Thread: Is Pitch Inflation Real?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...come-true.html

This sense of struggle is compounded by a physical limitation: although she is generally classified as a mezzo-soprano, she sings several roles, including Isolde and Sieglinde, that are normally assigned to sopranos. But her capacities will only take her so far.

"It frustrates me that pitch is half a tone higher than it was in Wagner's time. If it was that bit lower, I could sing Brunnhilde, as well as Strauss's Salome and Verdi's Lady Macbeth. But today they lie just too high for me - I could not get them into my throat."

http://www.violinist.com/discussion/...e.cfm?ID=19240

I just ordered some more tuning forks with 442 Hz (for my different violin cases). Since I restarted playing orchestra and chamber music I had to get used to the higher pitch that is the trend nowadays. I put away my trusty old 440's, and since then my ears accommodated to 442. I notice it at once when an instrument is below that pitch. This is very annoying, because I spend a lot of my time giving guitar lessons, and the students enter after tuning their instruments using electronic tuners set to 440. So I always have to tune down, after I tuned my guitar by ear to 442.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schille...e#Verdi_tuning

In 1988, the institute initiated a campaign to return to the so-called "Verdi tuning" in the world of classical music, so-called because it was Italian composer Giuseppe Verdi who originally waged a battle to stop the rising of the pitch to which orchestras are tuned.[21][22] The "Verdi tuning" is one where C=256HZ, or A=432HZ, as opposed to the common practice today of tuning to anywhere from A=440 to A in the 450+ range.

http://www.renata-tebaldi.com/rasponi.htm

"What worries me more and more - this problem had already started when I was still singing - is that today singers are all confronted with a diapason that is much too high. It should not go over 440, but there are many orchestras that start at 443 and arrive even as high as 450. Conductors will do anything to obtain a more brilliant sonority. The orchestra in Florence, as far as Italy is concerned, has the highest diapason of all. The late Dimitri Mitropoulos imposed it when he conducted Elektra there. This is the reason why real contraltos and bassos no longer exist: because of the enormous increase in the diapason, all the voices are pulled up. To go back to II trovatore in Florence, there was a pompous announcement that Carlo Cossutta would sing 'Di quella pira' in the original key written by Verdi and not the higher version that has become traditional with all tenors. The truth is that the one Verdi composed has become a tone higher!

"The sensuousness that prevailed in all of Wagner's works no longer exists. Why did this composer write so many F-sharps at the beginning of his scores? He knew very well the effect he wished to obtain. Those who play instruments these days no longer know how to extricate themselves from so many problems; the gongs, the bells, all the special musical instruments, all have had to be readjusted or made over. The diapason should be the same everywhere, and Serafin, who saw ahead very clearly, did his best to impose this point of view at a congress held in Great Britain. But it continues to vary from one orchestra to the next. How are voices going to resist? Every day we see promising singers who destroy themselves in no time. This is a period of strikes; why done all the singers get organized, refuse to open their mouths, and say basta? It does not take great intelligence to predict that a big step backward will have to be taken. It will all come to a stop, and then there must be a new, fresh start.”

When I did my transfer of Walter's 1935 Die Walkure Act I, Ward Marston (a very famous transfer engineer with perfect pitch) criticized it as a little bit sharp in pitch. It was a little bit sharp, because Vienna was using A443. I think most historical reissues are speeded to A440 as a matter of course regardless of the fact that the Vienna, Boston and New York Philharmonics have all used a different tuning standard. So what we hear on CDs may not be totally accurate.

Yes, it is. And it's the strings' fault.

I have to admit Id never heard of it before, but since reading your fascinating post I notice it being mentioned everywhere I look.
An example:

Lully's music is from the Middle Baroque period, 1650 to 1700. Typical of Baroque music is the use of the basso continuo as the driving force behind the music. The pitch standard for French Baroque music was about 392 Hz for A above middle C, a whole tone lower than modern practice where A is usually 440 Hz.

It seems unfortunate and illogical, but perhaps like house prices it will come crashing down again eventually! Like the economy, tuning pitches cannot rise indefinitely.

I'm surprised you can hear the difference between 440Hz and 442Hz by the way, I didn't think that was physically possible! That's only a 13th of the difference between standard A4 and A#4, and it's not ordinary to be able to hear so many intervals. Lucky(?) you.

I don't think the pitch in Wagner's day was actually a whole tone lower than a 440 . Actually, th e general adoption of pitch at around a 440 or a little above is fairly recent. There was no commonly agreed on diapason in the baroque,classical and early romantic periods.
It varied from time to place. Often, cities in European countries which were quite geographically close to each other did not use the same pitch ! So to perform all music from the baroque and classical periods at a standardized a 415, about a quarter tone below modern tuning, is not authentic at all !
And it's known that believe it or not, Monteverdi used a 440 in his day !

Originally Posted by emiellucifuge

An example:Lully's music is from the Middle Baroque period, 1650 to 1700. Typical of Baroque music is the use of the basso continuo as the driving force behind the music. The pitch standard for French Baroque music was about 392 Hz for A above middle C, a whole tone lower than modern practice where A is usually 440 Hz.

Yup....that's right. Most of us flute players are fully aware of this - more so than piano players or string players.

Baroque traversos actually covered from 392Hz - 440Hz over the ages. The middle period of baroque was fraught with problems for tuning, so 392; 398; 400; 410, 415, 420, 430, 440Hz were all commonly used. Nowadays, baroque traversos are still available in most of these tunings (model dependent). My favourite baroque pitch is A=400Hz and 415Hz. Once you go up to 440Hz, the rich baroque character is lost for a thinner weedy sound.

After the war, standardisation towards A=440Hz (as well as A=442Hz in Asia) was a universal movement. In the States, the A=452Hz was common ("High Pitch") and in Germany, A=435Hz ("Low Pitch") was common.

This creates huge problems for flute players: generally, unlike a violin or stringed instrument, whose pitch can be set by tuning the strings to the pegs, a flute can either be fixed in length, and have no tuning, or have around 10mm max of a tuning slide. Those flutes without a tuning slide, quickly became redundant ...only collectors and unknowing newcomers tends to buy these non-standard pitch flutes. The problem for a flute with a tuning tenon, is that it tends to play best in tune, for the length it was designed: thus if the tenon is extended by 10mm, the high notes can be overly sharp, and the low octave notes overly flat. Not the best of tunings :/

What happened with pitch inflation .... (yes ..it's sadly real!) is the same as what happens with castrato singers lol. For this reason, the appeal of baroque music; played on proper baroque pitch, is really quite an exciting discovery. Less aural fatigue; a much more languid and relaxing experience of music listening. For a flute player - the baroque pitch is really very special. I'm glad there has been a renaissance in baroque flute music, since we were all taught that modern sterile silver Boehms all playing at A=440Hz were the way of the future.

Jed Wentz, has often mentioned that A=392Hz is "too tubby" which I'd concur with. Trying to tune a harpsichord to A=400Hz, means it has to stay there! It's not as easy to change as a 6 stringed classical guitar lol. We have gone shrill sadly. Madness.

I once had my tuner accidentally set up on 441 but then I noticed it immediately because the orchestra I was playing in over the summer used 440. A slight difference, but it does make a difference.

This discussion certainly is interesting, though (it's one of those things you're aware of but never think about why)...why did they all decide to make a universal change towards 440?

Originally Posted by Head_case

Yup....that's right. Most of us flute players are fully aware of this - more so than piano players or string players.

Baroque traversos actually covered from 392Hz - 440Hz over the ages. The middle period of baroque was fraught with problems for tuning, so 392; 398; 400; 410, 415, 420, 430, 440Hz were all commonly used. Nowadays, baroque traversos are still available in most of these tunings (model dependent). My favourite baroque pitch is A=400Hz and 415Hz. Once you go up to 440Hz, the rich baroque character is lost for a thinner weedy sound.

After the war, standardisation towards A=440Hz (as well as A=442Hz in Asia) was a universal movement. In the States, the A=452Hz was common ("High Pitch") and in Germany, A=435Hz ("Low Pitch") was common.

This creates huge problems for flute players: generally, unlike a violin or stringed instrument, whose pitch can be set by tuning the strings to the pegs, a flute can either be fixed in length, and have no tuning, or have around 10mm max of a tuning slide. Those flutes without a tuning slide, quickly became redundant ...only collectors and unknowing newcomers tends to buy these non-standard pitch flutes. The problem for a flute with a tuning tenon, is that it tends to play best in tune, for the length it was designed: thus if the tenon is extended by 10mm, the high notes can be overly sharp, and the low octave notes overly flat. Not the best of tunings :/

What happened with pitch inflation .... (yes ..it's sadly real!) is the same as what happens with castrato singers lol. For this reason, the appeal of baroque music; played on proper baroque pitch, is really quite an exciting discovery. Less aural fatigue; a much more languid and relaxing experience of music listening. For a flute player - the baroque pitch is really very special. I'm glad there has been a renaissance in baroque flute music, since we were all taught that modern sterile silver Boehms all playing at A=440Hz were the way of the future.

Jed Wentz, has often mentioned that A=392Hz is "too tubby" which I'd concur with. Trying to tune a harpsichord to A=400Hz, means it has to stay there! It's not as easy to change as a 6 stringed classical guitar lol. We have gone shrill sadly. Madness.

Is this why in live performances the woodwinds tend to be out of tune very often? Is the inability to change tunes conveniently true for other woodwinds too?

http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2008/09/

Anyway, Wagner’s music has humbled many a wind section. I remember doing the Parsifal Prelude in the Aspen Festival Orchestra, and even with all those stellar wind principals, it was pretty rancid in the concert. A few months later, I covered it at a great American orchestra in a midwstern city on the border of Kentucky, and again, the winds, who are wonderful, really, really struggled with the tuning in the concert. Most live Ring recordings are full of wind tuning problems. Someone should write a book on the tuning issues in late Wagner.

Is this why in live performances the woodwinds tend to be out of tune very often? Is the inability to change tunes conveniently true for other woodwinds too?

Lol. Don't let word get out or the whole woodwind section will commit hari-kiri

Maybe in orchestral work, tonal sealing is less challenging than chamber music where pitch drift can be too overwhelming. In orchestra, the woodwind section tend to be swamped by the string sections who try to make 'f' sound like 'sfffffffz!'

I really don't know enough about orchestral winds since I don't play in orchestra. You could probably ask Gareth Davies of the LSO. He is the only flutist I've seen with a fold up bike lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYhZnfXy3kw

My guess, is that the woodwind players all have their own brands of flutes, rather than a military factory rolled out like marching bands. As a result, some sound brighter; darker; flatter, warmer, richer etc and it's down to the individual flutist to tune it according to others, pretty much like strings when played, blend a homogenously smooth sound. Maybe it just takes one flutist to be out of pitch to wreck the Gestalt of the music and make the whole section sound off, due to its higher frequency pitch which makes any tonal differences more striking.


In any case, we all know women have better hearing, so it's no surprise that a mezzo-soprano can detect a difference between A=440Hz and A=442Hz. I gather Bose and Sennheiser recruit women in their audioengineering department because their hearing is miles more astute than men. Not that men are tone deaf either...

Originally Posted by Head_case

In any case, we all know women have better hearing

never heard of that before

In any case, we all know women have better hearing

Originally Posted by Mr Norman Bates

never heard of that before

Lol. The irony is killing me


For some known reason X, women with an XX chromosome instead of XY, can hear higher frequency pitches too.

Here's ABC's take on it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHea...8114257&page=1

Others point to women accounting for less acoustic research jobs than men: that is more likely due to engineering being a bald male blokey field where women are traditionally excluded (hopefully not for long).

Originally Posted by Head_case

Lol. The irony is killing me


For some known reason X, women with an XX chromosome instead of XY, can hear higher frequency pitches too.

Here's ABC's take on it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHea...8114257&page=1

Others point to women accounting for less acoustic research jobs than men: that is more likely due to engineering being a bald male blokey field where women are traditionally excluded (hopefully not for long).

You might be interested in this paragraph from that very article:

"Differences in men's hearing ability versus women, however, is the result of environmental factors. When they are born, boys and girls exhibit equivalent hearing, meaning there is nothing that genetically predisposes men to have worse hearing than women."

The chromosome stuff was to do with vision, and the differences in hearing are not caused by genetic differences but by things such as high levels of noise-heavy occupations - I certainly doubt that women (or anyone for that matter...) are capable of hearing difference of 2Hz.

Haha yes you're right.

I thought that article was trying to say that men are brain damaged more than women

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

You might be interested in this paragraph from that very article:

"Differences in men's hearing ability versus women, however, is the result of environmental factors. When they are born, boys and girls exhibit equivalent hearing, meaning there is nothing that genetically predisposes men to have worse hearing than women."

The chromosome stuff was to do with vision, and the differences in hearing are not caused by genetic differences but by things such as high levels of noise-heavy occupations - I certainly doubt that women (or anyone for that matter...) are capable of hearing difference of 2Hz.

but we ALL "know"