On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:46 AM, A440A at aol.com wrote: > Several things argue against this, I think. Hi Ed, There are substantial differences between scholarly and polemical argument. Scholarly argument takes into account as much evidence as possible, preferably all the available evidence. It weighs that evidence carefully, trying to determine how important and how credible each piece of evidence is. Then an attempt is made to interpret, taking all these things into consideration, as well as previous interpretations by previous scholars. Polemical arguments begin with a foregone conclusion. "Facts" are assembled to prove the conclusion. Any evidence that might weaken the conclusion is ignored, dismissed, or denied. Often much of the argument appeals to emotional response. On the subject of the history of temperament and tuning, there has been a tremendous amount of scholarship and scholarly argument over many years, much of the most important over the last 20 to 30 years. Scholars have pored over and sought out any little scrap of credible evidence, publishing the results for colleagues. There has been considerable interchange of argument and opinion. Most of this has taken place in Europe, where most of the archival material is, and most of the publication has been in languages other than English (German and Italian are most common). The results of all this are by no means absolute, but there is considerable consensus. Claudio di Veroli gave a good, succinct account of that consensus. Patrizio Barbieri's more lengthy account in the Routledge Encyclopedia is a more detailed account. (BTW, Barbieri is happy to have his article posted on line, but he sold it to Routledge under contract. So it is a question of either getting permission from the publisher or rely on a legal interpretation of fair use of an excerpt). Your arguments, Ed, I would call polemical. They may be persuasive for some, but they lack research (you obviously haven't read broadly in the field), they lack historical perspective, and they lack credibility because their source is obviously far from impartial and objective, since you are a strong advocate for what may be described as a "belief system" regarding tuning. Once again, I suggest we separate two strains of argument. One strain of argument seeks to find, in the most accurate and impartial way possible, the "truth about the past" based on the available evidence. This is an important endeavor, and one that should not be taken lightly. The other strain, which is yours, is one of trying to prove whether or not one method of tuning is "better or worse" than another. You make reference to history, but your methods are not historical. The appeal is to "what sounds best to us today." And that is fine. I have no problem with people preferring their Bach on the modern Steinway D. I do have a problem with people arguing that Bach would have preferred that, because his music sounds better on it, and therefore we needn't consider the clavichord, harpsichord or organ. (I am not saying you argue in favor of Back on the D, simply that the perspective of your argument is much the same). BTW, I'd be happy to participate in any project to try to determine listeners' honest reactions to various temperaments, as for instance Coleman 11 vs ET in KC. Happy to help design questions for participants, help in tuning, help by playing the instruments. I'd be very interested in the results. I'd be particularly interested in a project to discover the range of what is perceived to be indistinguishable from ET. I'm not interested in proving anything (I have no dog in this fight), I would just like to get beyond the claims and counterclaims, the bombast from all sides, and look instead at the most impartial evidence we can come up with. I doubt it will be conclusive, but it might at least be suggestive. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC