source file: m1605.txt Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:18:27 +0000 Subject: Re: TUNING digest 1604 From: Katherine Bensen-Piscopo Please take us off your mailing list--this is our third request tuning@eartha.mills.edu wrote: > TUNING Digest 1604 > > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Clavichords > by Carl Lumma > 2) Misc > by Carl Lumma > 3) Diagrams > by Carl Lumma > 4) Re: Tuning List CD comments > by Gary Morrison > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Topic No. 1 > > Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 20:31:18 -0800 > From: Carl Lumma > To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu > Subject: Clavichords > Message-ID: <19981206013023359.AAA386@nietzsche> > > >I agree regarding harpsichords, but not with the general slight towards > >historical keyboards. I would be very curious to learn exactly what kind > >of a clavichord you have worked with to have arrived at such an opinion. > > I have played a variety of clavichords, both fretted and unfretted, > including efforts by Thomas Ciul, several Zuckermann kits, and a Peter > Fisk, which I own. > > >While many poorly-made instruments are so badly balanced in action that > >bebung is almost inevitable, the timbre of the instruments with which I have > >worked has been extremely rich, albeit intimately quiet overall. (A > >comparison of the clavichord with the ch'in is appropriate here). I have > >had no trouble tuning clavichords to ratios of seven and eleven. > > Both Norman Henry and I have had little success with ratios above 5 on the > clavichord. However, I once had the opportunity to play a Challis > clavichord (such a work of art you cannot imagine), and I could see getting > 7's on it. I would be very interested in hearing your 11-limit clavichord, > and I'd be happy to pay the cost of sending a tape with some samples on it > to hear the results. Say... what's a ch'in? > > >And on a modern instrument, like the Wilson-Hackleman clavichord, it is a > >breeze. > > I am dying to hear this thing! Everybody I asked in LA said it didn't > sound very good, tho... > > >While in the US, I had a fortepiano in my apartment, and I had the > >opportunity to compare the ease of tuning it with a (well-known) > single->strung Boesendorfer Imperial and with a run of the mill > medium-sized >Steinway. All were tuned by ear to a (again well-known) > tuning with just >fifths and sevenths and then the tunings measured with a > strobe tuner. The >fortepiano was both the easiest to tune and the closest > to Just, the >Boesendorfer a respectable second and the Steinway a distant > third. > > I am un-familiar with any single-strung Bosendorfer. Of course they are > well known for putting a hitch pin on each string... and for their > inferior sound... > > It's far from clear what your strobe tuner was measuring. I own the latest > and highest-end Peterson model made, and my ear rarely agrees with the > wheel. I have no problem whatsoever tuning a Steinway to 9-limit JI by > ear, to a level of accuracy measurable only (maybe) by a Sanderson > Accu-tuner (I've never used one myself, but they do produce very nice > tunings). > > >But I don't know how to even start arguing with someone who claims the > >difference between Equal temperament and meantone is hardly noticeable on > >a clavichord. Are you, sir, deaf? > > Don't get me wrong, I love the clavichord. It is an instrument of great > sensitivity. But it is based on a bad idea: trying to start and stop a > string at the same place. If the string didn't stretch, you wouldn't hear > anything at all. > > I can hear the difference between meantone and 12tET on my clavichord, but > the people I play the clavichord for cannot. They can, however, hear the > difference between these two tunings on my modern piano. > > Carl > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 2 > > Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 20:51:26 -0800 > From: Carl Lumma > To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu > Subject: Misc > Message-ID: <19981206015031796.AAA437@nietzsche> > > >Like Partch, he realized such Harmonic Constructs were not scales and > added >first the 6 pitches of the 9 limit plus the 21/20 and the 16/15 and > their >inversions which he > > No, but like Partch, I recognize that the harmonic and subharmonic series > segments contained within the diamond are scales (as you use the term). > > >Is it too silly to expect that such a work will be realised in 7-limit JI > by >operatically trained singers given their irresistible inclination for > >vibrato? > > It is silly to expect opera singers to perform any music with harmonic > accuracy. They are trained to deliver melodies, and these before the > invention of the amplifier. Try a choir. > > >I have to disagree here. The word microtonal definitely needs to be on the > >front jacket. The tuning email address will mean nothing to 99.9% of our > >customers. Only after they buy the cd will they realize its significance. > > I don't have my copy yet (which I paid for in March), and I wasn't a > contributor, but I don't think that either the email address or the word > microtonal should be on the cover. Music should stand on its own. > > >This is a point that should be repeated more often. The early music > >community has been intensely engaged with questions of intonation, at least > >since Wesley Kuhnle's pioneering efforts in the 1950's. > > Actually since forever, since no clavichord tuning speciallty has ever > existed. The comment was clearly about modern pianos only, since they are > the only acoustic keyboard instruments that will hold a tune long enough to > make specialist tuners affordable. > > >no matter how convenient a particular notation may be, no single notation is > >neccessary. For example, attempts to standardize Just intonation with > >Johnston's or my own or some other notation should be discouraged in favor > >of getting players to think flexibly about pitch in general. > > Brother, I'll agree with this! > > Carl > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 3 > > Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 21:55:35 -0800 > From: Carl Lumma > To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu > Subject: Diagrams > Message-ID: <19981206025440062.AAA456@nietzsche> > > >One way of determining what angles to use that makes more sense that > >Monzo's proposal is Canright's (in his web article Harmonic-Melodic > >Diagrams or something -- John Starrett's page is down right now so I > >can't tell you the address). > > Canright's page itself is also down. It has been down since I recommended > these same diagrams to Joe on the 26th. The URL is... > > http://math.nps.navy.mil/~dcanrig/ > > >>You say you've done this for various scales? Do you have any pics? > > > >Yes, and luckily they are ascii! Here is the diatonic scale, scaled down > >to 3 dimensions, projected onto each of the three orthogonal planes: > > Gee... Luckily isn't the word i'd use... I've got Maple. Do you think that > it could draw us some pretty 3D versions of these? > > Carl > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 4 > > Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:53:54 -0500 > From: Gary Morrison > To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu > Subject: Re: Tuning List CD comments > Message-ID: <366A9A7F.83515276@texas.net> > > > I have to disagree here. The word microtonal definitely needs to be on the > > front jacket. > > Ah, Good point. Then again, I suppose it might be worth asking whether the > term "microtonal" means much to the proverbial "average Joe" either. > > I think that "The Experience" is catchy though. > > > Full color is not that expensive. Complete CD press runs of 1000 copies > > with full color 4 page booklets are in the $1500-$2000 price range. > > The last time I assessed the costs was back in 1992, when I did the graphics > for the Ivor Darreg CD. In those days anyway, that came to about $1000 more > than you estimated. It wouldn't surprise me of they've gone down since then > though. > > ------------------------------ > > End of TUNING Digest 1604 > *************************