source file: mills2.txt Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 12:37:38 +0200 Subject: Re: Wolf Tuning 1125 - "In praise of meantone..." From: Charles Lucy re: Wolf posting - In Praise of Meantone. Daniel Wolf's observations on the arrival of horological accuracy, and the declining use of meantones tunings, with moves towards well temperaments and eventually in favor of 12tET, does have a certain irony. (see end of post *) Assuming that he is correct (I have no reason to doubt him on this), and the fashion moved from meantone into well temperaments, and eventually 12tET, I wonder why meantone tunings were abandoned. Could it have been due to the limitations imposed on composers and performers, when using twelve fixed pitches per octave? The difficulty of quickly retuning meantones would have severely restricted the harmonic possibilities, yet well temperaments immediately offered keyboard players both tuning and intervallic novelties, in different keys. So the musical innovators of the time gravitated towards well temperaments or to providing more notes per octave with instrument developments, resulting in 19tET, 31tET, 53tET etc. Could 12tET's ubiquity be blamed on the need to simplify the well-tempered subtleties for subsequent less tonally sophisticated generations? Meanwhile the JI advocates were still plugging away with an obsolete system, which had already been thrashed to death by earlier generations, and have regularly temporarily resuscitated it for later generations, as historical curiosities. I appreciate that there is a strong bias against meantones tunings, by many tuning list subscribers, who still praise, rank, map, and compare their JI and ET tunings to "beatless perfection". I seem to be seeing/hearing a revival of interest in meantones since their possibilities now made available by recent technological developments. Despite their unfortunately ugly name, "meantone tunings" to my biased mind have many redeeming characteristics which can now be used practically. 1) Modulation and transposition is easy and limitless. 2) The tunings are clearly and easily defined by: a) size of Large interval (or difference between Fourth (IVth) and Fifth (Vth) interval) plus b) Octave Ratio. 3) All spiral and most circular tunings can also be described in these terms. Eg. Pythagorean, and almost all ET systems. 4) Harmonic and intervallic relationships are clear. 5) Scales can easily be unambiguously coded. 6) Degrees (or levels) of consonance and dissonance are obvious. 7) Current technology allows rapid retuning with conventional fingering. 8) All intervals can be described in terms of Large (L) and small (s) intervals to know precision. 9) The notation system is conventional and well-established. BTW Has anyone else looked carefully at Bill and Anne Collins Collinsian Concepts notation system (May 1995)? So maybe it's time to take a second and deeper look at the "neglected" meantone potentials. Charles Lucy lucy@hour.com http://www.wonderlandinorbit.com/projects/lullaby (*Ironic in connection with John "Longitude" Harrison's ideas on time measurement and tunings. One "world beating" the other neglected.) For download of his writings go to: http://www.wonderlandinorbit.com/lucytuning/harrison/harrison.htm Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:05 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA05704; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:06:10 +0200 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:06:10 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05691 Received: (qmail 8075 invoked from network); 6 Jul 1997 13:06:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jul 1997 13:06:05 -0000 Message-Id: <199707060902_MC2-1A52-E588@compuserve.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu