How Did Mozart Stay in Tune?

Factual Questions
61

It’s nothing more than speculation from both us. I’m not, however, persuaded by your arguments.

Mozart was an extremely prolific composer; that’s historical fact. Copying scores (let alone composing them) is extraordinarily time-consuming and requires a great deal of mental focus. That’s also historical fact, and is something I’m familiar with first hand. I can hardly believe I have to mention that these details are very well-known, and part of the historical record. Mozart absolutely had to spend a vary large amount of time at the composing desk. Also maintaining an active career simultaneously as a keyboard virtuoso would simply compound the demands on Mozart’s time. Do I really need to provide a cite for these points? That seems very silly.

I did spend some time researching musicology articles from JSTOR tonight. I also reviewed a biography of Mozart (Solomon) and consulted a musicologist friend of mine who is a specialist on Mozart. For the record, I did this little bit of research because I’m genuinely curious about the question.

Neither the articles (six or seven of them about various subjects such as Mozart’s instruments, his teaching of intonation and tuning systems to private students, and so on) nor the biography have anything to say whatsoever on the issue of who did the actual tuning. An article on the degree to which Mozart’s monetary problems were due to overspending turned up nothing about his hiring a tuner or not, although it make a general observation that Wolfgang and Constanze were accustomed to a standard of living (including the hiring of household staff) that was frankly beyond the means of either of them in the last half-decade or so of Mozart’s life.

It appears to me that the issue of tuning instruments in Mozart’s household has not been raised nor resolved by musicologists. To resolve the issue at this point would seem to require primary source research. Since I am not a musicologist, I’ll leave that to someone else.

My musicologist, Mozart-expert friend similarly had neither heard of nor read anything concerning whether Mozart tuned his own pianos or not. He commented that it was a good question, but he also agreed with me that Mozart was so busy composing and concertizing that he would likely have turned to hired help to keep his instruments in tune, except for possibly occasional touch-ups, which I allowed earlier. Obviously you weren’t in on this conversation, so you’ll just have to to take my word for it.

I conclude that without more research into primary sources, this question is not definitively answerable at this time.

However, I still think it was unlikely that Mozart habitually tuned his own pianos as a professional musician, say from 1773 on.

62

Your arguments are pure speculation based on pure opinion. Mine are backed by various overriding facts of the day that make it almost certainly accurate and logical for lack of any other conflicting evidence.

I’m not asking for cites of any of these statements. Just some to back up your hunch that Mozart frequently utilized a piano tuner instead of tuning his piano himself which is unrelated to any of those statements. All available evidence and documentation of the time period indicate that piano tuning didn’t begin to emerge as a profession until after Mozart’s death and that he had a specific interest in tuning and temperament. But there is still room for your argument that, despite all this, he just didn’t want to mess with it and had another musician or student or someone else who knew how do it for him. You just haven’t provided any evidence that was the case and I have provided evidence that he could tune, did tune, was interested in tuning, and was somewhat of a technical expert at tuning for his time.

So, you don’t have a cite of even one occasion, with that much musical brainpower at work, and it is a notion that contradicts the other available evidence which infers the opposite is likely true in the first place, but you still insist?

I didn’t realize that now we are arguing he ‘habitually’ tuned his own pianos and only from 1773 on. Originally the argument was that he couldn’t. Then it turned into an argument about perfect pitch and how even that couldn’t have helped him with the monumental task of tuning is 3 octave keyboard. Then it was proven that maybe he could, but he was too busy… And with that, it’s on me to prove that he *habitually *tuned his own piano from 1773, or otherwise your hunch that he frequently hired a piano tuner wins?

As I said if you could provide any cite, any evidence, I’m open to reading it. This is a board for factual answers and no matter how strongly you believe in your opinion once asked to back it up with some external cite it is pretty much on you to do so if it contradicts available evidence or basic logic. I have proven that Mozart could tune his piano, did tune his piano, and it is pretty much indisputable. Now you are trying to argue that maybe he didn’t do it that frequently, or after 1773.

If you think Mozart had a time management issue - our lives are going by here in an ever-escalating argument based on what facts I can find and what opinions you can repeat as the specifics of the argument change.

63

It was in tune, and I have been a musician far too long to be told “professional” this or that. You can hear it or you can’t. The tuner agrees or it doesn’t. There is no “non-professional” in tune vs. “professional” in tune. It either is or isn’t, and any quibbling over “professional standards” is the mark of the pretentious snobbery for those who think they are somehow superior for being “taught” something that has a lesser value if you have to be “taught” than if you understand it by hearing it.

And yes, I can sight read music, but usually don’t need to because I can hear it.

This professional stuff all centers around a subjective idea that talking about music can substitute for an ability to hear it.

Either the piano strings vibrate to a certain wavelength or not. there are no varying “standards.” In tune or not, those are the choices.

64

I am buying Crazyhorse’s argument over Knorf’s here.

I’d like to add, in the case of having missed it, that I’d never dream of having someone else tune an instrument I use unless of course I lent it to them and they alternatively tuned it–but they’d best put it back reasonably where I had it tuned, he he.

Given the fact that lack of environmental control is a factor in making instruments more temperamental back then, from what I know of Mozart’s personality, I don’t think he’d dream of using any sort of piano tuner other than in a tight situation. He’d do it himself.

65

So, the answer is no. There are many, many subtleties to it you apparently are ignorant of. Go read the article polykamell linked. A professional concert pianist is unlikely to be satisfied with an amateur’s self-tuned piano.

Apparently you also disagree that professional means anything in music. Really? The Berliner Philharmoniker has nothing over Podunkville Community Orchestra? Martha Argerich doesn’t have anything more to offer the piano repertoire than you do, plunking away on your self-tuned piano? You really think you can duplicate the work of a professional tuner just by banging away yourself using whatever your untrained ears think they hear? I’d like to hear a recording of your self-tuned piano. Actually, I wouldn’t. I’m sure it would be dreadful.

But anyway, clearly there’s no point in talking to you if you’re going to dismiss professional standards in music out of hand.

I don’t agree. Also, let’s not forget your main source for your opinion is a single, non-scholarly, openly speculative article on someone’s website. It’s not a slam-dunk by any means.

I already conceded this point.

I never said “couldn’t.” Only “didn’t.” I originally also doubted he had the training, which was incorrect, which I already acknowledged. That was not the only thought I had in doubting it.

Perfect pitch has nothing to do with tuning pianos, whether four octaves or seven. (Mozart’s Walter piano had a four-octave range, not three.)

I never said it was up to you. I said it was up to a musicologist, which I conclude that you are not, as I am not.

As for busy, it’s pretty indisputable that Mozart was a very, very busy man. I made that argument way back on the previous page.

There is no cite “proving” your point, either. Yours is as equally based on speculation as mine. Neither of us have any direct evidence one way or the other. Both are possible; I just think my conjecture is more likely.

Pointing out that Mozart’s prolific output proves he was very, very busy–possibly too busy to tune his own pianos–is absolutely logical.

You want a cite that Mozart was a very busy man? Here.

I simply think it unlikely that he did once he was a professional musician. (I chose 1773 since that’s when he accepted his position at Salzburg. Seems likely enough.) His father taught him tuning systems, so clearly he must have done some keyboard tuning in his studies. I contend he probably didn’t regularly after that. You have said nothing to dissuade me of this.

It’s not impossible that he did; I’m just saying I don’t think so.

The argument that piano-tuning as a profession didn’t exist much until somewhat later does not disprove anything, by the way. Mozart worked closely with local craftsmen and builders; they definitely handled some maintenance on his pianos. Perhaps he called on them regularly to tune his instruments as well. Perhaps he trained one or more of his students to handle the task: that seems most likely, since it is documented that he taught tuning systems to his students. Perhaps Constanze helped him with it; she was also a trained musician. There are several options that do not require someone who was a professional piano tuner doing this work. Yes, I am still speculating.

I haven’t changed anything other than acknowledge a ways back that he did apparently have the training to tune pianos. At that time I also agreed that he at least may have “touched up” his own from time to time.

But we’re not getting anywhere. Look, if you really want a real answer, try writing the Stiftung Mozarteum Salzburg. Probably someone there knows for certain. If it’s true that Mozart tuned his own keyboards regularly throughout his life, fine. I would find it surprising, but I really don’t care that much, and now the whole subject is growing tiresome to me. After all, it’s hardly an earth-shattering issue.

We’ve both already put more time into this than the debate deserves. I now feel that this is becoming little more than a pissing contest. Therefore I do not care to continue with this thread, since we’re just arguing in circles, you haven’t acknowledged any legitimate point I have made, and people like** David42** annoy me.

Enjoy the last word. You have not convinced me you are right.

66

Crazyhorse, I went ahead and did this myself. If I get a response, I’ll come back to this thread. Otherwise, see you elsewhere on the SDMB.

67

I appreciate your genuine curiosity on the question and I hope you get a response, either way it goes.

68

Allow me to bring the thread back a little to OP. I will avoid in-line cites. In fact, I will avoid most cites at all. :slight_smile:

  1. The thread has turned toward perfect and relative pitch, and how it may be applied in different temperaments, i.e., where the division of the octave is not in intervals of the squareroot2. By Mozart’s time the issue of temperaments was more or less a dead issue.

However, an important question that seems to have been overlooked is that pitch perception and its effects on physically tuning the piano must be taken into account.

During the 18th century pitches varied tremendously all over Europe (it may be noted that German organs before 1600 pitches ranged from a=377 a=567.)

Pitch settings varied widely by environment–e.g., venue size, acoustics, temperature and humidity; genre and instrument–organ solo, chamber or sacred, opera, concerto, brass band, symphony; and idiosyncratic decisions of different cities. Opera singers, if they had a cold, would ask the composer to lower the pitch.*

To find out historical pitch settings, people use surviving instruments (which are prone to swelling or valve variation); organs (and even one 1:1 organ pipe drawing, something of a Shroud of Turin to organalogists). But naturally, these physical data are all self-limiting according to the reasons above.

So, you ask (if you’re still with me here), what about pitch forks? The first surviving fork is from the Englishman John Shore, ca. 1715, at a=419.9. A tuning fork belonging to Handel, 1755–at the place and date of the Messiah–is at a=422.5. (A good summary of surviving tuning forks is available on line [the link is cranky]. The largest study is Mendel’s, cited below.)

Now, a 1777 letter from Mozart revealed his fantastic enthusiasm for the sound and design of a new piano by Andreas Stein. (Mozart apparently started playing piano exclusively in 1770.)

A tuning fork from Vienna 1780 used by Stein exists. In 1780, Mozart moved to Vienna. Thus was born "Mozart’s Tuning Fork." It is tuned at…wait for it…a=421.6. Boom. but Stein was from a different city; Mozart had a clavichord of Stein only. And if even if he did have a Stein, and a Stein fork, it would have been relatively useless, given the difficulties in pitch-matching I have listed.***
2. Re tuning and piano repair. I know less about this–like all harpsichordists, I always tuned my own instrument, and could crank a temperament (equal temperament was by far the hardest) in about ten minutes if I was in a hurry. Published information on historical piano which I could get my hands on quickly is scarce. I would think historical records, beyond the evidence of the repairs of the instruments themselves, are scarce period.

Let’s stick with the Stein piano and equal temperament and the vagaries of performances discussed above. It generally had a five-octave range. The salient features for tuning mechanics are a) depending on production year, it was entirely single strung, double strung and single strung in the treble, or double strung; and b) it did not have a metal frame.

Yes he tuned it, touchups here and there. Mozart is different than most of us in a) his taste in pornography and b) the abuse his keyboards took as he went from city to city. But on the other hand, he played constantly, and his keyboards never had time to go seriously out of whack. This has nothing to do with you. You will hire a tuner, because your piano is double and triple strung and has a huge metal frame supporting pin wound with huge tensile strength. Let alone all the other problems under the hood that should be checked out now and then.

The pitch will be at a=440. The tuner knows best.

Don’t worry about HVAC, as long as you are not taking the instrument into a steam bath. Mozart’s performance venues were not heated overnight (he practiced and composed on a clavichord when he did not have a harpsichord or piano.) Cold and dry is best for pianos and harpsichords as a whole, but you need not subject your family to such conditions.

*In fact opera singers en masse demanded that mid-19th century orchestras lower their crazy high pitches. Opera houses got bigger, so singers had to sing louder; for the same reason violins got stronger and capable, end result: singers unhappy.

**Epilogue: In the 19th c. a French commission followed up on a group of German physicists and established a=435 at 59deg. F. as standard. The Brits, naturally refusing French diktats, opted for a=439. The Americans, again as national cliches predict, were all over the place. As late as the mid-19th century, Steinway pianos in New York were at a=457. Yikes! With the rise of broadcasting, the BBC vibrated a crystal at one million Hz, futzed electrically with the numbers, and put out a tone of a=440. The 1975 International Organization for Standardization Standard ISO 16 puts a=440. So don’t fuck with it. :wink:

***Everything you ever would have dreamed to see on historical pitch is in Ellis’s classic from 1888, History of Musical Pitch (a table from his article summarizing different pitches in use is online. Mendel’s equally classic review is “Pitch in Western Music since 1500. A Re-Examination.” Acta Musicologica, 50:1/2. 1978. “Mozart’s Tuning Fork” is discussed on p. 82.)

69

My friend C(4) is 261.63 Kz whether or not a “professional” piano tuner is there to give his permission for me to hear it or not.

You’re either in tune or you’re not, and it doesn’t matter if you are a professional or not.

This is the snobbery I talked about: My music must certainly be dreadful since I am not a “professional.” Usually said by people who can’t play a note without being told what to play (on paper) and entirely lacking in creativity. hardly more a musician than my cd player is.

But I suppose Mozart would be dreadful I suppose, if his C(4) was actually 261.62 Kz because it didn’t fit your professional standards. Mozart could have been slightly off, you know.

70

It’s not snobbery to proclaim that someone who is a professional and has specially trained to do something is most likely better than the amateur. Piano tuners spend a lifetime perfecting their tuning. You apparently think their work is worth nothing because they aren’t actual musicians. If anything, you are the one guilty of snobbery.

But that’s not why I came back to this thread. I wanted to point out that I finally got a hold of the guy Shakester mentioned*. He told me that, while he does tune without electronics (for which I give him major props), he does not have perfect pitch, just really, really fine tuned relative pitch. He still carries around a tuning fork or similar device to play A440 for him.

He further says that perfect pitch would actually be a liability due to the octave stretching that we’ve already mentioned in this thread.

*I started to send an email a while back, but I apparently never clicked send. I was cleaning out my drafts, and instead of just deleting it, went ahead and sent it on a whim just an hour ago, and he responded. I’d publish the whole email correspondence, but I don’t know how that would go with the copyright rules around here.