source file: mills2.txt Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:44:08 -0800 Subject: Well temperament, WHEN?? From: A440A@aol.com Jonathan Walker writes; > McGeary's article is based on a survey of >contemporary keyboard treatises and related literature; most of these >writers endorse ET as a keyboard standard, but a substantial minority >mention Kirberger II. A non-restrictive tuning was at one time called an Equal temperament, was it not? I strongly believe that the ease of setting has a lot to do with the favor of a temperament, i.e., the easier the system of tuning is, the more likely it is to be used. To this extent, the Kirnberger should have been popular, it is rather easy. The theorists could easily champion the cause of the mathematical tuning, (ET), but that does not mean that that was the temperament that was in general use. When I quoted Johann Joseph Loehr statement of the early 1800's; > "There never was a man capable of tuning by a ear a pianoforte or > an organ so as not to leave some inequality of temperament, and > there never will be", etc........... Jonathan responded; >>There is a logical problem here, which would seem to undermine its >>usefulness for your argument: namely, we can always choose a margin >>of error small enough to wrong-foot the best tuner, and if we set the >>margin at 0, then of course no-one can tune flawless ET. Let's talk about this "margin". I would challenge anybody to tune an equal temperament, on a fortepiano, using the known tuning procedures of 1800, so even that a sensitive composer could not tell the difference between keys. It is quite easy to use octaves and fifths to get all the way around the circle without a "wolf", however, the thirds will give it away as being unequal, and it is the thirds by which we judge the level of musical tension in a given key. Walker goes on to say; > What you would >have to find is not evidence to show that ET was not achieved to >perfection, but rather that musicians/tuners were not _aiming_ for the >equality of all keys, but continued, rather, to favour some over >others. In other words, you will need to find contemporary evidence >not for inequality of results, but inequality of _intention_. This one is easy. When I was first instructed in the process of tuning, ( 1972), my tutor pointed out to me that the fifths leading up to the C-E third could be made a little "noisy" so that the key of C would be the "nicest". This was in north Louisiana!!!!! If the tradition of "key favoritism" was still extant 25 years ago, I really believe that in 1800, the practise was probably more widespread . In response to my statement; > I don't think ET was possible, given the state of > science in the 1700's. Walker replies; >>You could make much the same argument for meantone temperaments being >>impossible in the 15th century, but we have corroborating evidence to >>show that they did indeed employ such tunings then; Comparing the ease of production between meantone and 12TET seems like a stretch. Equal temperament is much more difficult. Meantone (1/4 comma Aaron) is so easy in comparison, that it's use doesn't mean that everything else followed as well, i.e. tempering four fifths at better than 5 cents each is a lot easier than tuning 12 fifths at 1.95 each. The scale of difficulty doesn't translate. Walker again; >pronouncements Beethoven made, well into his career, upon key >characteristics, might seem to indicate his continuing preference for >and use of well-temperament (for as long as he could hear any >difference). My point was that he also claimed to be able to >distinguish between Db and C# (and other such "enharmonic >equivalents") and this renders his other statements on key >characteristics useless as a supposed Beethovenian endorsement of >well-temperament. Why does this render his other statements useless? Do we know what he was talking about inre Db vs.C#? I don't, and though it seems that from our point of modern view, there is no difference, was he talking about meantone? or was he talking about orchestral intonation, or singers?. But his pronouncements upon key characteristics are easily understood when listening to his sonati in Well temperament. What it comes down to when deciding performance practises is listening to the music, and making decisions. It is easy to say that composers didn't write anything down about their preferences, but is that true? Did they not write down the notes? Is music a language or not? If it is, then can it not tell us something about the composers intention? Extrapolation of temperament practise from composition is pretty thin stuff, I know, but coupled with what documentation we have of the state of science, (ET is a scientific tuning), and demonstrated differences in the sound of say, the "Pathetique" performed on Well temperament and Equal Temperament, I am convinced that it was not composed with ET in mind. I just cannot imagine Beethoven would have been oblivious to, or uncaring about the lack of tonal contrasts that follow from the use of Equal Temperament. Walker again; >If pianists need their confidence >bolstered by foundationless arguments, concerning the tunings >Beethoven would have heard, Foundationless arguments? The way I read and hear it, there is more foundation for the use of unequal tuning than there is for ET. Regards, Ed Foote Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 03:52 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03598; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 03:52:14 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03664 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id SAA15582; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:50:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:50:13 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu