Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m not a physicist. Maybe you can explain how to get that information by other means. One of the other posters here emailed me privately last year and we discussed something similar to what you are suggesting. The problem I have with weighing the strings and calculating the mass or whatever-the-hell is required to come up with a number for the tension the string produces is that different materials have different resistance to stretching that has to do with the type of material and not with the mass or weight of the material. A 4th octave nylon A for example takes a month or more to stop stretching and hold pitch consistently while the same string in gut takes a day or two to hold pitch. The mass of both strings will probably be the same, and I don’t even know what the difference in weight would be. But the nylon string will always feel like a rubber band when compared to the gut. How does that factor into a mathematical equation? Rather than berating me for not having a doctor’s degree in physics, you might try explaining your method of calculating what I’m trying to find out.
I understand that Chicago Lyric is about to open up. Also New York City opera since Jessica Jhou just got tenure with the Boston Symphony. Boston Lyric opera is not a full time job.
I understand that argument Saul. A friend of mine here in Boston who is a superb musician(Doctorate in Piano, but also a harpist) wants to see what the harmony is in the piece. So she doesn’t like my edition of Une Chatelaine en sa Tour… for example because I wrote a few notes enharmonically and that makes it difficult to figure out the harmony. But to leave those notes written as double flats or double sharps, or to leave a G# when in fact you have to play an A flat is to me just as confusing and much less practical.
Mary- It would be like a violin string bridge. Just something that sits on top of the vibrating surface of the monochord and the string would pass over it, pressing down on it but not attached. The string would be anchored or attached to something on one side of the string bridge, the ahchor being slightly lower than the top of the string bridge, and would then pass over the string bridge and be anchored to something on the other side of the string bridge. The vibrating length of the string would have to be measured from the top of the string bridge to the end of the string at the tuning pin. As you tested different length strings, the string bridge would be moved closer to or further away from the tuning end of the string. Someplace in there you would have to have a fish scale or something like that, so that as you tuned the string, the tension could be read on the scale.
Let me try to give you an example. Let’s say you want to measure the tension on a 4th octave C string(gut or nylon, it doesn’t matter), and a 4th octave C string on a concert grand is 16 inches long(I’m guessing on that. You’d have to measure it on a concert grand). You would place the string bridge 16 inches from the tuning pin and then install the string. You could have on one side of the string bridge the fish scale anchored to something stationary and strong on the end of the monochord. You would attach the string to the scale, run the string over the string bridge and up to the tuning pin. You would then tune the string up to the required pitch. Once it is up to pitch, record what the fish scale says the pull is. If you then want to test a 3rd octave C, and you knew that a 3rd octave C is 12 inches long on a concert grand, you would remove the 4th octave string, move the string bridge so it was now 12 inches from the tuning pin, and install a 3rd octave C string, tune it up to the required pitch and record the pull on the fish scale.
I think you would have to have a stationary bridge up near the tuning pin as well, so that you could measure exactly the distance from the moveable string bridge to the stationary string bridge, and that distance would be the same as the length of that string on a harp.
Some of the questions I would love to see answered are:
1) What is the difference in tension between gut, nylon, and carbon fiber? You could measure each string of the same position(4th octave C for example) and record the difference in tension of each one.
2) What is the difference in tension of the same diameter string(4th octave C for example) on a concert grand and then on a semi-grand? I would check the string lengths of a particular string on several concert grands and several semi-grands to see how they vary.
3) What is the overall difference in tension when a whole octave(say 4th octave) is strung entirely in nylon and then entirely in gut?
4) What is the tension exerted by each of the wire strings?
5) What is the total tension on a harp(concert grand and also semi-grand), adding up the tension on each string on the harp.
I realize this is a big project. But it could be pared down, like taking a reading on only the C strings, including wires for example, and comparing nylon to gut or carbon fiber.
I hope you’re able to do this.
Mark- How about calculating the string tension of gut strings versus nylon strings. Or even calculating the total tension on the neck/soundboard.
You could build a monochord. That’s basically a box with a movable string bridge on it and a top made of wood thin enough to be able to hear the pitch the string is producing. The box would have to be long enough to accommodate the longest string on the instrument. The string would be anchored at one end, to a scale capable of measuring the tension on the string. At the other end would be a tuning pin that you could turn with a key. You would place the string bridge in a position on the monochord to reflect the vibrating length of that string on the harp and then tune it to the required pitch. You would then take a reading of the tension on that string.
You could decide to measure the tension of all of the C strings on the harp, first in nylon, then gut, then carbon fiber. I frankly would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a table with this information on it. And this would be a huge, HUGE contribution to our knowledge of harp dynamics. If you came up with this information, I can just about guarantee that I can get it published in the Journal of the American Harp Society.
-I have to disagree as a student, Carl, because if I played every piece note perfect and counted everything correctly, I would not need a teacher. –
Jean- When learning a musical instrument, there are things that you, the student have to accomplish on your own. One of the main ones is learning the notes and rhythm yourself, so that when you go in for your next lesson, the teacher can focus on the things that only he/she can do for you, like polishing the piece, teaching you interpretation, correcting technical problems, etc. If you haven’t learned the notes and rhythm on your own, that just eats up precious time in the lesson for things that you don’t need the teacher for, and shortens the amount of time available for things that only the teacher can help you with.
Another thing that you have to do on your own is practice regularly the technical things that your teacher has given you to work on. Practice-i.e., repetition- is the only way to internalize technical issues and improve technique. So learning the notes and rhythm correctly is the starting point of really learning to play a musical instrument, not the final stop.
I personally would never bid on an instrument like this without being able to examine it first hand myself. The reason is that photographs really don’t communicate the technical information I need to evaluate its condition. Is it worm eaten for example? Is the action rusted shut and unuseable? Is that really the soundboard? Or a piece of plywood nailed on to make it look nice, but totally unuseable? These are just a sampling of the questions that cannot be answered with photographs. There are many more.
Learn the assigned material as well as you can. In particular learn the notes and rhythm well, so that you are not hunting for notes or starting and stopping during the lesson. Treat the upcoming lesson, and the preparation for it, like a performance, and make it your goal to play the assigned material as note perfect as you can. This is stuff that just wastes the teacher’s time if you haven’t done your homework. The teacher should never, never, never have to correct wrong notes or rhythm. That’s your job.
The thing that always drove me nuts about almost all orchestra parts when I used to play them was that, on first looking at a part, I would think each and every time, ‘now what did the composer really want here?’
Fixing scratches and dents is a profession in itself. There are people who specialize in that. You should ask around among woodworkers(really good ones that make furniture) and see who they recommend.
Saul- I’m sitting here rolling with laughter. That’s exactly what I thought too when he said he lived in England.
I think that problem with Albert Hall was a bad echo. So, lots of sound, but not very clear. There are now modern acoustic clouds hung below the original ceiling and the orchestra had a kind of shell around it. The orchestra didn’t sound amplified at all but rather was incredibly clear and resonant. The fact that the harp was SO easy to hear led me to believe that there may have been amplification.
I have been in the afore mentioned opera house several times and never once thought that the orchestra was amplified, but it was. Here in Boston we have a huge gorgeously restored 1920’s movie house that seats 3,400. It’s beautiful, but the acoustics stink. A friend of mine plays harp in the Boston Ballet orchestra and she insisted that they were not amplified when I thought they were. Then one night I was in there for a performance and when the orchestra started the overture it sounded thin and distant. Then, maybe 20 seconds into the music, someone flipped a switch and they suddenly sounded as they usually do. So it is possible to amplify orchestras and not have it sound amplified as we are used to thinking of it.
I can tell you for a fact that a whole orchestra in a major opera house in Europe is “discretely amplified.” A man who used to be in the orchestra and was also personnel manager told me this.
Also, this summer I was in London for a few days and went to a proms concert at Royal Albert Hall, which seats 6,000 people. I’m certain the orchestra there was also “discretely amplified.” Given the size and shape of the hall, the orchestra just sounded too good not to be amplified. And I could hear every single note the harpist played!
Mel- I would add most of the Wagner parts to the ‘difficult but inaudible’ catagory. Maybe that should be subtitled the ‘thankless’ catagory. Part of the problem is, Wagner often called for 6 harps on one part. But who ever performs them like that. Even worse is when the conductor decides that one harpist should combine harps I and II, where in the original 3 harps played each part. And they wonder why the harp can’t be heard. If I were still playing orchestra gigs, I’d love to show up at a rehearsal of some Wagner piece like the fire music, and quietly hook my harp up to an amplifier. Then I’d turn the knob up to full blast and wait to see the conductor’s face when I started playing!
Firstly, I was not sidestepping your question. Secondly, there s nothing ‘vague’ about harp technique. If you are as advanced a pianist as you say, then you should understand that the playing of scales is an integral part of instrumental technique. Your original question, and the several repeats of it, tell me that: 1) you haven’t the slightest idea of how to play the harp, and 2) you’ve got a pretty overblown opinion of your own musical knowledge and ability. In my original answer, I was trying to be diplomatic. In this answer, I am not.
