I lose orientation quickly if a predominant player is out of tune in a jam. My brain interprets it as I'm out of tune, even if I know it's not me, and I just can't play along. Stops me dead. That's the reason I believe in tuners in a group of people in general - it's the easiest way to have a common reference.

Timing is the most important thing for playing together, though.

Rich. I don't know if I'd be able to play out of tune. Or is that IN tune?

BRian, I know…when I hear it, I always think I’m out of tune and softly check my strings…but nope, it’s not me…it’s like the surreptitious sniff of the armpits…:-D
I am not that outspoken, so what I’ll do is start tuning myself loudly during a pause, and then hopefully the “offender” will tune too. SOmetimes they sit there smiling and chatting though, waiting for me to be done with my pesky tuning break…..ARGH.

TOtally agreed on timing! Falling into the ‘groove’ together is the best feeling ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

I lose orientation quickly if a predominant player is out of tune in a jam. My brain interprets it as I'm out of tune, even if I know it's not me, and I just can't play along. Stops me dead. That's the reason I believe in tuners in a group of people in general - it's the easiest way to have a common reference.

Timing is the most important thing for playing together, though.

---

This is why some of the Irish sessions are either invitation only or they are led by people who will tell players to be quiet if they play out of tune or don't mesh with the group.

If you're in a group where someone is noticeably out of tune, you can do your best to ignore it or move farther away, or you can make an effort to play in tune so that the other players can follow your lead instead and you can steer the ship back on course. Sometimes the other player will remain unaware of the intonation issues, sometimes playing out a little more will be like throwing them a life preserver to which to adhere.

I also think it's typically an unrealistic endeavor to try to match the intonation of a player who's out of tune. The problem is that players who are out of tune are rarely consistent in their intervals. That means you can never tell how much to adjust until after the note has been started, and if there aren't long enough notes, you just don't have enough time to play catch-up constantly. I don't really see a benefit to the attempt because at best it puts two people in sync but does nothing for anyone else's intonation unless everyone is doing the same thing; but if everyone is capable of pitch matching like that, then there's no excuse for playing out of tune. And for the sake of improvement, it's not good for the ear or the fingers to acclimate to bad intonation, as that runs the risk of making on hard to discern good intonation later on.

If you are unable to hear the beats in an out of tune fifth, a tuner will help you to get closer to accuracy than you'd get on your own. But if you can hear the purity of an interval that's in tune, it will be much more harmonious to tune by ear.

NC< I got no problem halting things and asking either for a general tune up or even one person. My ears don't lie and 19 times out of 20 that person or persons will adjust their tuning. Not perfect pitch, but maybe relative pitch? I know I can't play next to reso or dobro players who don't have a good sense of pitch.

Heifetz is known to have played incognito with a group of amateur fiddlers in rural New York - if he could manage it, the rest of you have no excuse!

To get a cleaner, purer, and more mathematically accurate tone, a lot of guitar players have chosen true temperament frets. This allows the player to make up for equal temperament pitch inaccuracy. It looks odd to see frets that are so misaligned, but it’s said to be easy to play. It’s a significant change to the setup and a retrofit isn’t cheap, but there’s demand.

This is a short little book I recommend to anyone asking about this, very insightful. The strings, woodwinds and brass can all sweeten their notes to be in better harmony, whereas piano and fretted instruments cannot. Modern music is broadly a harmonic compromise, but most people don't notice because it's is what we are used to.

How Equal Temperment Ruined Harmony and Why You Should Care

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

This is a short little book I recommend to anyone asking about this, very insightful. The strings, woodwinds and brass can all sweeten their notes to be in better harmony, whereas piano and fretted instruments cannot. Modern music is broadly a harmonic compromise, but most people don't notice because it's is what we are used to.

How Equal Temperment Ruined Harmony and Why You Should Care

---

I think a lot of the standardization in music came about as the result of the industrial era where things began to be turned out en masse and speed of production became more important.

It's interesting that baroque fretted instruments had gut frets that could be adjusted. This meant that you could compensate for purer intervals. The modern true temperament neck is a reimagining of that concept, although it's not adjustable. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

This is a short little book I recommend to anyone asking about this, very insightful. The strings, woodwinds and brass can all sweeten their notes to be in better harmony, whereas piano and fretted instruments cannot. Modern music is broadly a harmonic compromise, but most people don't notice because it's is what we are used to.

How Equal Temperment Ruined Harmony and Why You Should Care

---

I think a lot of the standardization in music came about as the result of the industrial era where things began to be turned out en masse and speed of production became more important.

 

---

I find the whole "modern people don't care because it's what were used to" argument bogus. It assumes a musical ideal that doesn't exist in the real world. The idea that we don't know what we're missing is a misunderstanding of what's possible. Equal temperament allows music to be played that otherwise isn't possible for all practical purposes. To have devised a system that makes complex music possible is an example of human genius, not a falling from grace.

I'm confused what mass production in the industrial era has to do with any of this as well.

Absolutely. An obvious reference being that JS Bach thought highly of its artistic value - and thank goodness for that. And yes, I realize that others had explored the concept fairly thoroughly before him, though surely none as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnbow

Absolutely. An obvious reference being that JS Bach thought highly of its artistic value - and thank goodness for that. And yes, I realize that others had explored the concept fairly thoroughly before him, though surely none as well.

---

Bach thought it was worth adjusting temperament to make multiple keys sound good, but this was not modern equal temperament. His system involved making unequal adjustments to make things work. The modern version spreads the Pythagorean comma out evenly, making everything somewhat out of tune. It shouldn't be forgotten that Bach was a huge proponent of the Doctrine of the Affections, and tuning plays an important part in getting the correct impact from each key.

Bach's famous work to which you're likely referring is "The Well Tempered Klavier," not "The Equal Tempered Klavier."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

 

---

I find the whole "modern people don't care because it's what were used to" argument bogus. It assumes a musical ideal that doesn't exist in the real world. The idea that we don't know what we're missing is a misunderstanding of what's possible. Equal temperament allows music to be played that otherwise isn't possible for all practical purposes. To have devised a system that makes complex music possible is an example of human genius, not a falling from grace.

I'm confused what mass production in the industrial era has to do with any of this as well.

---

I don't think modern people are unaware of what's being missed because just intonation has never stopped being used. Singers use it and bowed string players use it. Because of the tuning issues that equal temperament has caused, players have often chosen to blend with fixed pitch instruments by making their own instruments slightly out of tune. Since woodwinds tend to be a little sharp, orchestral string players often tune up a bit. A442 is not at all common as a way to get a better blend. It makes everything sound a little brighter, something that can work for some literature. Playing with a piano can mean retuning the violin. This approach prioritizes unison of individual notes but doesn't preserve intervals. You can hear just how out of tune equal temperament is when you listen to chords being played in each temperament side by side. Comparisons like that make equal temperament painful to hear in that setting. In the context of a whole piece or melodic line, it's not quite as obvious to the casual listener, but that doesn't mean the difference is negligible. Let's also keep in mind that the piano was not originally tuned to equal temperament  either. The embrace of equal temperament came later. 

It's an insult to pre-modern music to suggest that it's less complex. Harmonically speaking, some early modern music uses more chord changes and chord voicings (although current modern music tends to go to extremes in the opposite direction or it in some cases just rejects tonality wholesale). But older music was quite complex. Palestrina's Pope Marcellus Mass is a masterful composition that stands up to the test of centuries in its complexity and musicality. It was the piece that won the battle for complex music to be played in the liturgical setting, in fact. Bach, often referred to as the greatest composer in history, was not using equal temperament for the music that is the reference point for all Western composition now. Sure, there were composers who wrote pieces with more "complicated" harmonies, but those composers came and went. Bach understood the rules of counterpoint so well that he was uniquely able to discern where they could be broken to good effect, whereas many other composers have simply broken the rules  for effect but have not understood how to do so in a way that's appealing. It's the pretension of the people who suggested that the new music was more complex than that of the great composers who came before that turned away modern audiences and led them to consider classical music as a dry and boring form.

I mention industrialization because the ease of turning out  instruments with standardized parts made mass production easier. Machinery can be used to churn out necks with metal frets quickly, but installing and adjusting gut frets takes more time and effort as well as the ability of the player to keep everything well adjusted.

I find it ironic that so many modern fiddle players have embraced the uniformity of equal temperament while simultaneously decrying the idea of uniformity in playing technique or posture. 

That's an interesting reply. There's nothing to disagree with in what you say here. My point is simply that equal temperament exists with the other systems of tuning and I think it's a remarkable invention that, despite what you say, makes many musical innovations possible. The painful discord you describe being able to hear is most apparent in comparing competing just intonation tunings for different keys. Equal temperament is actually pretty easy on the ear, though it's something you seem loath to admit. I suggest the almost limitless possibilities of modern piano recordings as evidence. I detect a subtle snobbery implied in these discussions that something was lost in the development of equal temperament and that the sensitive and well-informed know it and the rest of us don't. As you yourself point out though, nothing has been lost. These tuning strategies all can and do exist in music today. To further try to clarify my position, I think that equal temperament is the best single system there is. If we could only have one, that's the one I'd choose. Feel free to disagree.

quote:

---

... Since woodwinds tend to be a little sharp, orchestral string players often tune up a bit. A442 is not at all common as a way to get a better blend. It makes everything sound a little brighter, something that can work for some literature. ...

---

Interesting that you mention 442hz.  My dad was a serious amateur pianist that played a bit professionally when he was young.  When he retired, he took night classes at Juilliard just for fun.  He told me story about one of his teachers who was a violinist that had a piano in her studio so accompanists could play with her; she had on the piano a sign that read "Tune to 442."  

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnbow

Absolutely. An obvious reference being that JS Bach thought highly of its artistic value - and thank goodness for that. And yes, I realize that others had explored the concept fairly thoroughly before him, though surely none as well.

---

Bach thought it was worth adjusting temperament to make multiple keys sound good, but this was not modern equal temperament. His system involved making unequal adjustments to make things work. The modern version spreads the Pythagorean comma out evenly, making everything somewhat out of tune. It shouldn't be forgotten that Bach was a huge proponent of the Doctrine of the Affections, and tuning plays an important part in getting the correct impact from each key.

Bach's famous work to which you're likely referring is "The Well Tempered Klavier," not "The Equal Tempered Klavier."

 

---

Yes, of course I was referring to the WTC. After better reading the posts just before mine, it all becomes clear. One of my many faults, always rushing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

That's an interesting reply. There's nothing to disagree with in what you say here. My point is simply that equal temperament exists with the other systems of tuning and I think it's a remarkable invention that, despite what you say, makes many musical innovations possible. The painful discord you describe being able to hear is most apparent in comparing competing just intonation tunings for different keys. Equal temperament is actually pretty easy on the ear, though it's something you seem loath to admit. I suggest the almost limitless possibilities of modern piano recordings as evidence. I detect a subtle snobbery implied in these discussions that something was lost in the development of equal temperament and that the sensitive and well-informed know it and the rest of us don't. As you yourself point out though, nothing has been lost. These tuning strategies all can and do exist in music today. To further try to clarify my position, I think that equal temperament is the best single system there is. If we could only have one, that's the one I'd choose. Feel free to disagree.

---

I do disagree, but more as a matter of opinion. While I really do like the wholesome sound of just intonation,  I'm not suggesting that equal temperament should be abolished or that it's ruined music as a whole.

I think that no matter which tuning system you choose there will be pros and cons. The only way to have a perfect system would be to make the Pythagorean comma disappear. But since we can't accomplish that, we're stuck having to do our best to make music harmonious in spite of it.

In a sense the argument over tuning systems is a bit pedantic, because even if a string instrument is tuned according to one method, it's not set in stone unless it's a synthesized sound. Over time strings go out of tune. A piano is equal tempered to start, but doesn't remain so indefinitely. The attack on a string can influence pitch to some degree as well. The advantage to playing an unfretted instrument or singing is that you can make pitch adjustments as you go. If an open string is out of tune, you can avoid it and make corrections to all fingered notes if you're quick enough. I've heard of teachers testing their students' ability to cope by handing them violins that are deliberately out of tune and asking them to play them in tune anyway. It's good practice for a string slip on stage. 
 

From a historical perspective, equal temperament was not a quick sell. It took centuries to be adopted, and I don't think it was simply due to stubbornness. It did facilitate the composition of new music, although I wouldn't say that was always a good thing.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

This is a short little book I recommend to anyone asking about this, very insightful. The strings, woodwinds and brass can all sweeten their notes to be in better harmony, whereas piano and fretted instruments cannot. Modern music is broadly a harmonic compromise, but most people don't notice because it's is what we are used to.

How Equal Temperment Ruined Harmony and Why You Should Care

---

I think a lot of the standardization in music came about as the result of the industrial era where things began to be turned out en masse and speed of production became more important.

 

---

I find the whole "modern people don't care because it's what were used to" argument bogus. It assumes a musical ideal that doesn't exist in the real world. The idea that we don't know what we're missing is a misunderstanding of what's possible. Equal temperament allows music to be played that otherwise isn't possible for all practical purposes. To have devised a system that makes complex music possible is an example of human genius, not a falling from grace.

I'm confused what mass production in the industrial era has to do with any of this as well.

---

But it does exist in the real world in choral music as well as string of ensembles. And modern music, really any music that is equal temperment based IS a compromise that we are used to because the fact is, that's all we've ever heard. Once you've heard a nice sweet major chord with a properly in tune third a piano will never sound in tune again. I'm a guitar player first and my entire life (50 years of it anyway) the open B string has always been a bane, in tune when playing cowboy chords, not so much so when in a fretted situation, it is subtle but a tuning issue nonetheless. I could hear it long before reading anything about how intonation is a variable concept. It all stems from the creation of the piano forte, as it was called in the early days, and the way it came to be tuned with "slightly" imperfect intervals so as be able to play relatively in tune in any key.

The industrial era just happened to overlap the time when r piano was created/came into vogue, it had nothing to do with what we are talking about.

BTW, even though I could hear it, I had no understanding as to why the B string behaved that way until I read about the history of how we came to the tuning standard we use today. I just assumed I hadn't played a good enough guitar. I have since played some pretty fine instruments but can still hear the B string's weakness, however, I can accept it for what it is since that's just the nature of the beast.

I see I cross posted with Rich on some of this and the previous post

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

equal temperment based IS a compromise that we are used to because the fact is, that's all we've ever heard. 

Let me suggest that that's not a bad thing. My comment about ideal tuning system is to mean that there isn't an ideal that stands alone. Tuning systems serve different functions in different contexts. As I said to Rich, if we could only have one system I'd choose equal temperament because it is the one that allows for everything. Other systems can have closer to perfect intervals for specific scales, but work poorly outside their range. It's all good. It sounds like some of you would abolish equal temperament for some ideal that, let me say again, does not exist in the real world. There simply isn't one tuning system that works for everything. (But there is one that comes closest). The fact is that a 12 note scale of just intervals can't be constructed. Even when you make each interval just to the root you will still start to have trouble with the intervals they form between each other.

 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

...equal temperment based IS a compromise that we are used to because the fact is, that's all we've ever heard. 

Let me suggest that that's not a bad thing. My comment about ideal tuning system is to mean that there isn't an ideal that stands alone. Tuning systems serve different functions in different contexts. As I said to Rich, if we could only have one system I'd choose equal temperament because it is the one that allows for everything. Other systems can have closer to perfect intervals for specific scales, but work poorly outside their range. It's all good. It sounds like some of you would abolish equal temperament for some ideal that, let me say again, does not exist in the real world. There simply isn't one tuning system that works for everything. (But there is one that comes closest). The fact is that a 12 note scale of just intervals can be perfectly constructed. But when you make each interval just to the root you will still start to have trouble with the intervals they form between each other. The intervals depend on context.

---

P.S. There's a saying I hear related to something said by Voltaire (I looked it up):
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

The limitation of just intonation is that it doesn’t work for all keys if your instrument is fixed in pitch. But if you can retune, you can have the benefit of mathematically pure intervals in any key. Purer intonation is not impossible, it’s just more cumbersome. Yes, it means significant modulation within a piece is not feasible, but when you can play anything from the beginning of known music to at least Beethoven, how much are we really missing if we don’t use equal temperament? A lot of the fiddle tunes we play were written before equal temperament, and anything that can be played on the violin without retuning works. Accompaniment instruments can be tuned according to other systems with good results. There’s nothing magical about equal temperament; it’s just one way to address a problem.