Guitar tuning question???

[jorgemg1984]

Sorry Greg did not catch you... is it easier to tune in 442 than 440 or 438? I actually have no clue about these things!

[Patrick2]

That was so funny. And it'd be funnier still if it weren't for the fact that at one time in my life I was that guy who paid $5k for a wife's request for implants. Only of course to be called every name in the book the moment meds wore off and that pair took on a life of their own. She went on to say "I got these for you you ungrateful &@!;/&$!!! Of course that was all just a down payment. It would be barely another year before those became another man's pair. Or problem, which is my preferred way of thinking.

I don't know man . . . . you must have had a pretty inept attorney for your divorce. Seems to me like he should have been able to get your wife to return those implants. After all . .. you did pay for them. I can't believe that you didn't have a pre-nup with language specific to the return of any and all silicone you might have provided during the marriage. Now I understand why you won't marry again. You don't know how to write a contract protecting your personal property.

[PTChristopher]

>>> is it easier to tune in 442 than 440 or 438?

I have done some piano tuning, but am not a decades-seasoned pro at it.

I see no reason at all why one particular base frequency would be any easier or harder to tune or maintain than another unless you were going MUCH sharper or flatter than 440, then the suitability of the string gauges could be an issue.

Tuning a piano is nothing like tuning a guitar. First you have the ear-based decisions to make regarding the unison strings for each note. Then there is the stretch to control inharmonicity over many octaves. Fun to do. But it can also be an incredible amount of work on an old piano that has been hopelessly flat for quite a while.

Anyway, In my opinion there is an incredible amount of ego/hubris/prima-donna-hood involved when one decides that some micro variation on 440 is somehow an absolute must-have.

I can understand broad cultural norms to tune to 435, or something - as has been the case throughout history. But otherwise it gets pretty silly in my view. I am sure others can find very important differences between 440 and 2 Hz on either side.

Chris

[oldane]

Most pianos I find these days are 442 or higher, no idea why.

Well, 442 is the de facto standard in contemporary orchstras. 440 was several decades ago. Clarinets are tuned to 442, though longer barrels are available for them for 440. Some American symphony orchestras go even higher.

[PTChristopher]

I remember one of the guys I worked with maybe 30 years ago was over at Symphony Hall in Boston doing tuning work. He said that Seiji Ozawa would actually sit there and make sure 442 was it.

"Four-four-Oh, no way to go. Four-four-two, is way to do." became the mantra before anyone went over to Symphony Hall.

I remember in college being told that the US was 440 and europe was the "darker" 435. I think this was not really an accurate description of the situation which may have been much more "all over the place" than this simple summary.

I suppose for most instruments, it is a minor issue anyway. I am a horn dunce, and completely unfamiliar with clarinets. Are they indeed hard-wired for tuning?

Chris

[Vladan]

I've heard orchestras tune to clarinets, due their steadines in pitch, of long notes..

[jorgemg1984]

Interesting Oldane, didn't know that. But as I understand it's just a matter of changing a mouthpiece so... And clarinets are not common here and all of a sudden everyone tunes the pianos a little sharp. Would like to know the reason for that.

I know some guys are really picky about that and it's not just to show off. Some guys always play on 442 or whatever when there's no piano, specially guys with perfect pitch (although not all perfect pitch guys hear the difference betwen 440 and 442). To me it's all pretty much the same honestly

[oldane]

I suppose for most instruments, it is a minor issue anyway. I am a horn dunce, and completely unfamiliar with clarinets. Are they indeed hard-wired for tuning?

Chris

This it OT:

I played clarinet for a number of years when I was younger, so I happen to know a little about them. Yes, they are tuned to a specific pitch (nowadays A=442). The longer the bore, the lower the pitch. That's why a longer barrel (the part of the clarinet situated between the mouthpiece and the upper joint) can be used when A=440 is called for. In a pinch one can also pull out the barrel or mouthpiece at bit. However, the distance between the holes, the height of the pads over the holes are all calculated and set for a specific A frequence. Lowering the A to 440 means some compromize. One has to work more with the embouchure to keep all the tones in tune and that means compromizes to tone quality of some notes. I'd say that 2-3Hz is the most that can be tweaked before intonation and tone suffers too much.

Back in the days of dixieland in New Orleans, clarinets with the old Central European "Albert keywork system" or derivates thereoff were used. Many of the instruments were leftovers from the military bands of the Civil war. Later in the 1930s most jazz clarinettists switched to the French "Boehm system". Albert System clarinets have not been made since before WW2, though some Indian and East Asian makers are now making them again. However, it happens now and then that a dixieland clarinettist stumbles upon an old Selmer Albert System clarinet, brings it home, restores it, practices and finally proudly brings it to a gig - only to realize that it's hopelessly flat, because the piano is tuned to 442. That's because when it was made, A=432 or 435 was common. The gap between that and modern 442 is more than pulling out the barrel and elaborate embouchure control can cover.

Clarinets are temperamental creatures. All kinds of manipulations have been done by the makers to make them play better in tune (such as widening and narrowing of the bore in certain places), but some kind of emboucure correcting is always necessary. The pitch will rise when the clarinet warms up, so it is necessary to pull out the barrel a bit when the instrument is warm.

I will not even begin to explain the intricacies of mouthpiece and barrel designs. Some of it has a solid basis and some is woodoo - just like with guitars. And just like with guitars, making a clarinet sound good and in tune is to a certain degree a question of getting to know the particular instrument and its quirks well. Not two instrument or mouthpieces are the same, not even of the same make and model. There's a saying among classical clarinettists when they talk about a mouthpiece they have used for years: "This one knows all the operas."

It's a fact that two clarinettists intonate differently on the same instrument. The late British classical clarinettist Jack Brymer wrote in his book on clarinets that two colleges in the orchestra who were known for being perfectly in tune with each other once tried to exchange clarinets and found that there was no way they could force the instruments to be tune with each other.

Jack Brymer told a story about a clarinettist in the orchestra and a famous and demanding guest conductor. During a rehersal the conductor stopped the orchestra and adressed the clarinettist with the words: "Clarinet, you are flat!" - which he was not. The clarinettist held out the clarinet in his streched arm, stared at it and said:"Hear that, you bastard? You're flat!".

[oldane]

I've heard orchestras tune to clarinets, due their steadines in pitch, of long notes..

It's the oboes. Those are the instruments which are hardest to tweak intonation wise, so it makes sense that the rest of the orchestra conforms to them. Of course, that doesn't work if they are to play a piano concerto.

BTW, one can only marvel at the intonation of those symphonic musicians. Many years ago I was in Amsterdam and went to a concert with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra who was playing as guests in the Concertgebouw. I have never before or since heard a more perfectly intonating orchestra (and perfect dynamics too). Those musicians really knows their stuff.

[PTChristopher]

I am completely unfamiliar with all of this; many thanks for the rundown.

I had to look up "embouchure". At first I had assumed it was a codeword for 'secret lady place'.

Interesting stuff.

Chris

[Vladan]

Right, oboes. Thanks. I mixed it up.

A friend of mine can play some Saxophone, but he wanted a clarinet. So he bought one from the army junkyard (he bought sax there, too). Only it turned out it's not clarinet, but taragot. Man that thing's piercing in highs, farts at lows and can't be in tune, ever. He can't be in tune on sax either, but that's different story.

[oldane]

I had to look up "embouchure". At first I had assumed it was a codeword for 'secret lady place'.

Chris

Freudians could say a lot about the oral relationship between man and a wind instrument. Pee Wee Russell's sound was described as "Half way saliva, half way tone".

Oh well,

[2bornot2bop]

I don't know man . . . . you must have had a pretty inept attorney for your divorce. Seems to me like he should have been able to get your wife to return those implants. After all . .. you did pay for them. I can't believe that you didn't have a pre-nup with language specific to the return of any and all silicone you might have provided during the marriage. Now I understand why you won't marry again. You don't know how to write a contract protecting your personal property.

ha! actually, I was the atty. No kids involved so filing for a divorce and waiting 90 days for the court to grant it is a no brainer when you're in agreement. I got the house, she got her silicone.

been there and dun that twice brother...who needs marriage, that would only get in the way of my love life!