Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!calvin.usc.edu!alves
From: alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Transposing early music (was: Perfect Pitch)
Message-ID: <31381@usc>
Date: 26 Mar 91 21:02:59 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.154120.24561@eng.umd.edu> <31234@usc> <18799@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@usc
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 103
Nntp-Posting-Host: calvin.usc.edu

In article <18799@milton.u.washington.edu> allyn@milton.u.washington.edu (Allyn Weaks) writes:
>alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves) writes:
>>The theory that standard pitch has shifted slowly upward over the years is
>>an oft-repeated myth. There was no standard pitch in Handel's time, nor
>>really until the twentieth century. Studies of pitch references from 17th,
>>18th, and 19th centuries have revealed that A could be as much as a minor
>>third sharp OR flat of 440. If you did take an average, it would probably
>>come out to about 440.
>
>I'll disagree with this - the myth is really that the olden days were far less
>standardized than our modern measured perfection.  Even back to the
>renaissance, pitch was nearly as standardized as it is today.  Everyone says,
>'oh yes, 440 is standard modern pitch', but in reality, orchestras will play
>anywhere from 435 to 445.  Some orchestras like a darker sound, some a
>brighter.  Or maybe the oboist is having trouble with hir reed, so everyone
>else has to compensate :-)
>
>One of the confusing factors is that during the baroque, there were several
>'standards' - organ pitch, which was very high (about a whole tone higher than
>today), concert pitch, which was a little lower than we have now, and chamber
>pitch which was about a semitone lower.  

It is well known that there were several "relative standards," of which the
most famous were "Chor-ton" (or organ pitch, as you call it), and "Kammer-
ton" -- the pitch of the woodwind instruments. Usually kammer-ton was a whole
step lower in the late baroque, but sometimes as much as a minor third lower 
(which Bach called tief-kammer-ton).

However, none of these was really a "standard" in terms of frequency. Of
course they didn't seem to vary as much as a tritone, which one would expect
if the pitch selection was totally random, but neither do I think it could
be called "nearly as standardized as it is today."

Arthur Mendel's exhaustive study (Acta Musicologica 50/1 1978 pp. 1-93) finds
the A on 16th to 18th century organs to vary from 393 to 495. While it is
difficult to know what fingering represented what written pitch in woodwinds,
he found a similar variety there. 

You mention the Grove's article, which, like Praetorius, attempts to 
"classify" this extremely wide range into seven transposition levels based 
on Praetorius' standard (given as c. 430). But Praetorius was trying to show
how local standards in other times and places compared. I don't believe that
absolute pitch was in any way based on a kind of semitonal transposition
system.

For example, while Bach in Leipzig worked with the Chor-ton/kammer-ton sys-
tem mentioned earlier, his woodwinds at Weimar seem to have been about a
semitone lower than those in Leipzig (hence tief-kammer-ton). Agricola says
that the "harpsichords and other instruments" in Lombardy and Venice are
about a semitone lower than the North German Chor-ton. Old French "ton de
chapelle" was apparently about a major third lower than North German Chor-
ton, and their "ton de chambre" probably a semitone higher than that.

>If you average all that out, you might get anything, but it isn't a valid 
>average.  

I will agree that averaging the small available sampling of pitches from 
widely divergent places and times is not a way of finding a pitch "standard."
My only reason for suggesting this mean was to show that the hypothesis that
415 was some sort of standard in early music, or at least that most pitches
in kammer-ton centered around it, is not necessarily a valid conclusion.

>The renaissance also had a
>very high organ pitch, and a slightly lower concert pitch at roughly 470 based
>on existing woodwinds.  Then just to confuse things further, the ultra high
>organ pitch was so high (as high as 550 for one organ) that no one could sing
>it, so organists were often trained to play down a major second... (see Grove
>- pitch).
>
There is so little extant physical evidence from the renaissance, I don't
think such a firm statement can be made. Mendel examined existing woodwinds
and found a wide variety. As I said above, the real problem is knowing 
which fingering indicated which written note.

>According to Anthony Baines in _Woodwind Instruments and their History_ (which
>I just returned to the library, so I can't quote directly), even in the
>renaissance, pitch was much more standard than you might think, because
>musicians did a _lot_ of travelling.  Also, the Germans tended to make the
>best brass instruments, the French were into woodwinds, and the Italians had a
>nice line of strings. I know, gross generalization, but it does indicate that
>instruments moved around even more than musicians did.

>As a further bit of evidence from the baroque, Quantz in his _On Playing the
>Flute_ describes how many middle joints you need to be able to play just about
>anywhere, and he advocates the use of 9 joints, covering a semitone.  And
>Quantz was no stay-at-home - he spent a couple of years travelling in Italy
>and France before he settled down.  Since most existing flutes and recorders
>range from about 390 up to 410, that works out to pretty good evidence that
>baroque chamber music at least was played a good bit lower than today.

Mendel gives examples of several flutes that Quantz owned. Of the first, only
one of an unknown number of joints survive, the second to flattest one, and 
it plays about 440. Another has a third-to-sharpest joint survive, measured
at 441. One might not need joints to change the pitch more than a semitone
either way, because one could also transpose.

Mendel concluded:

"Notions that the tendency of pitch-standards has been continuously upward
or that over long periods and throughout European musical culture one pitch
prevailed (with minor variations)...are false."

Bill Alves