D-flat in
> frequency."
>
> Now, I believe that keys do have a musical character, particularly to
> a musical mind of that order, whether or not a piece is in equal
> temperament.
Don't know -- assigning intrinsic character to keys might get a lot
more taxing in equal temperament (ET), for a mind of any order... :)
Maybe I can comment on this, since the underlying subject (which is
not conductors with perfect pitch, or Schindler's imagination) is kind
of interesting, at least to me.
In many non-ET tunings (particularly on a keyboard) keys have their
own "sounds," since the exact frequency ratios of the scale notes are
unique to that scale. Though the ratios, and the sound, depend on the
tuning. Otoh, many tunings don't give unique key sounds, and they're
not meant to. Key color is particularly evident in music for the
keyboard, because the restriction of having 12 fixed notes to an
octave is hard to satisfy without getting differences between the
scales.
Various astrological-sounding descriptions of key character seem to
have been fashionable a couple of centuries ago (C major was either
"pure" or "innocent" or "decisive" or "warlike" or all of the above,
and I think it got more fantastic from there). A tuning-derived "key
sound" isn't really as prescriptive as some of those things; the sound
of a scale just establishes limits on how resonant and pleasant, or
how buzzy, tense and dissonant, various intervals and chords are. C
major, for example, potentially has a resonance and a clarity, because
it's normally tuned to be the scale with the best-sounding triads (so
it also has fairly marked differences between consonances and
dissonances), but to hear it, you have to write the piece in a way
that takes advantage of the consonant triads. The messy (and possibly
fun) sounds then occur in other keys.
The impact music has does depend on how "well" it's tuned. One problem
with equal temperament in pre-late-19th century music is that all
triads in ET acquire a haze of slightly conflicting, dissonant
overtones, because ET thirds are far off from ideal. So ET tends to
sound a little all-over murky, blurring the distinction between
consonance and dissonance (a little).
The analogous kinds of differences occurs between the different keys
in a typical keyboard tuning.
>. But how do we account
> for Schindler's claim that Beethoven could "recognize" a "C" even if
> it were played a whole tone higher or lower (whatever the Hz tuning in
> practice at the time)?
>
Ummm, but your own explanation does a pretty good job of accounting
for it... :)
What Schindler's Beethoven is saying is that he can recognize two
separate items: one is the set of frequency ratios that are associated
with a given scale ("C major") and the other is the absolute frequency
of the base note of the scale... Since those two things really are
two completely separate things, the story certainly makes sense; even
if it's not true. :)
Otoh, whether the story is verbatim true is not terribly relevant,
maybe. I guess I wouldn't trust that the specific "quotes" Schindler
gives were what was said exactly, even if anything like this
conversation actually took place.
(The thing mentioned in some other posts -- use of instrument timbres
-- is a different matter, and it wasn't what was meant in the
Schindler story anyway.)
Lena
This is an applet for testing different tunings (may require decent
computer sound). Working this should be self-evident. (Hold the
shift key when selecting notes in the "wheel" to get several sounds at
once.)
http://pages.globetrotter.net/roule/js/acc.htm
Things to maybe try, for instance: various keys in meantone; the C
major scale in just intonation, equal temperament, and pythagorean
tuning. The differences can be pretty prominent when you play several
notes simultaneously on a real instrument. And more so in actual
music...
Lena
> On Aug 18, 9:35 pm, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:40:21 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"
>
> > <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> I know people who can call out a played note on listening. I would
> > >> think that would be absolute perfect pitch.
>
> > >I once heard Laszlo Varga, rehearsing a student orchestra, call out that
> > >there was a single wrong note from one of the winds -- in a very dense
> > >orchestral passage.
>
> > I question the veracity of Anton Schindler's comment: "This is what
> > Beethoven meant when he said that he could recognize a key even if it
> > were pitched as much as a whole-tone higher or lower than usual. He
> > could still hear a C as a C, even if it were higher than a D-flat in
> > frequency."
>
> > Now, I believe that keys do have a musical character, particularly to
> > a musical mind of that order, whether or not a piece is in equal
> > like G sharp in Beethoven's day (give or take). But how do we account
> > for Schindler's claim that Beethoven could "recognize" a "C" even if
> > it were played a whole tone higher or lower (whatever the Hz tuning in
> > practice at the time)?
>
> stuff, but this sounds very "far out there".
Why far out there? I think the basic claim in the story is pretty
plausible. (Whether the rest actually happened or not.) I'd bet that
most composers, even the ones Schindler had no time to invent stories
about, can or could discriminate between differently tuned scales.
Tunings proliferate because a scale that does everything scales are
required to do famously doesn't exist. There is no scale that has
pure consonances, allows modulation and allows returning to the exact
starting pitch after modulation.... Equal temperament is obviously
useful for no-limits modulation and atonality and less useful for
consonant intervals. Other tunings discriminate between keys to
allow some of them to sound good (which means that, by convention, the
keys then get increasingly bad as they acquire more accidentals).
In Bach's or Beethoven's keyboard tunings, no key is so bad it's
unusable, but lots of sustained or repeated thirds will sound messy in
faraway keys. So composers wrote keyboard music slightly differently
in different keys. (The beginning of the Waldstein or the WTC I/
prelude in C major wouldn't be done in F# major... I'm not even sure
(personal opinion) there's much point to making up a piece like the
WTC I/C prelude if it didn't sound as gorgeously resonant as it does
in a reasonable tuning.)
So the only way Schindler's claim makes no sense is if a composer
thinks exclusively in ET. But that's not what's going on here...
(All this music can of course be played in ET, but actually, I think
it would be mildly ignorant to discuss HIP, etc., without getting the
impact tuning and key choice have on music that was never intended for
ET.)
Lena
> Are you sure the story is correctly quoted?
>
Lena
> On Aug 18, 6:35 pm, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
[...]
> The analogous kinds of differences occurs between the different keys
Pardon,
Lena
Steve Emerson
<0901c42a-3b5b-4d8c...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Lena <emsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> In many non-ET tunings (particularly on a keyboard) keys have their
> own "sounds," since the exact frequency ratios of the scale notes are
> unique to that scale. Though the ratios, and the sound, depend on the
> tuning. Otoh, many tunings don't give unique key sounds, and they're
> not meant to. Key color is particularly evident in music for the
> keyboard, because the restriction of having 12 fixed notes to an
> octave is hard to satisfy without getting differences between the
> scales.
>
> Various astrological-sounding descriptions of key character seem to
> have been fashionable a couple of centuries ago (C major was either
> "pure" or "innocent" or "decisive" or "warlike" or all of the above,
> and I think it got more fantastic from there). A tuning-derived "key
> sound" isn't really as prescriptive as some of those things; the sound
> of a scale just establishes limits on how resonant and pleasant, or
> how buzzy, tense and dissonant, various intervals and chords are. C
> major, for example, potentially has a resonance and a clarity, because
> it's normally tuned to be the scale with the best-sounding triads (so
> it also has fairly marked differences between consonances and
> dissonances), but to hear it, you have to write the piece in a way
> that takes advantage of the consonant triads. The messy (and possibly
> fun) sounds then occur in other keys.
I didn't know that, but it makes a lot of sense. I also didn't realize
that the characters everybody seems to find in this key or that key are
tuning-contingent, although that makes sense too.
Minor presumably retains the traits of minor regardless of tuning,
correct? (I pose this because somebody said "the only dumb question is
the one you don't ask" -- we're not going to get into the amusing
syntactical errancy of that remark).)
[more snipping]
> This is an applet for testing different tunings (may require decent
> computer sound). Working this should be self-evident. (Hold the
> shift key when selecting notes in the "wheel" to get several sounds at
> once.)
>
> http://pages.globetrotter.net/roule/js/acc.htm
>
> Things to maybe try, for instance: various keys in meantone; the C
> major scale in just intonation, equal temperament, and pythagorean
> tuning. The differences can be pretty prominent when you play several
> notes simultaneously on a real instrument. And more so in actual
> music...
Sounds like an extraordinary thing to check out. Unfortunately I'm too
frivolous a character to get into something this deep when it lies
outside my chosen field of endeavor (which happens to be fried chicken).
--I hope somebody besides me reads these posts. And what happened to
Wayne Reimer anyway?
SE.
M forever
> In article
> <0901c42a-3b5b-4d8c-afc0-cd47d1523...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
All of the above only applies when non-equally tempered tuning is
used, and that has been the common standard for over 3 centuries now.
The only deviations from that tuning when no keyboard instruments are
around are not key-specific at all. E.g. sharpened leadtones, pure
intonation 3rds triads, etc. But nothing which would at all be
specific to a given key only.
Also, wind instruments are built around a basic scale. E.g. the oboe's
basic scale with the easiest fingering is C major. The further you
move away from that basic scale, the more complex fingerings and
additional holes you have to use, and a lot of these notes do have
noticeably different colors. However, that applies more to baroque
oboes (or wind instruments in general) than to modern ones which have
such a complicated key system now which allows a really good player to
avoid those discolorations.
There is some evidence that the use of specifc keys in those days
could be influenced by such considerations. E.g. in some Back cantatas
in which the oboe provides a "lamenting" accompaniment, it seems they
were specifically written in keys which would produce such expressive
color effects on important notes, like the minor 3rd or minor 6th in
order to produce a realistically "wailing" sound on the oboe.
Lena
> In article
> <0901c42a-3b5b-4d8c-afc0-cd47d1523...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Various astrological-sounding descriptions of key character seem to
> > have been fashionable a couple of centuries ago (C major was either
> > "pure" or "innocent" or "decisive" or "warlike" or all of the above,
> > and I think it got more fantastic from there). A tuning-derived "key
> > sound" isn't really as prescriptive as some of those things; the sound
> > of a scale just establishes limits on how resonant and pleasant, or
> > how buzzy, tense and dissonant, various intervals and chords are. C
> > major, for example, potentially has a resonance and a clarity, because
> > it's normally tuned to be the scale with the best-sounding triads (so
> > it also has fairly marked differences between consonances and
> > dissonances), but to hear it, you have to write the piece in a way
> > that takes advantage of the consonant triads. The messy (and possibly
> > fun) sounds then occur in other keys.
>
> I didn't know that, but it makes a lot of sense. I also didn't realize
> that the characters everybody seems to find in this key or that key are
> tuning-contingent, although that makes sense too.
One additional remark: the classes of unequal keyboard tunings of the
later Baroque/Classical period all had multiple traits in common,
though, so there were general similarities.
C major was "pure," and the nearby keys sound nice too (G, F major);
the keys then increase in strangeness as they fan out from C major and
get more accidentals. The neutral limit tends to be at 3 accidentals
-- after that, the triads may sound "interesting." :)
Also, there was a general marked difference between keys with flat vs.
sharp accidentals. In equal temperament, it doesn't really matter
which key you start out in, only the direction of the modulations
matters. But in other tunings it does matter whether you set a
keyboard piece in a flat or sharp key. Even if the keys have nearly
identical triads themselves (as, say, A major and Eb major in some
symmetric temperaments, like Young 1799), their dominants are
completely different. The same thing if the piece modulates mainly
to the flat side.
> Minor presumably retains the traits of minor regardless of tuning,
> correct?
It does, because tuning is just fiddling with details -- different
tunings adjust scale notes by a smaller amount than the semitone drop
from a major third to a minor third. Whatever a semitone is. :)
> Unfortunately I'm too
> frivolous a character to get into something this deep when it lies
> outside my chosen field of endeavor (which happens to be fried chicken).
You could just combine the two subjects.
> --I hope somebody besides me reads these posts.
> And what happened to Wayne Reimer anyway?
That's true -- where is he? He had an excellent ear for this stuff.
Lena
Lena
>
> All of the above only applies when non-equally tempered tuning is
> used, and that has been the common standard for over 3 centuries now.
Sorry, that's not correct. It's generally accepted (at least now)
that equal temperament was widely adopted only in the mid-1800's.
> The only deviations from that tuning when no keyboard instruments are
> around are not key-specific at all. E.g. sharpened leadtones, pure
> intonation 3rds triads, etc. But nothing which would at all be
> specific to a given key only.
Vocal music was not in equal temperament, and instruments were not
played in equal temperament. (That those things were generally done
in a transposable tuning is true.)
> Also, wind instruments are built around a basic scale.
And it was tuned how?
> E.g. the oboe's
> basic scale with the easiest fingering is C major. The further you
> move away from that basic scale, the more complex fingerings and
> additional holes you have to use, and a lot of these notes do have
> noticeably different colors. However, that applies more to baroque
> oboes (or wind instruments in general) than to modern ones which have
> such a complicated key system now which allows a really good player to
> avoid those discolorations.
>
> There is some evidence that the use of specifc keys in those days
> could be influenced by such considerations. E.g. in some Back cantatas
> in which the oboe provides a "lamenting" accompaniment, it seems they
> were specifically written in keys which would produce such expressive
> color effects on important notes, like the minor 3rd or minor 6th in
> order to produce a realistically "wailing" sound on the oboe.
Obviously. That's exactly what happens in some types of tunings.
That's not to say that there isn't such a thing as instrument timbre
variation; there is. I just don't think you quite get this tuning
issue.
Lena
Lena
I don't want to sound as contentious as that may seem... apologies.
Lena
M forever
I do. But since you decided to end your otherwise somewhat interesting
post with a personal insult and, as good as I am myself at flaming, I
have gotten bored by all that nonsense, the discussion ends here for
me. These lame attempts at defaming rather than debating really bore
me. Bye.
MiNe 109
<7a7cd87f-0a81-4247...@s15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Plus she knows a lot about the subject.
I recently saw a piece about the accordion's effect on tuning. They were
tuned to equal temperament at the factory and local bands had to
accommodate the intonation of the loudest instrument in the room.
Stephen
Gerard
Hm, what is the "personal insult"?
There's nothing that can be compared with your gigantic personal insults.
>
> and, as good as I am myself at flaming, I
> have gotten bored by all that nonsense, the discussion ends here for
> me. These lame attempts at defaming rather than debating really bore
> me. Bye.
Can you imagine how others have been bored by you and your hundreds "attempts at
defaming"?
And that the "discussion" with you has ended long time ago? Forever.
Lena
> On Aug 30, 1:31 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 5:19 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [Equal temperament] has been the common standard for over 3 centuries now.
>
> > Sorry, that's not correct. It's generally accepted (at least now)
> > that equal temperament was widely adopted only in the mid-1800's.
I'll elaborate a bit, for the hell of it, and because there's a
somewhat important underlying issue here. There are a lot of reasons
why it makes sense to not consider intonation in the Baroque/Classical
periods to be entirely an elective HIP matter, but a compositional
point.
(In general, in tonal music, tuning matters seem to me more important
than whether a piece is played on a standard steel pot or an authentic
18th century kettle...)
The Baroque/Classical periods didn't generally tune to equal
temperament, on the keyboard or off. (Lutes were an exception, for
technical reasons.) Instead, the octave was systematically understood
as a construct with more than 12 notes. Compressed to 12 for the
keyboard, when necessary. (This way of looking at the octave derives
from Renaissance meantone tunings, for those who care.)
A whole tone was not split by one semitone, but by a semitone pair, a
"minor semitone" and a "major semitone." Say, D#, Eb. The sharp
semitone (from D to D#) was lower, the flat semitone (from D to Eb)
higher. This also means that the leading tone was low, not high. The
split semitone idea is still obvious in musical notation: the
"enharmonic pair" (Eb and D#) appears on paper as two separate notes,
even though equal temperament has squished them into one sound.
But in older practice the two semitones were quite alive. There were
detailed fingering charts for the violin, oboe, and the flute (etc.),
giving the positions for achieving all the semitones. Flute makers
added keys to get some semitone pairs without extra fumbling -- the
most elaborate such flute was a Tromlitz flute from 1796 (just as
Beethoven was starting out as an orchestral composer). You can buy
one here: :)
http://www.earlymusicshop.com/product.aspx/en-GB/1002834-folkers-powell-tromlitz-flute-a-440-8-key
Leopold Mozart on intonation (Violin School, 1756): "On the keyboard,
G# and Ab, D# and Eb, F# and Gb, etc, are the same. That is due to the
temperament. But according to the correct ratios, all the notes
lowered by a flat are a comma (*) higher than those raised by a
sharp. [...] Db, for instance, is higher than C#; Ab higher than G#,
Gb higher than F#, etc. An accurate ear must be the guide here; it
would be very useful for the student to make use of a monochord [a
device for practicing intonation]."
(*) comma here = a tuning unit of about 22 cents = 22% of a semitone.
And quite audible...
Telemann 1767: "Because of the harpsichord, the two neighboring
sounds [C#/Db] are fused together into one . . . That D# and Eb are
two separate sounds is demonstrated by the violin, where D# is played
with the fourth finger and Eb with the fifth; traversos [flutes] are
the same with their two separate keys [for the semitone pair]."
Not to mention that some Classical composer called W.A. Mozart
discusses the division of tones into two semitones in detail in his
notes to his composition student Attwood, and that some string
passages by Beethoven make pretty little sense if the semitone pair is
amalgamated into one note.
> > > The only deviations from that tuning when no keyboard instruments are
> > > around are not key-specific at all. E.g. sharpened leadtones, pure
> > > intonation 3rds triads, etc.
Your statement is thoroughly un-historically informed. (I'm leaving
out the already discussed key color thing.)
The sharp leading tone you're talking about doesn't become prevalent
until much later, well into the 19th century. (Well, also in medieval
practice, but whatever. :) )
A sharp leading tone is great for melodic coherence, and emphasizes
the role of melody in general. By contrast, the Baroque/Classical way
of looking at semitones emphasizes vertical consonance in thirds-based
polyphony (the practice is consistent with meantone tunings, which are
originally a Renaissance phenomenon), and gives a heightened sense of
dissonance and consonance.
So the older idea of intonation is also well suited for rapid
alternations of harmonic shading, of triad-by-triad changes in
consonance vs. dissonance -- i.e., also the music of the Classical
period, as practiced by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. ET is basically
just a coarser tuning than is ideal for this music-- or rather, you
might say that the music of the period when intonation was understood
differently takes advantage of a more microtonal view of things. So
it's a sort of a trade-off, as in music in general: the late Romantic
practice of large-scale, continuous dissonance and very far-going
modulation is then more or less made for ET. Or vice versa.
It's true that the sharp leading tone was also advocated by some
people during the Classical period, but it doesn't appear to have been
the standard position (at least if one relies on collections of
excerpts from the period compiled by various authors...).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1774 (in agitating for the raising of the
pitch of the leading tone): "I know well that this is in direct
contradiction to established reckoning and the general opinion, which
gives to the passage of a note to its sharp or flat the name 'minor
semitone', and to the passage of a note to its next-higher flat or
next-lower sharp the name 'major semitone'."
It seems reasonable to say that, while differing theoretical
viewpoints existed during the Baroque/Classical eras, the prevalent
way of thinking about non-keyboard tuning was the one talked about
here. In any case, equal temperament was not it.
(Key color? As mentioned the other posts, it's an issue in fixed 12-
note tunings -- but then again, keyboards were a fairly big presence
in life then. Even in orchestral life, as is unfortunately heard in a
lot of HIP recordings. :) )
Lena
(Quotes pinched from a couple of papers on the subject.)
Lena
No "defaming" intended. You have excellent ears, write evocatively,
and know many things. Just not this issue, all that well. :)
(And what exactly is the problem with not knowing something? Nobody
knows everything. Even in this ehm remarkable newsgroup, there exist
vast pools of ignorance per person. :) (Includes me.))
Lena