At 18:30 I think you might be confusing three major tuning systems: Meantone, Well Temperament and Equal Temperament. A common misconception is that Bach invented Equal Temperament and/or wrote The Well Tempered Clavier for Equal Temperament. You are not alone in thinking that. However, Bach wrote The Well Tempered Clavier specifically for Well Temperament, because everyone was using Meantone at the time and you couldn't use all the keys. Meantone used only a few of the simple keys as you correctly describe, and Bach wrote Well Temperament, not only to be able to demonstrate that he could use all the keys, but also to demonstrate the color variety and differences between the keys, but it was Well Tempered not Equal Tempered. As you say, Equal Temperament didn’t come into reality until the early 20th Century. Also, Meantone doesn’t only apply to Mozart. It applies to all Baroque composers, including Bach, before 1722. What’s interesting is that Mozart was probably still used the older Meantone tuning system some 50 years later, after Well Temperament was well established, when most composers were probably using Well Temperament by that time.
I have a question for anyone willing to answer: is this a dilemma for continuously variable / "fretless" instruments like violin, cello, human voice? I've always understood these various tunings to be a solution specific to fretted instruments like piano, guitar, etc.
Mr. Radford, are you aware of the new Precise Temperament tuning? As I understand the inventor used a type of Well-Tempering to actually increase resonance of intervals. But it literally sounds like Equal Temperament, only ... richer!
Hello, AnHebrewChild. I am note-to-color synesthete, and uToober who covers a lots of these types of question (perception as well as effects of frequecy and tuning). Different tunings are not generally not a dilemma for singers because the human voice adjusts for the changes, often even giving highlights of tiny pitch changes outside of the fixed, rigid tuning on an instrument. I'd also say that the violinist or cellist will also make the same adjustments as well as unconsciously make purer or alternative pitches. An orchestra never plays perfectly in tune because there are so many instrumentalists playing at slightly different times and and slightly different pitches. Which is why orchestral recordings sound organic compared to the same recording played off of sampled digital instruments. It's also why no one really sets a Brahms Symphony to digital Garage-Band orchestral instruments. It can be done, but it just sounds so hokey compared to a real orchestra! So, digital synthesists kind of avoid this and stick to techno music. Ha. Like nature, the human voice is always in flux. It is physically impossible for even the best singers to sustain a perfectly even note. I have done some very interesting recordings of sine-waves played from a vibration-speaker which I set on the surface of my guitar. Then I recorded the literally pure, perfect sinewave from the hole of the guitar. The result is that pure single tones (with no overtones) are resonating out of the natural woods of the guitars. Therefore the only overtones added to the sine wave are the natural overtones of the guitar itself. The result is quite magical. There is an amazing new setting on Apple's Logic Pro program, and some other digital-recording workstations apps which amazingly fixes or shifts the 3rd and the 5th into pure interval WHILE the music is being played back. Meaning that if your digital-piano performance that is in equal temperament remains in that tuning, yet is the individual chords played back are adjusted into our tunings. It sounds so odd because we are not used to it. But odd in a different way that the extremity of older tuning like Meantone, Valotti, etc. FINALLY, there is a new tuning called Precise Tuning that has just been invented by scholar Robert Edward Grant. He as improved the richness of equal temperament by apply Well Tempering to it (for lack of a better explanation). He also encourages to set his tuning to A432 Scientific Tuning, instead of standardized A432Hz concert pitch! Hope this gives some insights into your question! - _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole thank you for such a thorough answer. I just checked out your channel and just subscribed (im listening to Simply Red at 432Hz as I type this). I suppose part of the reason I asked the question stemmed from a frustration I have with so many similar videos to the one we're commenting on (about temperaments & tunings) which fail to address the elephant in the room about the downsides of fixed-standards in tuning and WHY they've been "deemed necessary." Of course, we know the standard cover story... I also find it odd that even SO many apparently skilled musicians, even classically trained instrumentalists, fail to ever stumble upon the rather obvious (to you & me) reality that sound waves are analogical to light waves and that THEREFORE: 1. just as there are hues which do not naturally occur in nature (neon greens), there would be tones which are similarly unnatural (A=440Hz?). The ridiculous "baroque tuning of A=415.3" is so silly it boggles the brain. Canon in C# anybody? 2. just as painters paint each landscape with a different palette, likewise musicians have always, historically, tuned to the mood, to the room, to the instruments, to the birds chirping outside, to the color of the emotion they want to convey (I mean that literally and figuratively as synesthesia is a phenomenon of longitudinal + latitudanal wave phase resonance. 3. it must BY NECESSITY be highly damaging to the modern psyche to always hear the same sound palette all the time. I think the monotony of it all is behind many of the western world's mental illnesses. All songs you hear overhead while pushing your shopping cart around the supermarket, Lowe's or Kohls are in the same palette. Adding insult to injury, the palette is neon green. Most folks don't consciously synthesize light & sound as you do, but the deleterious effect is still there. (Poison is poison, nonetheless.) 4. there are gorgeous happy tone-palettes which naturally occur in nature (you understand the color wheel analogies so I'll spare you of triad and fifths and harmonics speak). Does this question occur to most "musicians": "what key is that brown finch chirping in? I think I'll tune to that and play along." I do this all the time and they love it. I also find that if I play Hélène Schmitt playing Schmelzer's Ciaccona in A (she tunes her violin to 421.4 there if I recall) the birds will happily sing along. I've attracted a whole courtyard of them with just the right violin music. I'll be commenting on your channel in the future as it's refreshing to find stumble across someone who ACTUALLY thinks on these things at a creative, childlike level. Thank you for your reply. I will leave you with this question tho: why the seeming fixation on 432 & 444 in particular? (I used to be too). Or maybe I'm reading you wrong. I've increasingly become more about tuning to the room, the mood of people, the mood of my dog and of the key the birds happen to be chirping in that day. I find that this has opened me up to a huge world of comforting sounds. Psalm 148 speaks of the trees and the stars and the snow and angels singing praise. The next psalm encourages us to put forth praise on the psaltery. Tuning our Theorbo to the sounds of nature around us is a very wise and good way to tune. Because nature is already singing, if we have ears to hear. - An Hebrew Child
Very well explained introduction to the controversial subject of temperament. I agree with you entirely! Equal temperament was as you say adopted when in the early 20th century the technology was available to accurately measure frequency and adopted as a universal standard more for convenience than artistic endeavour. Your comment about Chopin is interesting and I agree again with you that he chose the keys of his pieces for the particular character of the sound. Most commentators say he was fascinated by the physical relationship between the keyboard and the hand and choose the key of a piece because of this. Fact is his pianos were certainly not tuned to equal temperament. He like all composers of the classical and romantic periods would have had their own favourite tuners who would use a version of the systems you refer to. I wonder if some of the music we now hear played in equal would ever have been composed at all exactly as notated, had they been composed for an instrument so tuned! Piano music should always be played in the temperament most likely to have been used at the time. Sadly this is rarely the case even in professional recordings.
Very interesting stuff. I knew the tuning theory - but I never realized that that historical composers actually exploited the different tuning colors of different keys
@@viggosimonsen thanks for this encouraging comment! Historical composers did so and moreover even modern music not written for key colour is almost always more interesting.
As a jazz pianist, there are several very specific dissonant chords we use that I believe would only work in 12TET, although I've never had an opportunity to test them in other tunings to see if the chords still "work". But I notice that certain more consonant chords like a major triad still sound good even if they are slightly detuned, as our ear can see past the detuning and still perceive the major triad and its function within a tonal piece. However there are dissonant jazz chords, for example a dominant 7th with a flat 9, flat 5 and natural 13th, which I use all the time and sound incredibly beautiful when my piano is in tune but sound very muddy and lose their beauty when the piano is out of tune. It is my personal theory that some of these dissonant jazz chords that became common in the mid 20th century arose as a result of 12TET and are unique sounds that work in an equal temperament setting but wouldn't work if you retroactively tried them in pure intonation. But this is really just an anecdotal theory of mine. I would love to play around with jazz chords in just intoned tunings to see if they still "work".
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. You should try it; I'll be curious what you think. I'm going to release a video on this subject so I'll keep you posted. I understand why you have this perspective from a theoretical point of view. Then again, I'm excited for you to discover this: I think the more you play with it, the more you'll realize that 12TET is less good than a Victorian temperament for jazz. Really excited for your exploration. Not saying this is the best example, but ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AMpJvERgdug.html and check these out: www.billbremmer.com/ebvt/ Or this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9Klyuoky9eM.html vs. this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AVXX-YIB6eo.html The difference is subtle but most people prefer the Victorian as being somehow vaguely more musical and alive.
Hi there, I found I had many thoughts about your comment, so I made a video, hopefully of interest to you and others, in response. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--SRSCOMD3QA.html
Are you a professional jazz pianist? My impression of professionals in a very competitive field such as music is that one is usually very curious if someone can give offer a competitive advantage (for free, built into the piano). Not saying you'll agree, but many people believe that I'm offering just such an advantage.
3 месяца назад
hertz mean "per second", so you might say "times per second" instead of "hertz per second"
Interesting! I just started tuning my own piano using the Tune Lab software on my iPad. I’m a jazz player and will try your Victorian temperament to see how it like it.
Great, let me know! Bill Bremmer's equal-beating Victorian is worth a try. The equal-beating part creates more harmonious tuning (let me know if you'd like more explanation on that part)
If you play jazz then definitely just use 12TET because Jazz is dense with key changes and so you will need each key to sound equally good. You'll also likely be playing with other jazz musicians, like guitarists, maybe vibes players etc. and they won't be able to play with you unless you use 12TET
@@SamChaneyProductions this is a very thoughtful comment. I’ll probably need to make another video to give my thoughts on it. Quickly, couple things: 1. Victorian temperament is milder, but there’s enough “colour” that jazzy key changes sound more alive and musical, than in ET but overall, the colour is less obvious. I recommend Victorian, not ET, for most jazz. 2. Keep in mind that fretless instruments like the violin aren’t tempered at all. In principle, by your reasoning, these instruments should sound bad with the piano. But in practice, slight difference isn’t noticeable. And the increased musicality of Victorian temperament is worth it. In short, this comment is a good one and one I should address. I get why it seems that way in principle however in practice, I think you’d find this isn’t true. Also, if a particular temperament is too spicy, one can always choose a milder one. However, a slight amount of colour will almost always make music more interesting than none at all. The only music that well temperament might ruin is certain contemporary music, aka a whole bunch of 4ths that need to be even or something.
@@SamChaneyProductions hi there, I produced a video to respond to this thoughtful comment. Thanks again. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q-MHqdyF82A.html
Interesting. I used to tune pianos as a side gig about 45 years ago. Just used an old StroboConn for the first two octaves above middle C, then stretched each upper octave 5 cents higher than the one below it up to about 15 cents at the top to compensate for inharmonicity. Slightly more for cheap pianos, slightly less for grands and higher quality uprights. Not so much in the base, just basically followed the tuner until it couldn't make sense of the muddy low notes anymore and used my ear after that. That worked fine for my customers, most of whom were not musicians, just amateur players or people who happened to own pianos. Then I moved overseas and had to stop all tuning and playing entirely. Now retired and 45 years older I'm back at it, but I'm finding that electronic piano tuners are a lot more sophisticated than my old StroboConn was in the 1970s, and my playing has suffered badly. Literally have to start all over again note by note, but I've more time now to do some experimenting. Will try the Thomas Young Well Temperament, and maybe some other temperaments, but will have to figure out how to tune a piano in different temperaments first. Was hoping you'd show us how to do that in this video. Can modern tuning apps tune in different temperaments automatically, do you know?
Thanks so much for this comment and so glad you're back in the tuning world. Should pay dividends! I tune by ear. My friend Carl teaches how to tune Thomas Young by ear here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WzlO54ifU_c.html The very generous Bill Bremmer teaches an Equal Beating Victorian Temperament here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hyojqQetqu0.html As for using a phone, the right app it can help you. On my iPhone I use PianoMeter and ClearTune.
@@dsummerhays Thank you. I'd like to learn more about the Thomas Young Well Temperament method. Unfortunately, that great nemesis of old age, tinnitus, may keep me from counting some of the beats, which is why I asked about YT temperament tuning via electronic tuning apps. Tuning unisons isn't a problem, but counting 4.1 beats between notes might be. I've tried PianoMeter in an iPad, it's a big improvement over my old StroboConn. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
what i do not understand is that all these big composers did not share what tunning or temperament they used. this discussion is not new and you would think they would be well aware that the music sounds different if the temperament changes. it was also not standardized at all, so why did they leave this up for debate? why did they not write it down, as it is a big part of their sound?
Hi Sebastian, interesting point. Obviously one composer did say which temperament he used: Bach's well-tempered music. But you're right that many didn't. And Bach wasn't the clearest on what well temperament meant (more below). In many periods the reason is fairly simple: there was only one common way to tune within that composer's context. These days, composers don't specify to tune the piano in 12-tone equal temperament (12TET) because of the dominance of 12TET. I recognize this dominance even though, as you know from my video, I think a well temperament is 99% of the time superior. Of all the composers writing in a transition period, I suspect Mozart is more of an exception to this (see ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n91EwZHXUtc.html). Bach also didn't leave instructions on how to tune, but at the time, I suspect he felt it would be easy for a relevant person (nobility, church staff) to get the instructions they needed or write Bach for help. The publishing landscape was very different back (wasn't Bach published posthumously?) then nor was there so much an idea of the composer as "Genius," whose minute wishes about the music are to be reverently obeyed. I wouldn't be surprised if many pre-piano composers felt that people playing their music, if they wanted to, should try a few temperaments to see what they like, as retuning the harpsichord takes far less time. It's precisely this spirit of experimentation with sound that is too often missing under 12TET (you might think I exaggerate; as a piano tuner I am astonished how many people have zero interest), which ironically, is probably one of the worst choices (Victorian would be the safest choice in my book).
Great video, thanks! I am using Bach/Lehman temperament on my piano, spinet and electronic keyboard. It is close to Thomas Young's with slightly milder major thirds in remote keys (none of them reaches the Pythagorean value 81/64). I couldn't go back to equal temperament by now. I better understand Olivier Messiaen's complaint "La tierce majeure, je ne me consolerai jamais de sa disparition" !
@@dsummerhays I have tried Serge Cordier's just fifths equal temperament before discovering Bach/Lehman. Very nice and refreshing but singing octaves are a bit surprising, and 12ths do beat as well. I also tried Kirnberger III and Vallotti (a variant of Thomas Young) on my spinet. I can't remember how and when exacty I heard about BL temperament. But I immediately tried it on my spinet, together with a few alternatives proposed by his contradictors, quickly confirming myself that Lehman was right, or at least close to the truth. I therefore adopted it on the piano as well, and did not change since then. The recent outstanding performance of both volumes of Bach's WTC by Andrei Korobeinikov in Paris last month contributed to let more people getting aware of this great temperament. BL tuning also sounds great in more recent piano works by composers like Grieg, Debussy, Lili Boulanger or Ravel.
@@dominiquemanchon9914 Allô Dominique, just to clarify, there are two Thomas Young temperaments. The second one is variant of Valotti, whereas the first one is truly distinct. When people talk about Thomas Young they mean the first one. According to Owen Jorgensen, somewhat the American expert on temperaments, the first Thomas Young is one of the better balanced well-temperaments -- the progression of thirds is balanced and none of the dissonance is too glaring. I will gladly try Lehman-Bach. I've been reading up on this temperament after your comment, thank you. A tuner friend tells me this temperament is a bit less well balanced than the first Thomas Young, but I'll try for myself.
All very wel,what you are telling here,but.....tell that the record companies.They always (or most of the cases) check the tuning for the equal temperament. And...not just in the middle octaves,but..ALL THROUGH the instrument.(as far as they are able to)
Agreed! Part of the purpose of the video is to educate... anyone who wants education! Please forward to anyone. Question, is this public information about their tuning? Are you referring to auto-tune? If you can provide more information, I'd be curious.
I play electronic music and use only synths (SurgePigmentsPianoteq) that can be tuned precisely to a given piece's chords requirements. Nowadays, i like to "customize" WerckmeisterIII to suit my particular needs. I am not always searching for perfect tuning, i also like some chords to be more vibrant than others. Etc.. Once you begin doing that, there is no coming back to Equal Temperament.
I really wonder if we could make an AI that could temper every interval played on an instrument to be perfect in real time a bit like a violins and cellos do in an orchestra, or many achapello singers and groups. Even better, we could tune this temperment AI on the fly to have sharper or flatter intervals on any or every key depending the genre/piece we are playing or just pure personal taste. It would be a type of dynamic temperament that would surely revolutionise music.
You may be interested in this video which explains some of the complexity of "just" temperament for the string instrument: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nPN_tTv7C_8.html That said, what you're proposing wouldn't necessarily be very difficult to do in principle, but it might sound strange. For instance, if the melody had repeating notes, their value would change with the chord. I thought I saw a RU-vid video somewhere where this was done but I can't find it.
for Chopin, ask for thomas young 1 temperament (fifths are a little flat, fourths are more sharp and thirds are very sharp) for other classics, ask for Victorian temperament
For Chopin, I do indeed recommend a Thomas Young tuning. Anything before about 1920 will be more in character in Thomas Young. The fifths all being flat, the fourths even more sharp and the thirds quite sharp is equal temperament. Thomas Young isn’t equal so the sharpness/flatness of all the intervals depends on the key. C major will be different than F#. I find most modern music (jazz, musicals) sounds a bit more melodious in a Victorian tuning. To find out for yourself, you can ask the piano tuner to tune both ways for an octave or two and try your music. A word of warning, most piano tuners don’t know how to tune anything but equal temperament. But their ignorance must not be your problem. Insist on having someone who does know how. It’s your instrument so don’t accept anything less. Another word of warning, certain piano tuners will justify their ignorance by claiming that any other way of tuning the piano will damage it (because pianos supposedly aren’t “designed” for anything but ET in mind). I’ll just have to post another video on the subject.
Interesting, thanks. I'm wondering how a piano tuner can be asked to tune your piano in x, y, or z tuning if "90% of piano tuners won't know this..." Also, how does one who does know of Thomas Young's tuning, for instance, actually go about doing it? The video gives the impression they can pull up a particular tuning to their technology and do every string course to its particular frequency. Is that it? Any time I've had my piano tuned, although there's some use of tuning forks or digital tuners and who knows what, they actually do most of the intervals by ear. And they don't work from one end to the other, they cycle around the keys in passes. Are they just doing what they expect everyone wants, equal temperament? Should I try to find one of the 10%? One other thought is that two tuners have told me lately that it's now common to tune each end of the piano's register a little differently - I can't remember which way, shorter or wider. I got the impression this was the result of some weird psycho-acoustic effect, and when listening to very pure tunings (as are common in synthesizers) I do sometimes get the feeling I want the top and bottom end to be different from how they are (again, I can't remember which way round).
Hi there, thank you for these thoughtful questions. First, any piano tuner curious to learn to tune these temperaments by ear can watch my friend Carl Radford teach me the Thomas Young temperament by ear: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WzlO54ifU_c.htmlsi=ufu0I3f8u3L77SKQ For Bill Bremmer's equal-beating Victorian, here is his temperament series on RU-vid and written instructions can be found on his website: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hyojqQetqu0.html For those who tune using a device, many electronic tuning devices (ETDs) can program other temperaments or accept custom measurements. Second question, yes, I absolutely think you should find a member of the 10% or ask your piano tuner to train themselves to do it. I've had piano tuners say to me "I don't know anything but equal temperament because that's all any of my clients ever ask for." Never mind that, as the piano technician, they should be the ones suggesting superior alternatives because they are paid to be the expert. But none of us can be experts in everything at once. That said, the goal of this video is to make more piano clients ask more from their piano tuner. Third, I believe in your second paragraph you are referring to the stretch in the octaves from the lowest to the top note on the piano. Octaves should indeed be tuned VERY slightly wide of perfect. Indeed, most ETDs give an estimation for this and most aural piano tuners have a method for this as well. The two sources I gave above for tuning by ear (aural tuning) give more details about how this should be done in these temperaments. Please don't be shy with any further questions.
@@dsummerhays Thanks very much for that! After I asked about how you would go about it, I did see some instructions for tuning that worked on counting beats per second between the intervals as you went along through the process - so that makes more sense now. I will talk to my next piano tuner about alternative temperaments, and in the meantime I'll listen to examples.
@@dsummerhays I use Kellner and even Kirnberger III both with 7 rather than 6 perfect fifths but it's taken me a dozen years to tame it and another 5 to perfect it. Here it is in battle on the concert platform ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nq9sb4t3N6o.html
You are a dream-boat! You can tune my piano ANY time! Ha. David, I was not able to respond to you on our discussion about sound-healing and A432Hz because i'm being bannned for speaking about the very subject. I will respond once the band has been lifted! Your, - _Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
My piano tuner app Pano Tuner has the following (I’m not a professional piano tuner) Equal Temperament Pythagorean Just Intonation 1/4-Comma Meantone 1/3-Comma Meantone 1/6-Comma Meantone Kirnberger III Vallotti Werckmeister III Where does your recommendation sit with this lot, or do you have another tool you recommend? Btw, I like the sound of your piano. How many old pianos are tuned in a way they were never designed to be tuned?
Hi there, thanks for the comment! Werckmeister III and Kirnberger III are well temperaments (the latter was a student of Bach's), so they may be the closest. Does your tuning program have an option for a custom temperament? Valotti is more used in Baroque music. Because I receive a number of comments about how pianos are "designed," I have an entire video about it here: ^1 The short version is this: in the piano tuning exam, an A440 cannot be more than 3 cents off. In my piano I tuned just a few months ago in a climate controlled room, it is 4 cents off. If I leave it for a year, it will be more off. The maximum difference in values between ET and an equal-beating Victorian temperament, for instance, is 3.8 (^2). We both know the average piano user does not tune their piano every few months, much less every year. Plus, pianos were not originally designed for equal temperament nor am I convinced that they were significantly refactored. More in the video. 1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q-MHqdyF82A.html 2: forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/650862/Re:_Equal_Beating_Victorian_Te.html
Thanks David. It makes me want to open a piano shop (my dream) and tune to different temperaments so customers can hear the difference. In a world of online purchasing, there’s just no online substitute when selling musical instruments. I wonder how many people dislike the sound of specific pianos because of the bland nature of equal temperament tuning? I will check out your video. This is quite the rabbit hole….😊
@@Playingbyear It's a beautiful dream! The same goes for hearing temperaments: in person is really the only way. I'm not sure I'd say people dislike a piano because of equal temperament. It's still beautiful, just more bland as you say. But we're so used to it that most have nothing to compare to. That's the opportunity. Anyone who plays, composes or makes music: playing with temperament can make one stand out. I know a piano tuner who tunes in Victorian, and gets a bunch of calls because no one else can make their piano "sing" or "feel alive" the way he does. Sometimes he explains what he does, and other times he just asks if the person likes it. You're reminding me, I should make another video about "equal-beating" tuning. That is very cool. Reminder: please do let me know if you need custom values.
To be honest, this question is beyond my pay-grade! Try asking my friend Carl Radford, for instance in a comment on this video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WzlO54ifU_c.html
@@dsummerhays I tend to play a lot of 18th century repertoire and to my ears it sounds really satisfying giving nuance to the composers music - crunch when needed, especially in more distant keys. I am an organist as well, so I am experimenting with others through Hauptwerk the organ sampling program. I am lucky enough to have a piano tuner experienced in different temperaments. What are some others you have tried? Thank you for a very interesting video.
@@MrMarcvusThanks so much for letting me know and for the dialogue. I've only done Bill Bremmer's Equal-Beating Victorian Temperament (pretty mild) and Thomas Young 1. Dr. Jorgensen I'm told believes that Thomas Young is the best balanced of the bunch. You're lucky to have a piano tuner who understands!
Surely the point of equal temperament is that one can play in every key? In addition to being a piano tuner/technician, I'm also a pianist, and I play jazz. Many pieces I play modulate from one key to another, often many times (meaning going into a number of keys during one piece).. Pianists such as Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, John Taylor, McCoy Tyner or Geri Allen are well known for writing tunes which do precisely this. EXAMPLES: * 'Everybody's Song But My Own' (Kenny Wheeler) modules into at least 5 different keys in one song. * 'Body And Soul' (Duke Ellington) is in Db Major, modulating into D major. * 'You Must Believe In Spring' (Michel Legrand) is in A minor - modulating into Bb minor, with a lot of chords passing throught the cycle of 4ths on the way. * 'Giant Steps' (John Coltrane) The music of Delius, Debussy, Ravel, and Poulenc all modulate through numerous keys, as does the music of Charlie Parker. Surely any tuning OTHER than equal temperament will start to sound distinctly odd in certain keys?
Every key is usable in BOTH equal temperament and well temperaments. You're right that 1/4 or 1/6 comma meantone would not be good for those pieces., because in those historical tunings, not every key is usable. The difference between equal temperament (ET) is that in well temperament changes of key are more expressive, and keys have distinct colour. Therefore, in the pieces you mentioned, usually some kind of well temperament is SUPERIOR to equal temperament, not inferior. The arts in general and music in particular are very competitive fields. The jazz pianists that I've showed this to were extremely curious (and convinced) how a well temperament could give them a competitive advantage, essentially for free. Videos don't quite render it, you really have to try it. As for usability of keys, some tunings are more extreme than others. Maybe one particular well temperament is too spicy for you, but there are milder well temperaments, that will still be more expressive and superior to ET. You can see my video on jazz and well temperament here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--SRSCOMD3QA.html&lc=UgzFYBn9H6qerLtraIJ4AaABAg
Where did you get the shirt from? I like that design, Excellent discussion on using unequal tuning on pianos. I have been tuning for a couple years now (and still learning). What bearing on "piano stretch" does this approach have (if any).
@@paulknight6508 what do you mean by voicing? Like the ability to do a swell like an organ or the subtleties of a violin player or singer? If so, the modern piano and the 19th century piano have never been able to do voicing. But the 19th century piano had more expression because of the temperament
No. Voicing is needling of hammers to create tonal range in piano. This opens the sound, creates sustain and expression in the piano. Creates a wide dynamic range so music can be played with expression.
Yamaha and kawai for example very well known. Totally bright pianos somewhat monotone, usually minimum voicing. People has become accustomed to this. Pianos were made so music could be played with expression not monotone. Voicing can transform many modern pianos.
@@paulknight6508 Ah very interesting! I'll consider this a bit more. When I think of voicing, I usually think that I want the piano's voicing to be "even", but you're saying something else? Agree about the otherwise quality Japanese pianos being pretty bright. It's also a question of the hammers, non? Seems to me that both voicing and temperament are important factors. Thanks again for the very interesting comments
6:31 1 why is one quarter a fourth? is a quarter not C - E? 1 - 2 - 3 (two steps) out of 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7- 8 (seven steps)? 2 Or out of seven a quarter should be 7 divided by four = 1.75 steps? 3Two steps is a third, which is not 2.3333 steps either. Why not? 4 Why is C - D - E - F called a quarter if it is not a quarter of 7 steps?
Musical lingo can indeed be confusing. In math, a fourth is a ratio. In music, a fourth originally means the distance between scale degrees one and four (1 - 2 - 3 - 4, in C major, C - F), however, a fourth is also 2-5 (D-G), 3-6 (E-A), G-C (5-8), A-D (6-9) and B-E (7-10). So like in math, a fourth refers to a ratio between the bottom note to the top note. But one has to understand scales to know why it’s called that.
There is only one way to tune equal temperament. However there are infinite ways to tune a Well Temperament. All of those besides ET and meantone are well temperaments. Well temperament just means the keys are uneven (with different schemes). Not sure if I can explain much beyond that.
@@teemum.9023 you’re welcome. Also well temperament implies that all the keys are usable but not equal. Some well temperaments are quite close to equal, while others are very uneven. Victorian temperaments were very close to equal.
This is awesome explanation. I am restoring a free old piano (never even played piano before). You helped me a lot. My piano is 85 keys, all wooden, with good pinblock and out of tune for possibly couple years. Should I still start with 440hz, or old pianos like that (around 100 years or less) should be tuned lower? Thanks! Subscribed your channel - good luck!
@@radosawrezler1551 it’s a great idea. I actually don’t know the answer. From my perspective, the reference pitch (440hz vs. 435 hz) has less impact on the music than temperament. Gonna think about your suggestion though
Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. Helps me understand who I’m reaching, which means a lot to me. You may be better off asking for advice on a forum. All wood, as in there’s no cast iron frame? Sometimes it’s marked on the piano what frequency it should be tuned at. Better safe than sorry. I’d go slow bringing it up to whatever pitch.
@@dsummerhays it's interesting because, for me, 432Hz produces a more noticeable sound difference than certain temperaments, particularly those closer to equal temperament. It seems that beginners may also find it easier to distinguish differences between these frequencies. However, this effect might only be apparent when comparing them side by side. With temperament, you can observe it directly while playing the piano, comparing each note live without needing another instrument on the side, if that makes sense.
@@radosawrezler1551 I’m not 100% sure what you mean but tell me if this is it: using 432 hz makes the piano easier to tune because the beat rates will be slower and easier to count and distinguish. By the way, that’s why aural piano tuners tune the midrange first.
Well, I personally like to learn about aural piano tunning and found your explanations very useful and accurate :) But if you're interested in knowing about the relationship between piano tuning and Iranian music I'd say that in Persian music piano can be tuned in a different style which in each octave, E-flat and A-flat are tuned approximately 36 cents higher to create an about 86 cents interval so that persian scales like Shoor, Navaa, Segaah can be played on the piano correctly.
@@dsummerhays I'm glad you're interested. you may want to search for works of Morteza Mahjoubi which have composed many pure Persian melodies on the piano.
In equal temperament, that’s right! In Thomas Young or a Victorian temperament, it depends on the key, as each key will have a unique character or colour.
Can you still tell me why a c - d- e- f is called a quarter even though it isn´t 25 % or seven steps from c d e f g a h c? And why is a c - d - e called a third? It is just third key from c?
Pianos were designed for well temperament in mind. Any evidence that the design fundamentally changed? I understand why you'd think this. I have an entire video on this subject: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q-MHqdyF82A.html
David, have you heard of the new tuning my the scholar, Robert Edward Grant. He uses a type of Well Tempering system, but it sounds BETTER than equal temperament, while it still sound even! I'm posting a great Bach example of it right now on mi channel. (PS, are you single? Wink-wink!)
Thanks, not single :) According to the description of Precise tuning, the thirds are even more sharp than equal temperament. To me, I would assume that would sound bad. I'll check it out.
After doing some homework on this, I think Precise tuning sounds worse than Equal temperment. Precisely for the reason I stated: what counts in temperament is the thirds and ability to modulate. The thirds are sharper than in equal temperament.
But if you had to research the tuning before you decided to "think" that Precise Temp sounded worse than Equal Temp then doesn't this show that there is no noticeable apparent difference? // In your defense, however,, I think I may have fooled myself with my own initial statement! I claimed that Precise sounds "better" than Equal Temperament I think was based on my personal use of A432Hz tuning on my own pianos and instruments. I had gotten so used to performing in that pitch -reference that to my hear is sounded "better" since I was tuning to Natural frequencies and frequencies related to Sacred Geometry! I'm guessing that Grant's tuning has the notes fall close to A-432/C-256 pitch (Scientific Tuning). He also as another "version" that is shipped up in reference to A444 Schumann Resonance. This would follow what wold be essentially the Biblical "Solfeggio Frequencies." To me, A440Hz is a weak place to to reference your tunings. The human voice doesn't really want to be there, A440Hz reference is me like a stuck, "sticky" place. Especially when shifting from one vocal register to the other. (Personally, for my own voice I prefer to sing in A432Hz and not A444.) Thanks SO MUCH for relating your observations here on the 3rds. It will really help me as a learn to tune pianist to the new tuning! I'm so enthused. I'm also learning to apply it the Logic Pro program to apply for MIDI/keyboard usage!
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-HoleI notice a difference and to me Precise Temperament sounds worse. Moreover, my research shows that one reason is that the thirds are sharper. As I explain in this video, the sharpness of thirds has been the key to temperament throughout history, more so than fourths/fifths that are just. I find Precise Temperament sounds less harmonious than equal temperament or other Well Temperaments I know.
Fascinating. I'll have to tune my hear closer to the speakers and try to hear this myself. (Again, as stated, may have been fooled because my ears accustomed to performing in A432Hz tuning-referent.) What's interesting is that R.E. Grant claims this is Precise Temperament IS a form of well-tempering. We've discussed plenty, so maybe at this point will simply dive more into some research here. Thanks for the engaging discussion! Your, _Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ @@dsummerhays
The E that is four fifths aboue C IS pure but is not perfect noꝛ ſhould be. The maioꝛ third hath alwaies bene conſidered an imperfect conſonance. When one miſtaketh the 5/4 ratio to be a maioꝛ third, one is miſſing the point of what a maioꝛ third is and how it functions harmonically in muſicke, it is ſuppoſed to be ſtable and conſonant yet actiue. That is acheiued perfectly in the 81/64. The 5/4 is not a muſicall pitch claſſe, it is a harmonic in the timbꝛe, but not a pitch claſſe in the key. The 5/4 is out of key and out of tune as it cannot be found in a chain of fifths, and it is by a chain of fifths that our bꝛains count and heare muſicke. The 81/64 is the ideal and pure maioꝛ third. The 5/4 is a harmonic and at beſt a ſlightly ſharp diminiſhed fourth. I do really think our bꝛains hear muſicke ideally in Pythagoꝛean tuning, regardleſſe of inharmonicity of ſtrings as well. Foꝛ me, and from the muſicke I haue heard, I am not ſure ſtretch tuning ſoundeth better at all. Hauing a keyboard inſtrument in Pythagoꝛean tuning without ſtretch tuning is beſt. If the low notes oꝛ high notes ſound a bit off, it muſt be known that the timbꝛe of thoſe ſtrings is not the beſt, but that that doth not reflect the goodneſſe of the intonation. I would rather haue notes that are in tune with ſlightly bad timbre, than notes with timbꝛes that align better and the fundamentals be out of pꝛoper pꝛopoꝛtion.
The 5/4 is flatter than the pythagorean third, non? Anyway, musicians throughout history would disagree with this. See for instance, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nPN_tTv7C_8.html That said, in modern piano, we're used to VERY sharp thirds, so the pythagorean may sound better to you, but string instruments should use both pure & pythagorean. That video I sent gives some great examples about how to choose between a just and pythagorean third.
@@dsummerhays I will check out the video. I haue been ſtudying both 5 and 3 limit tuning foꝛ many yeeres now. I haue heard and played them both at length and compoſed foꝛ both at length, and I do realize I am in the very very ſmall minoꝛity in my views. Foꝛ tenne yeeres I was a very feruent aduocate foꝛ 5 limit tuning and keyboard layouts that could handle 5 limit tuning well with enough notes that were ergonomically auailable to the hands/ But it got to a point where the ſheer amounf on notes needed foꝛ a muſicall ſyſtem and the inabilitie foꝛ a a keyboard to accomodate them, my intereſt in 3 limit was kindled again after ruling it out many yeeres pꝛioꝛ becauſe of the maioꝛ thirds being too diſſonant. I at firſt ſought 3 limit tuning as a way of imitating 5 limit but with leſſe notes per octaue, with the 5/4 being 2 cents ſharp of the Pythagoꝛean diminiſhed fourth. But in time I realized that the maioꝛ thirds of Pythagoꝛean were actually the true thirds, euen in choꝛds. That our bꝛain heareth the relationſhip of 4 maioꝛ thirds by an vnbꝛoken chain of 4 fifths and a much cloſer ſimpler relationſhip than the diminiſhed fourth which is 8 fifths down the chain and that via a bꝛoken chain of fifths, with many other notes not in the key ſkipped. And euen though the diminiſhed fourth beated leſſe, it ſounded very out of tune when the muſical context called foꝛ a maioꝛ third. With tuning it really commeth down to the bꝛain and how it is checking foꝛ intonation conſciouſly and vnconſciouſly. Conſciouſly we can condition ourſelues to heare pꝛetty much any thing as in tune if expoſed long enough and entrained. And teaching people that beatleſſe meaneth it is in tune foꝛ euery interual is a type of this conditioning. In the context of real muſicke, as oppoſed to interuals examined in iſolation from muſicall context. People hear 3 limit in tune aboue 5 limit if they are not trained pꝛioꝛ foꝛ 5 limit tuning the vaſt maioꝛitie of the time. Liſtening to muſicke and checking intonation melodically and harmonically ſimultaneouſly one will heare Pythagoꝛean tuning as it is, as true intonation. Becauſe this is not taught from the beginning of muſicke education but rather, either 12 tet oꝛ 5 limit tuning, muſicke doth not get tuned this way euen though it is pꝛeferred by people naturally in moſt ſituations. When there is harſh timbꝛe oꝛ muſical interuals played out of context, people may pꝛefer the 5 limit interuals as ſounds themſelues, but in muſicke the 3 limit interuals are much pꝛeferred by people. The people with the "education" vnfoꝛtunately are the ones doing the tuning and making muſicke, not the auerage perſon who enioyeth muſicke. Muſicke and intonation muſt be ſcrutinized within actual muſicke context and with good and natural timbꝛes, with the perſon checking the intonation vertically and hoꝛizontally at the ſame time. From my experience only Pythagoꝛean ſoundeth completely in tune in both directions at once. 5 limit tuning leadeth to people checking intonation vertically. Doth 12 TET ſound better to me than 5 limit, in a way. But I am not really one foꝛ temperaments at all. I haue heard ſome of the Kimberger temperaments on Vienneſe action pianos and that ſounded better than 12 tet to me but ſtill not as good as pure Pythagoꝛean. I am really foꝛ ſplit key inſtruments. I haue inuented many deſigns oꝛ made impꝛoouements to alreadie exiſting ones. I am not an inſtrument builder though. I think that is where attention ſhould go in terms of inſtruments and intonation going foꝛward, eſpecially foꝛ acouſticke inſtruments. There are many videos on my channel examining and ſhowcaſing this tuning and ſome comparing it with others as well.
@@dsummerhays I iuſt watch the video thou ſent. I actually watched this video yeeres ago and then gaue it a thumbs down. What this woman is aduocating foꝛ is what the woꝛld teacheth foꝛ oꝛcheſtras, to tune "harmonic ſections" as 5 limit and melodic vnaccompanied ones as 3 limit, but this is abſurd. I haue heard many concerts with oꝛcheſtras tuning this way, it is bad becauſe the tuning is inconſiſtent, and it is ſubtley very diſoꝛienting to the liſtener. Euen though they do not heare the changes of intonation vſually, the bꝛain heareth it, and the bꝛain is the one counting and checking the relatioinſhips between the notes, ſo purpoſely going back and foꝛth where notes of the ſame name and function are tuned differently and others are tempered to hide the terrible commas of 5 limit tuning, it is ſubtly yet definitely diſoꝛienting and deſtabilizing to the liſtener. And all becauſe people keep repeating the lie that the 81/64 maioꝛ third is too sharp foꝛ choꝛds. It iuſt is flat out not true, as is clearly heard by the muſicke on my channel. The beating in Pythagoꝛean tuning is harmonic in nature, it is vnlike the beating of 12 TET. Moſt people do not realize this, they conſider all beating to be various foꝛmes of being out of tune, and becauſe 5 limit tuning is impꝛactical (and incoherent), people conclude that there is really no ſuch thing as in tune, it is all relatiue but this is wꝛong. The beating of the 81/64 giueth a difference tone of a lower octaue of the 17th harmonic. And likewiſe all combinations of the Pythagoꝛean interuals yield combination and difference tones that are directly from the harmonic ſeries. The bꝛain can and doth detect this oꝛder in the ſound in addition to the oꝛder of all pitch claſſes being powers of 3 and octaues of thoſe pitch claſſes being determined by powers of 2.
Mr. David. Why do you think Well Temperament is never given as an option in a and good synthesier? Whether Yamaha, Korg, or Roland, I'd never seen Well Tempering; yet they offer all of the others (Mean-tone, Just Tuning, Kirnberger, etc.). This baffles me because ones the notes intervals are "loosened up" by Well Tempering, many little nuances come out in our perception of the different intervals. Just seems like there is more liveliness in Well Tempering. // I wold imagine that there is no technical reason that they couldn't add well tempering to the synths and piano-keyboards!
Good day sir, I'm confused by your statement. Kimberger is a well temperament. In fact, it's either that or Werkmeister that Bach used to compose over his well tempered clavier, and both well temperaments appear on my digital keyboard. However, for 19th century music, Thomas Young or a Victorian temperament would be appropriate. I believe these should be options on a keyboard. I've seen them on some keyboards but not mine.
Wow, I had no idea about Kirnberger. I has assumed that there would have just been a tuning labels "Well Temperament!" I'm doing some very interesting experiments where I play a sine wave (no fundamentals) thru a vibration speaker on the surface of a guitar. Then I record the sound thru the guitars sound-hole. I'm playing with the idea of starting with a pure single wave-form with generates timbre ONLY thru an acoustic instrument. // What I'd like to do next is play a short Classical work with sine waves, record it from the guitar. Then repeat the process using various historical tunings. Therfore, ALL of the acoustics/timbre from each tuning will be sort of "isolated" form a "pure" frequency. I'm just curious as to what kind of sound this would give to the sinewave recording. (to me, sine waves become irritating after a few bars because the hear wants to hear natural overtones). @@dsummerhays
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-HoleHave fun with those experiments. For a definition of well temperament, you can see my newer video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mssPjL3iXtY.html
OMG, thanks for the reference. I've actually don't come STUNNING effects with a Bach piece recorded in Logic Pro. I ran it thru the vibration speaker on my guitar and I got the digital piano to sound like a real piano! I cal this the Acoustification Process. It's almost like the opposite of fossilization. I'll relay that video once I repost. I just go banned because I added an Erasure song to the ending credits! @@dsummerhays
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole I want to mention that I’m suspicious of A432. It’s true that eyes detect certain frequencies and children can be trained hear pitch frequencies. But I personally attribute the supposed benefits of A432 to placebo and the effect of lowering pitch.
This man is an over- thinking amateur with a slightly poseur attitude. His info- presentation is garbled, as well. Former musician, piano tech, and historian of ancient music here.
I'm looking forward to watching your attempt to do better. This video is not perfect (I did it in one take, thus the silly mistakes like "hertz per second" and "Bach wrote in equal temperament", those were just silly slip-ups). Do post here if you have better content to recommend. This was orginally content for my piano students and fellow piano tuners.
Precise Temperament calculated by mathematician Robert E. Grant for 432 Hz tuning released in 2020. No compromises in frequency in any notes through the 7 octaves. Pure tones. This is the tuning man has searched for millenia. Its a great dicovery.
Thanks for the comment. I’d never heard of this so thanks for pointing it out. I have only just heard of this tuning but my impression is that it’s worse than equal temperament. The thirds and fifths are even sharper than in equal temperament. I’m not sure what you mean by pure tones.
432Hz isn't a tuning system. It's literally just 12-tone equal temperament but you just shift everything down 8Hz. It has 0 advantages, it just sounds slightly lower. You could just play in a lower key.
@@SamChaneyProductions just to clarify (but not defend) the OP apparently the “precise temperament” is different from ET. But like you, I don’t understand why it’s in 432 hz.
Ok, thanks for the reference. Not sure I understand: why 432 Hz? I've looked at this and this tuning does not involve "pure tones", not sure I understand?
Hey David, I'm just attempting to tune my piano and decided to try your suggestion of Thomas Youngs Temperament but apparently Young recommended two temperaments which are known as Youngs first temperament and Youngs second temperament. It would be great if you could clarify which of these two are you referring to please?
Hi Daeva, how exciting! Would you let me know what you think? It’s a little spicier than a Victorian temperament but those thirds are a dream! To answer your question, good point. I’m referring to the first Thomas Young. Tuners in the know tend to simply refer to this first one as Thomas Young because the second Thomas Young is essentially a temperament known as Valotti, with a few tweaks. You’ll let me know what you think? Let me know what kind of music are you playing too. Excited for you.
