First Message

[dwrglas]

Just to say - Best of luck with this forum. My particular interests are alternative temperaments and historical 'standard' pitches. No particular comments or queries at the moment - I'll be back when I do !

Regards -Dwrglas-

[anacrusis]

my husband specialises in harpsichord tuning, maintenance, repairs and building - he regularly tunes by ear using a range of temperaments, including Young, Vallotti, Barnes, Kirnberger, Werkmeister (various versions), Mean Tone (again various versions) and the one which is currently being batted around the Early Music world as possibly having been the sort of thing Bach was after (given that it was not modern Equal Temperament, despite reactionary thinking to the contrary in the mainstream musical world).

Early pitches? Has anybody been to the Deutsches Museum in Munich? They have there a baroque flute, with I can't remember how many corps-de-rechange - middle sections of different lengths, made specially for the travelling flautist, so he could match the various pitches which were in use across Europe in his time. I think there could have been as many as five of these interchangable bits. Sorry, YAP - I'm afraid many of them would annoy your absolute pitch .

There's another thought. How did musicians of those days who had absolute pitch cope with travelling?

[dwrglas]

Is there such a thing as absolute pitch? - I think your comments suggest that there isn't !

I agree some people have excellent relative pitch discrimination. But, as there is no 'absolute' pitch reference (only the de facto reference of the day), I can't see how anyone can claim this !

There, I've made a start - let the feathers fly !

Bye for Now -Dwrglas-

[anacrusis]

there is such a thing, and YAP has it - he can tell you what pitch a machine is humming at, and probably whether his loo flushes in Eb or G...he has the problem that he processes a given frequency as "belonging" to a particular note name - a much-coveted skill amongst some groups of musicians, but a plague to him if he wants to listen to French baroque music and discovers the flute is tuned to a'=392 Hz. I gather that "between the cracks" pitches are the worst, so a'=430Hz, a quarter-tone south of modern pitch, is rather uncomfortable for him to listen to. Did I get that right, YAP?

[dwrglas]

My point exactly - This is relative pitch, not absolute. It is pitch discrimination relative to A=440Hz. YAP can only discriminate the actual note by being exposed to this de facto standard for so long. It is a response conditioned by the current musical environment. There is no 'absolute' or 'correct' pitch for a note. Only the 'accepted' or 'agreed' pitch that is currently in use.

Bye for Now -Dwrglas-

[Steve Hopwood]

I hate early music, but all credit to our own particular Power Crazed moderator for allowing this forum to exist, unlike Certain Other Power Crazed Mods we could name.

Let's hope that lots of other EM enthusiasts find their way here and engage in lively, informative and satisfying discussion. This contribution apart, things have certainly started well.

Enjoy, everyone.

[anacrusis]

Apr 16, 2008 22:21:21 GMT dwrglas said:

My point exactly - This is relative pitch, not absolute. It is pitch discrimination relative to A=440Hz. YAP can only discriminate the actual note by being exposed to this de facto standard for so long. It is a response conditioned by the current musical environment. There is no 'absolute' or 'correct' pitch for a note. Only the 'accepted' or 'agreed' pitch that is currently in use.

Bye for Now -Dwrglas-

I'd understood relative pitch to mean the ability to relate pitches to each other - in other words to be able to pitch intervals accurately, and absolute pitch to have an absolute assignment of a value to a particular frequency.

[YetAnotherKlavierist]

Apr 16, 2008 22:21:21 GMT dwrglas said:

My point exactly - This is relative pitch, not absolute. It is pitch discrimination relative to A=440Hz. YAP can only discriminate the actual note by being exposed to this de facto standard for so long. It is a response conditioned by the current musical environment. There is no 'absolute' or 'correct' pitch for a note. Only the 'accepted' or 'agreed' pitch that is currently in use.

Hi, welcome to the fora. Making feathers fly is entirely acceptable .

I agree totally that the absolute pitch which I possess is indeed pitch discrimination relative to A=440Hz, and within the bounds of the number of notes to an octave and so on. This is why I dislike the term 'perfect pitch', as it suggests that the pitch of a note can ever be perfect. The term absolute pitch, however, I think is a useful shorthand to discriminate from relative pitch, a skill which requires a reference note which through a process of aural memory and interval recognition one can name other notes from.

In terms of Early Music it poses interesting challenges. The reference pitches can be different, but I've got used to that somewhat. I'd struggle to play a harpsichord tuned to anything but A=440Hz, but can sing at differing pitches, falling back to relative pitch to pitch notes based on other parts or on previous notes much as other singers do.

In terms of temperament, assuming that A=440Hz, it took some getting used to, and on a note-by-note basis I am aware of deflection away from equal temperament. Now, though, I wouldn't tune a harpsichord to equal temperament, that would be ghastly, I'd sooner turn to Young. The quality of the intervals and the resulting sonorities make it preferable to use a non-equal temperament: on average, it's near enough equal for me to be happy with, and I find the relative intervals between notes to be far more important to my ears.

Further, if one looks at music pre-dating equal temperament, it is clear that it plays to the temperament to dramatic effect. BuxWV 165, a piece written in G major, in places transitions briefly through some quite tonally awkward intervals before resolving. On equal temperament, it sounds okay and does achieve the effect of build-up then release; on unequal temperament, with a temperament preferring keys close to C, the increasing degradation of the intervals really ratchets up the auditory tension before the resolution, to great effect. I can make a couple of clips available to listen to, if you like - one at Equal, one with Kirnberger III. The difference is quite stunning.

[dwrglas]

Apr 16, 2008 23:48:07 GMT YetAnotherKlavierist said:

Apr 16, 2008 22:21:21 GMT dwrglas said:

My point exactly - This is relative pitch, not absolute. It is pitch discrimination relative to A=440Hz. YAP can only discriminate the actual note by being exposed to this de facto standard for so long. It is a response conditioned by the current musical environment. There is no 'absolute' or 'correct' pitch for a note. Only the 'accepted' or 'agreed' pitch that is currently in use.

Hi, welcome to the fora. Making feathers fly is entirely acceptable .

I agree totally that the absolute pitch which I possess is indeed pitch discrimination relative to A=440Hz, and within the bounds of the number of notes to an octave and so on. This is why I dislike the term 'perfect pitch', as it suggests that the pitch of a note can ever be perfect. The term absolute pitch, however, I think is a useful shorthand to discriminate from relative pitch, a skill which requires a reference note which through a process of aural memory and interval recognition one can name other notes from.

In terms of Early Music it poses interesting challenges. The reference pitches can be different, but I've got used to that somewhat. I'd struggle to play a harpsichord tuned to anything but A=440Hz, but can sing at differing pitches, falling back to relative pitch to pitch notes based on other parts or on previous notes much as other singers do.

In terms of temperament, assuming that A=440Hz, it took some getting used to, and on a note-by-note basis I am aware of deflection away from equal temperament. Now, though, I wouldn't tune a harpsichord to equal temperament, that would be ghastly, I'd sooner turn to Young. The quality of the intervals and the resulting sonorities make it preferable to use a non-equal temperament: on average, it's near enough equal for me to be happy with, and I find the relative intervals between notes to be far more important to my ears.

Further, if one looks at music pre-dating equal temperament, it is clear that it plays to the temperament to dramatic effect. BuxWV 165, a piece written in G major, in places transitions briefly through some quite tonally awkward intervals before resolving. On equal temperament, it sounds okay and does achieve the effect of build-up then release; on unequal temperament, with a temperament preferring keys close to C, the increasing degradation of the intervals really ratchets up the auditory tension before the resolution, to great effect. I can make a couple of clips available to listen to, if you like - one at Equal, one with Kirnberger III. The difference is quite stunning.

Brilliant - totally agree. The trouble is I have a problem ! After 40 years as a professional engineer/scientist I find it difficult to accept words like 'perfect'. 'absolute', 'precisely' etc. in the context of a measurement. I realise it is me being pedantic, but there it is !

I totally understand and appreciate your comments about the tonalities of differing temperaments. I have various MIDI modules and a Clavinova that can change temperament at the press of a button, so I have some familiarity. However, do feel free to post as many examples as you like - I'm sure we would all appreciate the experience.

Anyway, as this was just an 'Introductory' post, I think I'll start a fresh thread on a slightly different tack (with an appropriate title), so that others can follow/comment as they wish.

Cheers for Now -Dwrglas-