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

[Laurence Libin]

Right; it's the "practical purposes" that leave leeway for adjusting (compromising) ET to suit the music or the instrument or the client. Few if any pre-1880 musicians would have thought in these terms however, because the statement implies that ET was then the established standard; I doubt it. 

I'm no expert on 19th-century composers but I doubt any demanded precise ET any more than they demanded very specific tone colors--impossible to achieve since no two violins or voices, for example, much less orchestras, sound exactly alike and the same one can sound different under varying conditions. Similarly, I don't know of a composer who demanded a specific pitch level, since pitch, too, varied from place to place.

Brahms and Liszt, and most definitely Mendelssohn, couldn't have conceived or expected their organ music to be played only on ET instruments no matter how chromatic or modulatory the music was. Were their expectations for piano music different? On the contrary, I'd bet they and their listeners tolerated, expected, and perhaps appreciated variance in temperament as well as tone. Of course that's supposition, but my point is that modern "scientific" standards of precision didn't apply before the late 19th century at earliest, and ET's hegemony happily still isn't absolute.   

Laurence  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ed Foote 
  To: caut at ptg.org 
  Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD


  Laurence writes: 
  >> 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.<

  Perhaps, but a working definition of ET, for all practical purposes, has each consecutive M3 beating faster than the one below and slower than the one above.  If you get the temperament that close, I don't believe you can find a listener that will tell the difference between that and a perfectly lined up set of thirds.  The difference falls below the level of noticeable for 99 percent of the ears.  So, ET, by this definition,  could easily have been available for centuries.  
            It was a lot easier to make the temperament progressive, though. Which composers of the 19th century demanded ET, which they surely would have, had it been true that the "Holy Grail" of keyboard tuning was suddenly available from some tuners?  And we can assume that not all tuners changed their individual practice to the same universal temperament, so there would have been choices out there.  Other than Chopin's expressed dedication to his suicidal tuner, I am not aware of  of composers addressing the fact that there was a choice of temperament.  


  David writes: 
  >>And Brahms certainly wrote in a lot of outer keys.  

  Many composers did. This fact does not argue against there being increased tempering in those keys, but, rather, shows how the heightened tension that accompanys increased tempering can be musically valuable.  Highly tempered intervals are just as musical as Just intervals! Consonance without contrast is boring.  

      It seems that a common misperception of tempering is that it is bad, and a key with a 19 cent third in it sounds unmusical.  This is not true for the majority of listeners I have encountered.  Composers seem to have found a place for this dissonance, and used it in musically constructive ways.  Its loss removes all the harmonic contrast which gives the resolutions such additional power. To ears trained by the sameness of ET, perhaps anything wider that 14 cents sounds "bad", but I have found a large number of ears that once shown the choice, have chosen non-ET's. The one track of all the WT recording we did that caused the most positive feedback was the 2nd mvt of LVB's Pathetique. 21 cent thirds everywhere in that passage and numerous people wrote me to say how strangely beautiful it was, and what a strong an impact it made. Most tuners I spoke with found it jarringly uncomfortable,(which, as it was the 'Pathetique', I would suggest it was supposed to create that emotion).   The comma can be your friend, if you know where to use it. 
  Regards, 
  Ed Foote RPT
         
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100419/cd1079c7/attachment.htm>