Turn table speed variation question

On KOB, I have not reviewed my original and apparently provocative comments, but I was referring to the conglomeration of problems with the off-speed version, which is all any of us ever heard for the first 30 years or so after it was recorded in 1957 or 58. These issues included the fact that inexpensive record players of the day were usually themselves running a bit fast or a bit slow and that they were hardly icons of speed stability under variable loads. (I wager none would pass the Timeline test.) These were mostly cheap belt-drives. Later, my first "hi-fi" turntable was an AR; we all know about it's built-in problems that contribute to pitch instability (compliant belt that stretches and contracts when the spring suspension is activated for any reason). I got used to the wobbly piano tones. Sometimes a bit flat, sometimes a bit sharp. One thing I know for sure about myself as an amateur jazz singer and as an audiophile: I don't have perfect pitch. But, as someone else mentioned, I too am very sensitive to unstable pitch. Thus, one got used to the imperfections of the original tape transfer. If you are like me, the music of KOB is kind of imbedded in your brain. That made the "corrected" version sound a bit odd at times.

I've actually cut down drastically on the frequency with which I listen to KOB, because I want to get back to the surprise I felt when first I heard it and for many playings thereafter, in my youth.

Fleib, allow me to explain. I made a comment about the tuning of
instruments and you appeared to respond to it (since no other comment
specifically about the tuning of instruments had been made up to that point)
in a way that I did not see as relevant to what was being discussed; that's
all. Then you made a comment about perfect pitch that suggested that
people with perfect pitch would not have a problem with the fast speed of
side one of KOB. This is a purely subjective thing. This "trivia"
about KBO has been a well known fact among musicians since well before
the "corrected" audiophile versions of that recording came to
be. Many a musician has been bothered by it when trying to transcribe the
solos on the record. What we are talking about is all a matter of degree.
Perhaps unimportant to some, but surely important to many. BTW, while I
am sure your friend is a fine musician, and strictly as a point of interest,
having perfect pitch is in no way an indication of superior musicianship.
Lastly, we have no disagreement about advances in instrument design
other than the fact that instruments that have these
"improvements" are not played by all musicians; quite the
contrary, many still treasure the unique tonal qualities of some of the older
"modern" instruments; many players like a certain amount of
"fight" (resistance) in their instruments.

Regards.

** BTW, while I am sure your friend is a fine musician, and strictly as a point of interest, having perfect pitch is in no way an indication of superior musicianship.**

Was that necessary? Matter of fact he's a superb classical pianist and has recorded many albums under his own name. I haven't seen him in years as he spends a lot of time in Europe where he has quite a following. Many years ago he was playing jazz locally and we had a conversation on this very subject. I also have a cousin with perfect pitch. She used to tune a college choir by singing the note. Of course they can hear a different tuning, but it's usually not objectionable unless there is deviation within the ranks. How else could they listen to an orchestra tuned to a different frequency?

I wonder how the Boston Symphony can play a piano concerto tuned to A = 444Hz. They would have to tune to the piano, whatever it is.
Regards,

Fleib, c'mon, was THAT necessary? Why do you assume some underlying cynicism, it was a simple comment that some may find of interest; no ulterior motive, I made that clear and simply wanted to make sure you understood my intention.

Now, re tuning: of course an orchestra tuned to A444 would not be objectionable, in absolute terms, as far as it being a deviation from some standard. However, on a recording running a quarter tone sharp that same A would sound at aproximately 453 Hz; quite a difference, I am sure you would agree, and clearly could be objectionable to someone with perfect pitch. But, that's not really the main reason why tuning drastically higher or lower is objectionable, I explained that in my previous post. It is the effect that the higher or lower tuning has on overall timbre and the way that many instruments react, response-wise, to that alteration that many players (and some listeners) find objectionable.

BTW, the piano would be tuned to whatever pitch is requested, but if the soloist insists on a lower pitch, the orchestra would oblige..

Merry Christmas!

Frogman, thank you for the fascinating and highly educational posts.

Best,
Bill