# Are you tolerant of baroque tuning in modern-day recordings?



## mahlernerd (Jan 19, 2020)

This might be an aimed question towards those with perfect pitch, but I myself am not so tolerant to the baroque tuning. What about you?


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

Just as one could grow up speaking Wolof as a mother tongue, one could easily develop 'perfect' pitch at any tuning. It's just a matter of what you're exposed to, and the fact that we use A=440Hz today is as much pure convention as anything that has gone before. There is no 'right'. For me, what makes a performance authentic has nothing to do with tuning and everything to do with expression, technique, interpretation, the performance itself. Bear in mind that there was no convention even in Bach's time, with tunings then often much lower than what HIPsters generally use today.

If you're asking whether I would tolerate a recording of post-baroque CM at baroque tuning, then I doubt I would be able to tell. I grew up listening to vinyl records on all kinds of uncalibrated turntables playing at any random speed. It never bothered me. I don't have perfect pitch, no one does who did not develop it in infancy. But I also think it is a myth that those who do are deeply troubled by 'off' notes.

I choose option 3:

◉ Doesn't bother me at all in any way, one way or the other.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taplow said:


> Just as one could grow up speaking Wolof as a mother tongue, one could easily develop 'perfect' pitch at any tuning. It's just a matter of what you're exposed to, and the fact that we use A=440Hz today is as much pure convention as anything that has gone before. There is no 'right'. For me, what makes a performance authentic has nothing to do with tuning and everything to do with expression, technique, interpretation, the performance itself. Bear in mind that there was no convention even in Bach's time, with tunings then often much lower than what HIPsters generally use today.
> 
> If you're asking whether I would tolerate a recording of post-baroque CM at baroque tuning, then I doubt I would be able to tell. I grew up listening to vinyl records on all kinds of uncalibrated turntables playing at any random speed. It never bothered me. I don't have perfect pitch, no one does who did not develop it in infancy. But I also think it is a myth that those who do are deeply troubled by 'off' notes.
> 
> ...


I don't think we're talking about absolute pitch here. What the OP is asking is if you can tolerate the tempering of different tunings within the octave, i.e. relative pitch differences. Tempering. If this has to be explained, we'll not get very far.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Are you tolerant to baroque tuning in modern recordings?*

I prefer to hear baroque tuning in baroque recordings -- i.e., recordings made in 1600 to around, say, 1750. Of Baroque music, of course. Unfortunately, such recordings remain rare. I haven't a single one in my collection.

In modern day recording, I certainly tolerate whatever tuning is used for whatever recording: Medieval, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, or even Contemporary. I have plenty of these latter day made recordings in my collection. In fact, all of my recordings are "modern recordings".

Which means I'm not sure what is being asked here.

But I certainly would appreciate hearing the exact tuning the composer of a work intended. I suspect that many of the _older _day (i.e., Baroque) composers heard scale frequencies somewhat differently than those I'm used to, or from those my Roland keyboard is currently tuned. I'm not certain we can ever really know what those Baroque masters considered a valid tonal scale, but I suspect there would be quite a variance from one musician to the next because of the types of instruments in use and the lack of any real standardization. I suppose we'd have an easier time of it today if that old curmudgeon organist J.S. Bach wouldn't have fiddled with the whole tuning thing and left well enough (or well-tempered enough) alone. Alas, it's all a mess today.

So, yes, I would prefer to hear what the composer heard. But I don't think that is much possible anymore. Yet, if modern musicians want to attempt historical tunings for works contemporary to those tunings, I'm all in. There's actually a certain sweetness to some of those tunings that add a syrupy patina to the sound of the works played with them. [And if that last sentence is not one of the most awkward I've ever written, I don't know what is.]


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I generally perceive it as being played a half step down from the true key (not exactly, but my brain makes the correction and I think about notes as if they were all a half step down). It can get a bit annoying when the music strays from the tonic and I am trying to pay attention to the tonal/harmonic structure of a piece. I've generally gotten used to it, but I still prefer modern (A =440) tuning in nearly all cases.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't care what pitch instruments are tuned to. Singers, though, appreciate lower tunings, especially untrained choral tenors, for whom the difference between an A at 440 and an A at around a half step lower can make a real difference. I remember it well.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Sure. HIP is just another approach, and is speculative. I've heard HIP recordings that I like, particularly Gardiner, Suzuki and Coin. I've heard modern instrument/pitch recordings that I like, especially Rilling and Richter. Rilling's recordings are really sort of the standard for me though.

Incidentally, I wonder sometimes if all the people who claim to have perfect pitch really *do*. I was always under the impression that it's fairly rare, but not online it seems.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Inequal temperament is sweet in sound, which was mostly used by 17th century and 18th century composers. But modern equal temperament is ugly and boring. Given the huge compass of modern piano as a modern tuning requirement, the result is metallic sound, good only for rock music. Modern tuning gives almost endless extension of the whole octave compass, but it will just be ugly, nothing really happens, you can notwrite anything meaningful with that stuff. It would be rather expedient for those experimental"musicians" to turn into mathematicians and compute some more Mersenne numbers, but math is too difficult for them probably so they want to mess up music instead.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ariasexta said:


> Inequal temperament is sweet in sound, which was mostly used by 17th century and 18th century composers. But modern equal temperament is ugly and boring. Given the huge compass of modern piano as a modern tuning requirement, the result is metallic sound, good only for rock music. Modern tuning gives almost endless extension of the whole octave compass, but it will just be ugly, nothing really happens, you can not write anything meaningful with that stuff.


To describe unequal temperament as "sweet" really means nothing, since in any temperament other than equal, different keys will have differently tuned intervals and thus different harmonic colorations, some of which we might think are "sweet" and some of which we might describe differently. It's equally meaningless to call equal temperament "ugly" and to say that nothing "meaningful" can be written with it. A great many composers in the last two centuries would be very surprised to hear that their work, conceived for equal temperament and in fact impossible without it, was in some basic way ugly and not meaningful.

Elsewhere on the internet I read: "Lou Harrison, and fellow travellers like La Monte Young, Tony Conrad and Terry Riley, have variously equated the impact of equal temperament on sound with nuclear war, the cloned homogenisation of globalisation, and destruction of the natural environment." Can we hope that it's only a matter of time before all sensitive, decent, right-thinking people consign the ugly, meaningless music of Brahms, Scriabin and Rachmaninoff to the trash, and immerse themselves in the beautiful, meaningful music of Lou Harrison, La Monte Young, Tony Conrad and Terry Riley?


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

mahlernerd said:


> This might be an aimed question towards those with perfect pitch, but I myself am not so tolerant to the baroque tuning. What about you?


I just don't feel like complaining when I attend an organ concert, where a 18th century organ, which is well preserved and restored, has got a pitch of a'=464 Hz and is tuned in pre-Neidhardt temperament. What should I say: please change the length of those pipes, I want to hear an equal tuned instrument at a'=440 Hz?

So yes: I'm tolerant towards any tuning actually. 
It's not because it makes the experience more authentic though. To me, listening one day to meantone and/or a'=whatever, and listening to the same piece(s) in equal tuning/a'=440 Hz the other day, makes music listening more fun and interesting. I'm happy that I live in a time where all those differences can be heard and experienced.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> To describe unequal temperament as "sweet" really means nothing, since in any temperament other than equal, different keys will have differently tuned intervals and thus different harmonic colorations, some of which we might think are "sweet" and some of which we might describe differently. It's equally meaningless to call equal temperament "ugly" and to say that nothing "meaningful" can be written with it. A great many composers in the last two centuries would be very surprised to hear that their work, conceived for equal temperament and in fact impossible without it, was in some basic way ugly and not meaningful.
> 
> Elsewhere on the internet I read: "Lou Harrison, and fellow travellers like La Monte Young, Tony Conrad and Terry Riley, have variously equated the impact of equal temperament on sound with nuclear war, the cloned homogenisation of globalisation, and destruction of the natural environment." Can we hope that it's only a matter of time before all sensitive, decent, right-thinking people consign the ugly, meaningless music of Brahms, Scriabin and Rachmaninoff to the trash, and immerse themselves in the beautiful, meaningful music of Lou Harrison, La Monte Young, Tony Conrad and Terry Riley?


You can not play equal temp on violin, classical guitar, especially on harpsichord, that is why some of them became obsolete or antiquated. Also, the shape of piano had become like an obese McDonald dweller, that is what modern tuning does to music in manifestation through the shape of instrument. But look at the harpsichords, wing shaped, gracious bentside, elogated sexy resonance body..etc.  Chinese language has a beautyiful name for harpsichord, verbally translated as Feathery keyboard or winged keyboard(in chinese, feather and wing use a same character). But simply Steel-keyboard for piano in chinese, 钢琴!)

Thos baroque violins also were made to facilitate Pythagoras system, so they work well and will continue to rule. Modern temp has to rely on fat pianos and electronic equipments and huge orchestra. The advantage of ancient tuning is never to be questioned.

I do not care about being open-minded to other peoples standard, I have paid all my passion to what I love, to try to be in the norm would look hypocritical.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I have less issue with tuning that other aspects of period Baroque performance -- in particular the general lack of expression and speed with which it is played. This applies in particular to Vivaldi, a composer about whom virtually nothing is known so how could anyone possibly know how his music was played in his time? He did not write for virtuosos; he generally wrote for girls at the school where he taught. This was not a conservatory and these were not gifted musicians. I doubt they played everything at 120 and I know there was a Vivaldi tradition in mid-20th century that included expression.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

> I choose option 3:
> 
> ◉ Doesn't bother me at all in any way, one way or the other.


+ 1 ................................


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I don't care about the absolute pitch. I've always thought it a little odd that the HIP world largely settled on a standard of A=415, when evidence suggests there was no single standard in the baroque period. Seems arbitrary.


----------



## ZeR0 (Apr 7, 2020)

I voted yes as I am not so much bothered by pitch. I enjoy listening to a variety of music played in many different ways. Thus, I enjoy both historically informed performances and otherwise. The important thing is how I feel about the interpretation, not so much the mode of interpretation. If something sounds good to my ears, that is enough for me.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Well, I for one would not want to sit through The Well-Tempered Clavier on a clavichord or organ that uses baroque tuning. Some keys will work, maybe quite well, but then you get past a few flats or sharps and the sour "wolf" tones become intolerable. That was the whole point of Bach's work - that if we adopt equal temperament, then all keys, all modulations are possible. There is NO "advantage" to ancient Pythagorian tuning. Really good instrumentalists do not play strict equal temperament -they bend certain notes, however slightly, to achieve much purer sounds. A great choir, even a good barbershop quartet, knows how to do it - they listen and tune constantly. In an orchestra, when you're playing some piano concerto, you have to adjust a bit since every piano it out of tune - by design. As long as the A octaves are correct, you can do it. But boy oh boy, trying to play a Haydn organ concerto with an instrument that still retains baroque tuning is excruciating, if not impossible. My bassoon set up is for A=440, and when necessary I can play 442 without a problem. But then along comes an organ at A=428 and no bocal/reed combination will do it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> To describe unequal temperament as "sweet" really means nothing, since in any temperament other than equal, different keys will have differently tuned intervals and thus different harmonic colorations, some of which we might think are "sweet" and some of which we might describe differently. It's equally meaningless to call equal temperament "ugly" and to say that nothing "meaningful" can be written with it. A great many composers in the last two centuries would be very surprised to hear that their work, conceived for equal temperament and in fact impossible without it, was in some basic way ugly and not meaningful.


I don't think so, Several tempered tunings have pure fifths, and sometimes pure thirds.

ET is _always _going to have fifths 2 cents flat, and M3rds 14 cents flat.

So what Ariasexta said makes perfect sense.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Marc said:


> I just don't feel like complaining when I attend an organ concert, where a 18th century organ, which is well preserved and restored, has got a pitch of a'=464 Hz and is tuned in pre-Neidhardt temperament. What should I say: please change the length of those pipes, I want to hear an equal tuned instrument at a'=440 Hz?
> 
> So yes: I'm tolerant towards any tuning actually.
> It's not because it makes the experience more authentic though. To me, listening one day to meantone and/or a'=whatever, and listening to the same piece(s) in equal tuning/a'=440 Hz the other day, makes music listening more fun and interesting. I'm happy that I live in a time where all those differences can be heard and experienced.


What are we talking about, tempered tunings or pitch standards?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Well, I for one would not want to sit through The Well-Tempered Clavier on a clavichord or organ that uses *baroque tuning*. Some keys will work, maybe quite well, but then you get past a few flats or sharps and the sour "wolf" tones become intolerable. That was the whole point of Bach's work - that if we adopt equal temperament, then all keys, all modulations are possible. There is NO "advantage" to ancient *Pythagorian tuning.* Really good instrumentalists do not play strict *equal temperament *-they bend certain notes, however slightly, to achieve much purer sounds. A great choir, even a good barbershop quartet, knows how to do it - they listen and tune constantly. In an orchestra, when you're playing some piano concerto, you have to adjust a bit since every piano it out of tune - by design. As long as the A octaves are correct, you can do it. But boy oh boy, trying to play a Haydn organ concerto with an instrument that still retains baroque tuning is excruciating, if not impossible. My bassoon set up is for A=440, and when necessary I can play 442 without a problem. But then along comes an organ at A=428 and no bocal/reed combination will do it.


I thought mbhaub was on to something there, until he digressed into "A=440" and other pitch standards. Does anyone here know what we are talking about?


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

mbhaub said:


> Well, I for one would not want to sit through The Well-Tempered Clavier on a clavichord or organ that uses baroque tuning. Some keys will work, maybe quite well, but then you get past a few flats or sharps and the sour "wolf" tones become intolerable. That was the whole point of Bach's work - that if we adopt equal temperament, then all keys, all modulations are possible. There is NO "advantage" to ancient Pythagorian tuning. Really good instrumentalists do not play strict equal temperament -they bend certain notes, however slightly, to achieve much purer sounds. A great choir, even a good barbershop quartet, knows how to do it - they listen and tune constantly. In an orchestra, when you're playing some piano concerto, you have to adjust a bit since every piano it out of tune - by design. As long as the A octaves are correct, you can do it. But boy oh boy, trying to play a Haydn organ concerto with an instrument that still retains baroque tuning is excruciating, if not impossible. My bassoon set up is for A=440, and when necessary I can play 442 without a problem. But then along comes an organ at A=428 and no bocal/reed combination will do it.


The problem (and therefore also with the poll question) is actually, that there is no standard baroque tuning, no standard baroque temperament, no standard baroque pitch. 
Organs were tuned also in many different ways, both in pitch as well in temperament. This habit (in organ building/tuning) even lasts, in some cases, until the first few decades of the 19th century (especially i.c. the pitch differences). 
This meant that composers, for performances in churches, had to rewrite their scores for much of the other instruments, and/or had to adapt the instrumentation. Tough work.

As you yourself already indicated: since Bach called the WTK "Das *wohltemperierte* Klavier" , I guess that he did prefer it to be played on a 'well-tempered' instrument. The question indeed remains: what exactly was meant by 'well-tempered' by Bach at the time. About that question, thousands of pages have already been written. 

Here's a creative hypothesis about it:


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

millionrainbows said:


> What are we talking about, tempered tunings or pitch standards?


Both, actually.

And both (tempered/uneven tempered & high pitch/low pitch) are, imho, important when tuning is considered. Btw, there were no standards for either of them during the baroque period.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it unknown what tuning Bach had in mind when he wrote the WTC? Obviously one he thought sounded good in all keys, but that doesn't necessarily mean ET.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Marc said:


> Both, actually.
> 
> And both (tempered/uneven tempered & high pitch/low pitch) are, imho, important when tuning is considered. Btw, there were no standards for either of them during the baroque period.


They are two distinct things to me. I don't have PP, so pitch standards are irrelevant, and at least I know the difference in 'temperament' and pitch standards.

Why would anyone think Baroque pitch standards were of any interest, unless you're an instrument builder?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it unknown what tuning Bach had in mind when he wrote the WTC? Obviously one he thought sounded good in all keys, but that doesn't necessarily mean ET.


larips.com ..............


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Personally, I cannot tolerate an "A" played at 439.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

millionrainbows said:


> They are two distinct things to me. I don't have PP, so pitch standards are irrelevant, and at least I know the difference in 'temperament' and pitch standards.
> 
> Why would anyone think Baroque pitch standards were of any interest, unless you're an instrument builder?


Maybe you should ask the topic started what he actually meant, then.

Did he refer to the difference of a key when the pitch is a'=415 Hz (considered to be 'baroque') instead of 440/442 Hz?
Or did he refer to the differences between various uneven/meantone temperaments of the early baroque and the equally tempered temperament of later (modern) times?

(As I understand his first post, he was mainly referring to the difference in pitch, not in temperament. Since I more or less view them in a relationship - though often being indirect - I brought them together in my post.)

I once read an interview with conductors Hartmut Haenchen and Winfried Maczewski. Haenchen said he could not stand a'=415 Hz or 392 Hz because, if he saw that a piece was in C Major, he wanted to hear C Major (as he was used to hear it, in 440 Hz). Therefore he preferred his Bach on modern instuments, with modern pitch. So, even though Haenchen is not an instrument builder, he surely was interested in the difference (and did not like the 'old-fashioned' pitch). Maczewski, mostly known as a choir conductor, agreed with him on that.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

millionrainbows said:


> Personally, I cannot tolerate an "A" played at 439.


A couple of months ago, I asked a family member of mine, who is following violin classes and playing in amateur orchestras, what the actual pitch was nowadays. Was it still 440 Hz or did they turn it up to make it sound more brilliantly? He admitted the latter, and said that they mostly tuned their instruments in a'=442 Hz.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Well, we can lengthen up our debates about this subject until the end of (our) times... there is no doubt about who is going to have the final say in this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Marc said:


> I once read an interview with conductors Hartmut Haenchen and Winfried Maczewski. Haenchen said he could not stand a'=415 Hz or 392 Hz because, if he saw that a piece was in C Major, he wanted to hear C Major (as he was used to hear it, in 440 Hz). Therefore he preferred his Bach on modern instuments, with modern pitch. So, even though Haenchen is not an instrument builder, he surely was interested in the difference (and did not like the 'old-fashioned' pitch). Maczewski, mostly known as a choir conductor, agreed with him on that.


Then he obviously had perfect pitch memory. It doesn't matter to the rest of us mere mortals.

I'm glad I don't have it. It would be a curse.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Marc said:


> Maybe you should ask the topic started what he actually meant, then.


The title of the thread is "Are you tolerant of baroque tuning in modern-day recordings?"

From WIK:

In music, there are two common meanings for tuning:


Tuning practice, the act of tuning an instrument or voice.
Tuning systems, the various systems of pitches used to tune an instrument, and their theoretical bases. (i.e. just, Pythagoran, meantone, equal)
I see no reference to "tuning standards, A=440, etc." That must be a "fringe definition."


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

There's a nice article on pitch on oxfordmusiconline.com were I recently discovered a=464 like Marc mentioned. It was/is used in organs in the north of Italy and then I don't remember...My guitar sounded nice when I tuned up


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

isorhythm said:


> I don't care about the absolute pitch. I've always thought it a little odd that the HIP world largely settled on a standard of A=415, when evidence suggests there was no single standard in the baroque period. Seems arbitrary.


That's because it *is* arbitrary, like much else among HIP dogmatists. Different cities/regions had their own standards. FWIW I usually tune my cello to about 430 unless I absolutely have to use 440. It just sounds better to me, though of course it would seem that the difference isn't that great.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> That's because it *is* arbitrary, like much else among HIP dogmatists. Different cities/regions had their own standards. FWIW I usually tune my cello to about 430 unless I absolutely have to use 440. It just sounds better to me, though of course it would seem that the difference isn't that great.


In the RIAS recording of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto, the violinist tunes his open strings to equal temperament, not perfect fifths. This ought to tell you something about Baroque tunings, since Baroque music is not based on a chromatic scale, but in a key.

A=430 and other standards, local or not, are still irrelevant; tempered tunings are about _relationships_ of scale notes in-octave, not absolutes. This used to be called "affekt" before ET (achieved in 1919) did away with all that.

Meantone tunings were a search for better major thirds. That was their raison d'être.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Also, I know that there are some people who are particularily enthusiastic about the tuning theories and also eager to practice modernism in the tuning system. As I am starting to learn guitar myself, I find that tuning is one of the steaks that attract some serious interests. But As I have said , I will always focus on music not tuning, however fun the tuning maybe. If you are starting with music, guitar is fun, I do not play piano and will never. I am expecting a harpsichord to play with. My speakers is now a pair of budget Marantz, just a report of some former discussions. Some chinese speakers are also seriously good, Nobsound brand, if you can buy, about 300 USD, almost same with my current Marantz. I am not particularly about Hifi or amplifier stuff, I am focusing on music, as long as the sound is OK then fine.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> A=430 and other standards, local or not, are still irrelevant...


It's irrelevant in a discussion of temperament, but I would think that in whatever temperament a performance at a=460 is going to have a different character from one at a=396.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

millionrainbows said:


> Then he obviously had perfect pitch memory. It doesn't matter to the rest of us mere mortals.
> 
> I'm glad I don't have it. It would be a curse.


Reminds me of a scene in the German TV series _Heimat_, where composer-to-be Hermann, the main character of season 2, says he's happy that he doesn't have perfect pitch memory. He also claims something like "all great composers did not have that, it would be a curse, one would not be free to dare and try new things in composing".


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Marc said:


> Well, we can lengthen up our debates about this subject until the end of (our) times... there is no doubt about who is going to have the final say in this.


Raoflmao this pic made my day...


----------



## Musicaterina (Apr 5, 2020)

I really love recordings with baroque tuning and with period instruments because period instruments are the instruments for which baroque, classical and partly also romantic music was composed for. I do not like, for example, Bachs music played on a modern piano.


----------

