[CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD

[David Love]

Well, I don't know about 2 or 3 cents, that seems like a lot.  But there's
certainly some wiggle room.  As several people have pointed out, minor
variations in temperament are probably not picked up by most people. Even
very mild UETs versus ET probably slip by most.  Stronger UETs I think can
be heard pretty easily though many pianists unaware of the temperament issue
might not recognize exactly what they are hearing.  That, however, shouldn't
be confused with the idea that they can't hear the difference.

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ed
Sutton
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 5:50 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD

Let's look at this question from a different viewpoint. We argue about 
miniscule measurements of pitch. We also know how quickly pianos wander in 
response to temperature and humidity changes, assuming we knew and could 
produce perfect tuning to begin with.
So, looking at the situations where the pianist/professor/performer must pay

for each tuning, I find that it is extremely rare for a paying customer, 
even a customer of high level skill and reputation, to pay for more than 4 
tunings a year on their personal pianos. Most do with less. Some with much 
less. One who is a recitalist and much published in piano pedagogy circles 
who says "My piano is amazingly stable, hardly ever needs tuning." His wife 
winces when he says it.
What does this say about pitch, tuning and temperament in the real world, 
not to mention octave stretching (or shrinking, as the humidity may be)?
Search the list for complaints about world-class artists who practice on 
out-of-tune instruments until 15 minutes before curtain.
There are many different ways of hearing sound and music. Many of them do 
not require tuning to an accuracy of 2 or 3 cents for every note. When is 
enough, enough? Some years ago Dan Levitan calculated and produced (just 
once) an optimal temperament on his piano, and concluded he'd rather spend 
the time playing music.
Ed Sutton


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laurence Libin" <lelibin at optonline.net>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD


> It's well known that as far back as the Renaissance equal temperament was 
> one of many options among which musicians could select depending on taste 
> and the demands of the music. It still is, but precise 100-cent semitones 
> remain, it seems to me, a theoretical ideal seldom achieved (or maybe even

> desirable) in practice except, perhaps, on electronic instruments. At any 
> rate I think it's fair to say that true ET is less prevalent on pianos 
> today than many people suppose, and that euphonic results, however 
> achieved, matter more than strict adherence to any theoretical model. Do 
> we agree?
> Laurence
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
> To: <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:03 PM
> Subject: [CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD
>
>
> And Brahms certainly wrote in a lot of outer keys.  This discussion crops 
> up
> periodically and I often think it's justification after the fact.  Recent
> research by Michael Kimbel (RPT CTE composer and musicologist) suggests 
> very
> strongly that the use of ET was in practice much earlier than those 
> arguing
> in favor of UETs based on historical precedent would probably find useful
> for their position.  Arguments for UETs seem often based on a few 
> reputable
> pianists who for personal reasons find it preferable.  Certainly nothing
> wrong with that.  Yet there are many pianists who don't find it preferable
> but remain somewhat silent on the subject, at least publicly.   Arguing
> taste has no chance of a resolution, of course.  Arguing historical
> precedent does, possibly, but the research doesn't seem to fall in favor 
> of
> those who advocate UETs for that reason.
>
> David Love
> www.davidlovepianos.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Okay, but then it wouldn't have occurred to me that 1880 or thereabouts 
> was
> still early in the 19th century. In that case, Brahms surely qualifies for
> your survey? Anyway, I've kind of lost the point here; is it that a
> predilection for keys far from C suggests less tolerance for temperaments
> other than ET?
>
> Laurence
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Laurence Libin wrote:
>
>
> Uh, there was a guy called "Beetgarden" or something like that. Unless by
> early you mean folks born early in that century.
> Laurence
>
> Fair enough, I was in a Romantic period mindset, and really thinking 
> forward
> into the 19th century from maybe 1815 to 1880 or thereabouts, so it didn't
> occur to me to include that minor figure from the archaic past of the 18th
> century <G>. Still, if we want to include Ludwig in the survey, his last 
> 16
> sonatas include seven with overall key signatures of three or more sharps 
> or
> flats. And three of those 16 are "easy" (sonatinas) so perhaps they should
> be omitted from the statistics. So Beethoven is certainly heading into the
> remoter keys in his 18th century output for piano.
> Fred
>
>
> (Chopin excepted).
>
> And Schumann, and Schubert and Liszt and Mendelssohn. Are there any other
> truly prominent early 19th century composers for keyboard? (18th century 
> is
> an entirely different matter).
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> fssturm at unm.edu
> http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/FredSturm
>
>
>