Flat sets

[Peter Duggan]

I think pitch was all over the place the baroque period as well and 415 was chosen merely as modern convenience for modern players of baroque music as its a half step lower than 440.

Yep, likewise 392 (which is a whole tone lower), with some modern makers of baroque flutes etc. concentrating on these and others (eg Folkers & Powell) offering a whole range of options.

[Ceann Cromtha]

I have a Rogge copy of Ennis's Coyne C# with two chanters -- one pitched more like Ennis's, i.e., a bit sharp and another pitched right at C#. I took the set to the Baltimore tionol a couple of weeks ago and asked Michael Cooney to check it out vis-a-vis his original Coyne C# set. The lower pitched chanter was definitely more to his liking and sounded just like his set up. In fact I needed to replace the bass drone reed to bring the whole kit down to his set's pitch.

[Cathy Wilde]

Anent the 19th-century orchestral tuning arc ....

My understanding and recollection, supporting by a rereading of Martin (that's a handy little chapter!), is that basically around 1810 or 1820, orchestra tuning went crazy. Part of it was due to the fact that the woodwind instruments were all improving in design and tuning, so they could keep up with the strings; part of it was due to the fact that conductors decided higher pitch sounded more "brilliant" and carried better. (It's said they deduced this from the fact that as the orchestra hall warmed up during the performance and the instruments went sharper, the crowd got more enthusiastic.)

From there it was a continental competition, orchestras vying for who could sound the brightest. The Americans joined in and high tuning was all the rage. Bear in mind that Mozart wrote at A=422 (closer to an A-flat than an A by today's tuning), so it was a nachtmare for Magic Flute singers!

By the mid- to late 1800's, it was deemed out of control. All the time, tuning kept creeping up; the British hit 455, and the Viennese 456. Not to be outdone (shocking, huh? ), the Americans opted for 457. Instruments that were in tune in one city might not be in another, and by 1878 some singers were actually refusing to perform with certain orchestras because the pitch was too high (according to Martin, Adelina Patti refusing to sing at Covent Garden was a watershed moment). Military bands tuned even higher. Anyway, it was recognized as a problem as early as 1858 -- a commission was formed which included Berlioz and Rossini among its members, in addition to scientists, physicists, etc. -- but it wasn't until 1885 that the Austrian government came out with the recommendation for A=435. AND, it wasn't until 1920 that a compromise was reached at A=440; which, as we know, has been the recommended pitch for manufacturers ever since.

So in our old flutes' cases ... when you think about who was ordering what flute to play with which orchestra, it's easy to see why we find so much pitch variation!

As for pipes it's hard to imagine Coyne dropping by Rudall & Rose to see what this week's woodwind pitch was, but the older I get the less I believe that things happen in a total vacuum. Coyne could have had a "modern" flute, or a friend with one, or an au courant fiddle-playing neighbor (the 1840s version of Sean Maguire?), or ... hey, maybe he knew someone who worked at Dollard in Dublin. (When were Butlers being made?) Anyway, who knows? Stranger things have happened.

If anyone wants to get deeply nerdy there's a nifty little chart here showing the gradual rise in pitch: http://books.google.com/books?id=MjTLYq ... e&q&f=true

It's on page 91. According to the chart, the orchestra tuning standard in Paris rose 40+ cents between 1700 and 1858!

Why didn't I find this book in music school??? Maybe I would have stayed in. (Except for that unfortunate insufficiency of ability thing, of course ...)

[Uilliam]

Nick I have lots of pet theories...non of which are scientific :shock:Anyways it dosinnae matter ye dinnae want to buy it....it's not for sale.However I still have prints for sale to help our Lepers...

[Driftwood]

The question of musical pitch has been discussed on this forum several times. Eventually the thread dies, as all threads must, but not before all and sundry have reached for the nearest musical encyclopedia and given us a summary of the contents. On previous occasions I've joined the party, but not this time.

IMO the right approach as far as uilleann pipes is concerned would be to study the playing pitch of surviving historic sets (especially those that have not been tampered with) whilst replicating as far as possible the playing conditions of the time (e.g. reed geometry, atmospherics). Only when a decent amount of data had been collected and analysed would it be appropriate to construct a historical theory. In other words a proper scientific study like some of the articles in the Sean Reid Society journal and possibly a funded Phd. project for somebody of the calibre of a Bill Haneman. Any takers?

[tommykleen]

... In other words a proper scientific study like some of the articles in the Sean Reid Society journal and possibly a funded Phd. project for somebody of the calibre of a Bill Haneman. Any takers?

*...crickets*

[Peter Duggan]

The question of musical pitch has been discussed on this forum several times.

No doubt...

but not before all and sundry have reached for the nearest musical encyclopedia and given us a summary of the contents.

But that's just pejorative guesswork on your part!

[Cathy Wilde]

I'll take the "Sundry" moniker, but I'm quite confident ALL haven't reached for the dictionary ... yet.

[Driftwood]

My apologies Cathy, no personal offence intended to anyone:- it was just a general impression garnered over time. Not very scientific (!) but surly enough I guess.

[CHasR]

...did someone say 'funding' ?

[Brazenkane]

I have a C chanter from Joe Kennedy that sounds about as close to Ennis' chanter on the 40 Years record as I've ever heard. It's 1 of a perhaps a few other tracks on that record that is bang on in C. It's def. Brighter than B!

[billh]

The Ennis Coyne does indeed sound very flat in the recordings whose pitch can best be trusted - closer to C than C#. I don't know the exact length of the chanter, nor do I have measurements. It may have been modified by Brogan in the restoration, of course, and thus the pitch may not match what was originally intended. From this distance it's really hard to know.

I have reeded and examined three Coyne C# chanters and have heard two others up close, including Michael Cooney's as reeded by Bwenedict Koehler. All of those were sharper than the Ennis chanter by a considerable margin. Mostly they seem to like being 10 to 20 cents flat of modern C#, though at least one of them can be happily reeded to modern C# (i.e. not flat of "C#").

[Brazenkane]

An aside-I played Cooney's set, and the chanter plays nearly identical to Joe's. Great testiment to Joe's work, and as Bill said too, that chanter is playing at a higher pitch.

[Cathy Wilde]

My apologies Cathy, no personal offence intended to anyone

Sorry I got my feathers ruffled. I did find it all very interesting, but probably should have looked to see if it had been discussed before.

I do like your idea of a pipe-specific study with someone like Mr. Haneman holding the reins ... I would consider donating to such a thing if it was well-documented, etc.

In the meantime, surly on!