[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
(for anyone puzzled by this discussion, one cent is 1/00 th of a semitone. So 20 cents is 1/10th of a whole tone, or 1/10th of the difference between C and D.That's not a subtle difference, of course!) On 7 Feb 2011, at 17:26, Julia Say wrote: Shortly after Andrew Davison took over the 17 key R. Reid set he now plays (which apparently is c. 1836) the fettler who helped him set it up remarked to me that they first, without altering *anything* put in a reed - design unspecified - and Andrew played it. The resulting pitch, without any work, oddities or messing on, was F + 20. Hello Julia and others, Well, that's an interesting and fortunate anecdote, but are you suggesting that it's anything more than amusing coincidence? I have no problem over the large number of pipes being pitched at F+20 cents. I can happily play on a concert F set for a whole evening with a roomful of pipers playing at variously F+20, F+ 35 and F + whatever, though I must admit the bag arm gets a little tired with the extra squeezing, and it does no favours to tone or intonation. People should be at liberty to play at whatever pitch they like, provided that they and fellow players don't mind the musical consequences. What worries me is the notion often put forward on this forum that F+20 cents is a 'standard' pitch for pipes. It isn't a standard: it's a current tendency, and nobody can accurately predict how long this will last. My instinct - and it's no more than that, though based on precedents in woodwind history - is that pitch will revert a more widely accepted standard, i.e concert pitch. The good news there is that there may well be plenty of remunerative work for the pipe fettlers of the future in converting chanters to F concert! Playing music is primarily a sociable activity and there seems to be little point in encouraging an NSP 'sharp-F ghetto' where players can only play comfortably with their own kind. For that reason, I think that anyone considering buying and learning pipes should consider whether they intend to play primarily with other instruments or just with with pipes . If pipe-makers are offering to provide pipes set up in these alternative pitches, they should make themselves known. Your narrative of the way the present situation came about is a good and accurate account, I think. what is notable is that historically, each step along this path towards F + 20 has been for some negative reason and not because of some advantage of musicality or encouraging our pipes to play a part in any wider musical context. I have no axe to grind over F+20 Cents or F concert. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. What I do think, however is that there should actually *be* a choice! Cheers, Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Absolutely Francis, music is a sociable activity, I also think the idea is take your pipes out of the box and be able to muck in with any other type of instrument. I may be considered different but I like the idea of just saying - yep it's a Bb transposing, so treat it like a clarinet. I therefore set up for A=440( as close as is possible) and like the way it sounds. As for re-reeded pipes that get modded at the top end -- that would be a staple conicity variation, thus not just the old reed that was in it, it has to be the original makers staple -- Dave S On 2/9/2011 7:17 PM, Francis Wood wrote: Playing music is primarily a sociable activity and there seems to be little point in encouraging an NSP 'sharp-F ghetto' where players can only play comfortably with their own kind. For that reason, I think that anyone considering buying and learning pipes should consider whether they intend to play primarily with other instruments or just with with pipes . If pipe-makers are offering to provide pipes set up in these alternative pitches, they should make themselves known. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Equal temperament of course has its place as does chromaticism, but I think except for keyboard-players, who can't (unless they have split-key harpsichords or such like), even when playing highly chromatic music the best musicians constantly tweak their tuning to produce the most harmonious result - even in atonal 20th century music. I haven't got an oscilloscope, nor do I know how to use one, but I think a scientific analysis would demonstrate that top musicians use more than twelve different pitches even in twelve tone music. Certainly, music in awkward keys, such as C major, requires violinists etc. to make comma adjustments all over the place depending on which open string is most prominent at the time - even in diatonic music. Too many evens ;-) C Equal temperament (= 1/12 comma meantone) is a microtonal system par excellence (depending on your starting point of course. Mine is just intonation, with 8 pitches to the diatonic octave). To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Can one maker (which one?) have that much influence? Possibly, I think. I didn't have a specific one in mind as I was primarily speculating on the process (that's why I wrote a maker rather than one maker, but didn't CR fairly recently mention someone down the road making lots and lots of pipes in F+? I was told 20 cents sharp of F is the tradition. I've heard variously about 20 and between 10 and 20 (and occasionally 25) I tune my chanter manipulating the reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune with myself. This is probably the best approach unless you regularly play with others or a band the more keys you want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning individual notes? This is inevitable. It's why the concept of temperament originated in the first place. Even D poses problems where the E is concerned (so does G for that matter!) and the B is also problematic in A minor. To play in pure Em one might have to order a chanter to play specifically in Em. In an ideal world, yes! CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, for playing in G; another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing in E minor. The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not be as critical acoustically?? As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both produce in F+, and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's to blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu [christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu] Sent: 07 February 2011 09:56 To: dir...@gmail.com Cc: bri...@aol.com; chrisdgr...@gmail.com; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships Can one maker (which one?) have that much influence? Possibly, I think. I didn't have a specific one in mind as I was primarily speculating on the process (that's why I wrote a maker rather than one maker, but didn't CR fairly recently mention someone down the road making lots and lots of pipes in F+? I was told 20 cents sharp of F is the tradition. I've heard variously about 20 and between 10 and 20 (and occasionally 25) I tune my chanter manipulating the reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune with myself. This is probably the best approach unless you regularly play with others or a band the more keys you want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning individual notes? This is inevitable. It's why the concept of temperament originated in the first place. Even D poses problems where the E is concerned (so does G for that matter!) and the B is also problematic in A minor. To play in pure Em one might have to order a chanter to play specifically in Em. In an ideal world, yes! CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, for playing in G; another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing in E minor. Yes, this is what I meant by 8 (different) notes to the octave rather than just seven. The lower, keyed, high E would also sound better when the melody emphasised the third C-E (Chevy Chase is a very obvious and simple example). The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not be as critical acoustically?? My own chanter has the low E an appreciable bit more than an octave lower than the top E, so I can get away with an E-B drone quite effectively. In other keys it is indeed not as critical acoustically. Meanwhile the top E (which I think is in a compromise position) can be bag-tweaked up or down to suit the circumstances. As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both produce in F+, and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's to blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. Please don't misunderstand me. I was not seeking to apportion blame; just speculating as to the mechanism whereby this standard came about. C I've heard variously about 20 and between 10 and 20 (and occasionally 25) I tune my chanter manipulating the reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune with myself. This is probably the best approach unless you regularly play with others or a band the more keys you want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning individual notes? This is inevitable. It's why the concept of temperament originated in the first place. Even D poses problems where the E is concerned (so does G for that matter!) and the B is also problematic in A minor. To play in pure Em one might have to order a chanter to play specifically in Em. In an ideal world, yes! CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? This is probably an associated factor. My speculation about the 440 tuning fork more concerned modern pipes (which are inevitably in the majority) manufactured after the introduction of 440 as an international standard (though many windplayers and hence orchestras incline to 442 (or even 443) nowadays). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Dru Brooke-Taylor Sent: 07 February 2011 11:39 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships On 7 Feb 2011, at 11:21, Gibbons, John wrote: A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, for playing in G; another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing in E minor. The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not be as critical acoustically?? As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both produce in F+, and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's to blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. CB And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? Dru To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
It always fascinates me how the tuning of things changes (I have a concertina in high pitch). For those (like me) not well versed in the mechanics and theory of things, this makes good reading: http://www.piano-tuners.org/history/pitch.html (and also which locations not to attempt to play the pipes with the instruments noted). What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Imagine if they did that with yards etc (change to metric notwithstanding) or liquid measure (I asked for a pint, what's this? - Oh the pint has been getting smaller over the years..). A standard should be just that - a standard. If it changes, it ain't standard! Good interesting thread though. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu To: drubrooketay...@btinternet.com; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:45 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? This is probably an associated factor. My speculation about the 440 tuning fork more concerned modern pipes (which are inevitably in the majority) manufactured after the introduction of 440 as an international standard (though many windplayers and hence orchestras incline to 442 (or even 443) nowadays). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
On 7 Feb 2011, at 13:03, Gibbons, John wrote: Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. Yes, that's right. Or to be more precise, Reid pipes play most happily at F# using (and insert italics here) the most appropriate dimensions of the modern reed which may well be pretty different from the kind of reed that Reid intended (conclude italics and insert exclamation marks). F# is a lovely pitch, enhancing the staccato capabilities of the chanter without encountering the compromises in terms of hole spacing, comfort and tone evident in many G chanters. F and G both have the advantage of convenience since they're both standard pitches - even if you do derive them them from the equally tempered A=440 scale and then proceed to play a non-equally tempered scale! Both have the advantage that they are sociable pitches in that they can be played with fixed pitch instruments, concertinas for example. As for F + 20, its use is unknown in the rest of the civilised world. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
'It does have the unintended consequence of keeping off the fixed pitch instruments, which may or may not be an advantage, according respectively to taste or the lack of it.' Discuss... -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Julia Say Sent: 07 February 2011 17:26 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu; Francis Wood Cc: 'Dru Brooke-Taylor'; Gibbons, John Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships On 7 Feb 2011, Francis Wood wrote: Yes, that's right. Or to be more precise, Reid pipes play most happily at F# using (and insert italics here) the most appropriate dimensions of the modern reed which may well be pretty different from the kind of reed that Reid intended (conclude italics and insert exclamation marks). in response to: On 7 Feb 2011, at 13:03, Gibbons, John wrote: Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. Shortly after Andrew Davison took over the 17 key R. Reid set he now plays (which apparently is c. 1836) the fettler who helped him set it up remarked to me that they first, without altering *anything* put in a reed - design unspecified - and Andrew played it. The resulting pitch, without any work, oddities or messing on, was F + 20. The entire 170+ year service history of the set is not known, so of course it may have been attended to many years ago. and Francis continued: F# is a lovely pitch, enhancing the staccato capabilities of the chanter without encountering the compromises in terms of hole spacing, comfort and tone evident in many G chanters. I totally agree. F and G both have the advantage of convenience since they're both standard pitches ..Both have the advantage that they are sociable pitches in that they can be played with fixed pitch instruments, concertinas for example. As for F + 20, its use is unknown in the rest of the civilised world. My understanding of the compromises by which this was reached is that until about the 1960s, very few players could play together as the pitch was all over the shop. There were one or two exceptions, but near enough for a generalisation. As more players started, it became apparent that this variation was becoming a major issue. An attempt was made to standardise on concert F by one prominent maker, but this was rendered impractical by the output of another which varied from just sharp of concert F to almost F#. With the reeds mostly in use at this time (60s/70s) attempts to drop to concert F when in groups were not successful, and the F+20 pitch was a necessary compromise which could be reached by most players. Checking the pressure and pitch of a roomful of players determined that most, then, were playing at 14-16 water gauge to reach F+20. And there the practicalities rested. It does have the unintended consequence of keeping off the fixed pitch instruments, which may or may not be an advantage, according to taste. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Hi Paul. I read that book, along with another one which argued that equal temperament made Modern (post-modern?) Civilization the greatest the world has ever known, or something like that. Sorry, I don't remember the name of the book or its author. I didn't agree with his premise or his thesis, but then again my motto might be if it ain't diatonic why bother? Ross W. Duffin: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care) I've been reading about microtonal scales, which were and still are used by the same people who brought us the concept of 0 and the seven day week. Any analysis of scales on our chosen instrument has to always keep the drone in the back ground, otherwise we might as well be a clarinet NG. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Hi Chris, I am sure that you will be finding Anthony Robb's suggestions most helpful. He is a most practical person as well as being a very good player. No doubt you have his two CDs, Windy Gyle and Force 6 I don't know what other instruments you play. At some point I think you said something to the effect that everyone else uses the tempered scale, who don't the NSP? Perhaps you are aware that really good string and wind players, when playing in small ensembles, definitely alter the pitch of certain notes when playing together? I well remember one rehearsal session where one of the players was obviously not as sensitive as the others and could not get his note in tune for the final chord. He kept on insisting that he was playing exactly the same B as he had in the chord at the beginning of the piece. The rest of us immediately said, That is the problem. In the first chord your B was the fifth in the E minor chord, and at the end it is the 3rd of the G major chord. Likewise, when playing the Northumbrian pipes with really good violinists who will, of course, have tuned their violins to the NSP G (i.e. concert F or G depending on which chanter is being used) because that is a better note to tune to than the traditional A - especially if most of the tunes to be played will be in G, you will notice that these violinists will frequently not use an open string A or E when playing along with you, because it would sound out of tune. If you have listened to some of the recordings made with Nsp and fiddles playing in unison you will notice that some sound great but others hurt your ears and make you shudder. When you listen to really good a capella (unaccompanied) small vocal ensembles such as the King's Singers you are struck by the perfection of their harmonies. Perhaps other people disagree with me and this will stir up a hornet's nest. It is just my personal thoughts on the subject and i don't claim to be an expert. Sheila -Original Message- From: Christopher Gregg chrisdgr...@gmail.com To: nsp nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 11:13 pm Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships So that is why my pipes always sound out of tune, and I thought it was just poor musicianship on my part! I have just checked out the deviation on my pipes with a tuner on my Iphone. Very interesting results.I offset the tuner to A398, so that the needle would hold still on the G. I did not use a mamoneter and I rounded out the notes to the nearest five cents. There was some correlation with Mike Nelson's chart, but also some serious differences. The b above g was approx ten cents flat, the upper B more than 25 cents flat. The upper A is 20 cents sharp, which explains why the B always sounds so flat and I try and compensate with the bag. Now my e and f#s are both on the sharp side which is the opposite to Mikes chart. I can see that I need a new chanter, but my question is, why not use equal temperament Now I can see why the fifths on the drones should be tuned pure, but in equal temperament the fifth would only beat one time in two and a half seconds, which is hardly noticeable. Is it so bad to have a little beating on the third and sixth with the drones? It is not like we can play chords on the chanter, unless it is with another set of pipes. Every one else in the world pretty well plays to equal temperament and also use tuning machines to verify their results. I am aware of perfect pitch but never having just intonation. That is very interesting. The whole tuning thing is a bit of a quagmire, and as a solo instrument it is not a problem, but I would like to know how people get around it in recording sessions. Chris Gregg -- Forwarded message -- From: [1]christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:40 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships To: [2]rich...@lizards.force9.co.uk, [3]nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Btw, Rob Say's nsp simulator is in equal temperament. I've discussed this with him and he agrees that it's less than ideal but it's neverthless a good starting point for beginners - which was what is was intended to be. When it tells you that, for example, the G and D drones are in tune, the d is still slightly (2 cents) flat relative to the G, but the just increment is not available - next click and it's sharp. Add the B on the chanter to the in tune fifth and you get an equally tempered G major triad, which is OK on a percussion instrument like the piano, where inharmonicity (q.v.) is part of the basic sound anyway and the sound mercifully decays fairly rapidly, but it sounds jarring to the ears of, for example, a sensitive piper or string-player. I hope I can feel confident that Rob will not object to my taking his name in vain. Csirz P.S. Have any fiddlers/violinists out there wondered why
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Thanks all for these responses. I'm trying in vain to remember the name in a BBC Radio3 programme some while ago about the Italian composer, just before Gesualdo, who devised the most amazing system to mean that all intervals were perfectly in tune, but the instruments, and singers, had to be tuned with several microtonally different versions of each nominal note to achieve it. I've thought before that it almost argues the existence of a god with a sense of humour, to set the maths so that the octave does want to divide, via the 5ths, into 12 semitones which then don't produce an octave. Back to playing the pipes. Best wishes, Richard. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
I put this down to my pipes being tuned with G as their home key, as it were, This is probably it, as you probably (I hope) have your pipes tuned in more like just intonation than equal temperament. So your nominal B, for example, will be very flat as the second degree of the A minor scale. Playing in E minor is virtually impossible (in fact Dick Hensold reckons it is impossible) unless you tweak the B upwards quite a bit. It's doable if your bottom E is tuned flatter than an octave lower than the top e (the latter being more pressure-tweakable than the former). See Mike Nelson's website (although, strangely enough, this is not the reason he gives for the discrepant tuning). Or am I just approaching ever nearer to being certifiably in need of locking away? Probably. Join the club ;-) csirz -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
The tuning given here is basically just intonation rather than meantone: http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/smallpipes/tuning.htm In other words, acoustically pure intervals. No tempering at all. but on a piano a fifth is a fifth is a fifth (nearly). Nearly = two cents narrow cf. Mike Nelson's correct fifths. The problem with just intonation (with G as the home key) is that it gives you perfect triads on G, C and D but the fifth between A and top e is unusable as such (2O cents narrower than equal temperament = 22 cents narrower than just i.e. acoustically pure, 2:3 ratio). The top e needs to be pressure-tweaked to give a good fifth above A. left alone it gives a good third with C. You can't have both with the same pitch. What we really need is eight notes (= different pitch classes) to the octave rather than just seven. And this is just for G major. No one needs to take my word for any of this. There's masses of stuff on tuning on the net. HTH csírz To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Btw, Rob Say's nsp simulator is in equal temperament. I've discussed this with him and he agrees that it's less than ideal but it's neverthless a good starting point for beginners - which was what is was intended to be. When it tells you that, for example, the G and D drones are in tune, the d is still slightly (2 cents) flat relative to the G, but the just increment is not available - next click and it's sharp. Add the B on the chanter to the in tune fifth and you get an equally tempered G major triad, which is OK on a percussion instrument like the piano, where inharmonicity (q.v.) is part of the basic sound anyway and the sound mercifully decays fairly rapidly, but it sounds jarring to the ears of, for example, a sensitive piper or string-player. I hope I can feel confident that Rob will not object to my taking his name in vain. Csírz P.S. Have any fiddlers/violinists out there wondered why it's so difficult to sound in tune in C major - especially if there are lots of double stops and chords (e.g. Paganini's 11th caprice to take an obvious example g)? It's because you have to decide at any point whether you want/need to be in tune with the G string or the E string. To be in tune with both, you have to temper (narrow) your fifths, and then the fifths sound rongue. The chord GEbe (open G, first finger E+b, open e) (not encountered in said caprice, btw) is impossible to get in tune unless you tweak the finger sharp as you pass from the E to the b. Anyone really interested should look up syntonic comma (which is the difference between five perfect fifths (= open strings of viola + violin) and two octaves and a pure major third). It's the reason why guitarists with sensitive ears are never happy with the tuning of the G and b strings (and why you can't tune the fifth fret harmonic on the b string to the fourth fret harmonic on the g string - although many try to!). Once you've got used to hearing/listening to pure intervals, you realise that these are by no means dry, academic, theoretical considerations. If you haven't yet acquired the taste, you have a treat in store. Go for it. I was actually born with just intonation ears - so my music teacher at school told me (or words to that effect). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
So that is why my pipes always sound out of tune, and I thought it was just poor musicianship on my part! I have just checked out the deviation on my pipes with a tuner on my Iphone. Very interesting results.I offset the tuner to A398, so that the needle would hold still on the G. I did not use a mamoneter and I rounded out the notes to the nearest five cents. There was some correlation with Mike Nelson's chart, but also some serious differences. The b above g was approx ten cents flat, the upper B more than 25 cents flat. The upper A is 20 cents sharp, which explains why the B always sounds so flat and I try and compensate with the bag. Now my e and f#s are both on the sharp side which is the opposite to Mikes chart. I can see that I need a new chanter, but my question is, why not use equal temperament Now I can see why the fifths on the drones should be tuned pure, but in equal temperament the fifth would only beat one time in two and a half seconds, which is hardly noticeable. Is it so bad to have a little beating on the third and sixth with the drones? It is not like we can play chords on the chanter, unless it is with another set of pipes. Every one else in the world pretty well plays to equal temperament and also use tuning machines to verify their results. I am aware of perfect pitch but never having just intonation. That is very interesting. The whole tuning thing is a bit of a quagmire, and as a solo instrument it is not a problem, but I would like to know how people get around it in recording sessions. Chris Gregg -- Forwarded message -- From: [1]christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:40 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships To: [2]rich...@lizards.force9.co.uk, [3]nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Btw, Rob Say's nsp simulator is in equal temperament. I've discussed this with him and he agrees that it's less than ideal but it's neverthless a good starting point for beginners - which was what is was intended to be. When it tells you that, for example, the G and D drones are in tune, the d is still slightly (2 cents) flat relative to the G, but the just increment is not available - next click and it's sharp. Add the B on the chanter to the in tune fifth and you get an equally tempered G major triad, which is OK on a percussion instrument like the piano, where inharmonicity (q.v.) is part of the basic sound anyway and the sound mercifully decays fairly rapidly, but it sounds jarring to the ears of, for example, a sensitive piper or string-player. I hope I can feel confident that Rob will not object to my taking his name in vain. Csirz P.S. Have any fiddlers/violinists out there wondered why it's so difficult to sound in tune in C major - especially if there are lots of double stops and chords (e.g. Paganini's 11th caprice to take an obvious example g)? It's because you have to decide at any point whether you want/need to be in tune with the G string or the E string. To be in tune with both, you have to temper (narrow) your fifths, and then the fifths sound rongue. The chord GEbe (open G, first finger E+b, open e) (not encountered in said caprice, btw) is impossible to get in tune unless you tweak the finger sharp as you pass from the E to the b. Anyone really interested should look up syntonic comma (which is the difference between five perfect fifths (= open strings of viola + violin) and two octaves and a pure major third). It's the reason why guitarists with sensitive ears are never happy with the tuning of the G and b strings (and why you can't tune the fifth fret harmonic on the b string to the fourth fret harmonic on the g string - although many try to!). Once you've got used to hearing/listening to pure intervals, you realise that these are by no means dry, academic, theoretical considerations. If you haven't yet acquired the taste, you have a treat in store. Go for it. I was actually born with just intonation ears - so my music teacher at school told me (or words to that effect). C To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- [5]http://www.tuneit.ca -- References 1. mailto:christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu 2. mailto:rich...@lizards.force9.co.uk 3. mailto:nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. http://www.tuneit.ca/
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
This makes a lot more sense on a mean-tone tempered instrument like NSP, than on a notionally equal-tempered one like a piano. Different keys do have perceptibly different intervals between the various degrees on NSP, so G-d is pretty true and E-B is on the flat side; but on a piano a fifth is a fifth is a fifth (nearly). John From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Richard York [rich...@lizards.force9.co.uk] Sent: 03 February 2011 18:25 To: NSP group Subject: [NSP] Esoteric tuning relationships I am sure I'm not the only person here who gets different feelings about different keys. G always feels fairly stable, A is a bit more exciting, Em is darker than Am , and so on. When playing an A minor tune I wrote for nsp's on the piano to see what harmonies it wanted, I was playing in Am, the written pitch, to get the right feel. It comes out on the pipes in more-or-less G minor of course, but still has that feeling of lift of being on A rather than G. While I lack the finger facility to play it in Gm on the pipes I suspect it would feel different there, just as it does on real Gm on the piano. I put this down to my pipes being tuned with G as their home key, as it were, so the maths is probably the same in relation to G on the piano if you can work out what I mean by this imprecise expression. I realise this could get far far more complicated than my maths will begin to understand, so will content myself with wondering if anyone else gets this feeling, and if it transposes itself the same way for you between nsp's and concert pitch instruments. Or am I just approaching ever nearer to being certifiably in need of locking away? Best wishes, Richard. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
