source file: mills2.txt Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 02:22:39 -0700 Subject: Bach's tuning discussion on harpsichord list continued From: COUL@ezh.nl (Manuel Op de Coul) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 19:31:36 -0500 Sender: Harpsichords and Related Topics From: mcgeary thomas nelson Subject: Re: temperaments I would be grateful for a tabulated list that supports John's i mpression. When I was surveying practical tuning manuals for my study of tuning in German-speaking areas 1770-1828, just the opposite was the pattern. All the real keyboard teachers (Turk, Loehlien, Mueller, Czerny, and Hummel) EXPLICITLY recommended equal temperament: they just as clearly mentioned the existence of, and rejected, MT and Kirnberger II. Is is usually the pattern, that it is the mathematicians, the theorists, the gentleman natural scientists, and the like, who are fascinated by the mental problem of temperament that explored all the sublted subtle, that is, temperaments. cheers, tom mcgeary> > One pattern that really sticks out for me is that the vast > majority of writers on temperament who were not recognized > performers talked of just and equal temperaments, while almost > all accomplished performers talked of tunings that sounded > close to Werckmeister III or d'Alembert/Rousseau. > > -- > John Sankey bf250@freenet.carleton.ca > Music is Beauty, Beauty is Truth, Truth is Freedom >