source file: mills3.txt Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:15:04 +0100 Subject: re: Bach? Puhleeze? From: Carl Lumma >I have to speak up when ET and Bach are found in the same >sentence, I suppose Pavlov was right....... Isn't it funny how only 30 years ago, before the "original instruments" thing got trendy, the fact that "Well" didn't mean "Equal" was all but forgotten? Even with armies of musicologists, I'd wager that upwards of 1/3 of the Julliard campus doesn't know the difference to this day. And the history problem isn't only in conservatories. Even though I had read that "Well" was probably Kirnberger 3 almost two years ago, I was shocked to learn rather recently that Liszt didn't use equal either -- pianos weren't shipping with 12 until after the turn of our century. >The well tempering schemes of the early 1700's offered a lot of tonal >resources. Some of these temperaments had a palette of thirds that ranged >from pure to tempered by a full syntonic comma. This is very different from >ET, is it not? Yup. But not different enough for somebody (like me) who's into extended Just Intonation. >In fact, these early temperaments, aka Werckmiester, can be >seen as the basis of compositional imperatives. Right on. I think it was Jules Siegel who postulated that the return of the church modes around the turn of the century was a result of equal, which is an approximation of the 3-limit, whereas the earlier un-equal temperaments were 5-limit. And there was some post not too long ago (from you?) about a set of Beethovan recordings coming out in un-equal. I'd like to get updated on that. >observe the different constructions of the WTC 1 And WTC 2. Bach wrote each Prelude and Fugue pair to fit the characteristics of the key it was in. Not "to demonstrate that playing in all keys was possible", as I have read in many a conservatory circle-> So much for all "interpretations" based on that! >I suppose my ignorance is in the variations of dissonance that exist in >all of these exotic ET's that are so often discussed on this list, but the >soul of ET's is very different from the variety found in a Well Temperament. Seldom discussed is the fact that each of the "exotic ET's" have as many un-equal counterparts as does 12 tone. >Am I to understand that the goal of getting into more than 12 TET is to >find purity in all intervals? If so, is that not BORING? The closest thing I know of to a unified goal was the Xenharmonic one, and that was simply to find something DIFFERENT. Not necessarily more pure. As far as contrast between pure and dissonant, nothing is as good as Just Intonation, as Partch had to say again and again. The variations between consonance and dissonance in even the most un-equal temperament is aneamic compared to what is possible with a good Just tuning (number of pitches being the same). Carl SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: Johnny Reinhard Subject: re: Bach? Puhleeze? PostedDate: 01-12-97 03:29:45 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 01-12-97 03:28:08-01-12-97 03:28:09,01-12-97 03:28:04-01-12-97 03:28:05 DeliveredDate: 01-12-97 03:28:05 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256560.000D8C0F; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:27:58 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03105; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:29:45 +0100 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:29:45 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03103 Received: (qmail 26700 invoked from network); 30 Nov 1997 18:29:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Nov 1997 18:29:42 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu