Temperament debate

[Billbrpt@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-02-01 01:00:45 EST, you write:

<< I would like to learn more about HTs and how to apply them to different
 situations. But, if you tell me that ET is wrong, you've lost me, Mr.
 Bill. You have discredited yourself by flaming most of the list. Are you
 telling me that I've wasted 26 years of my life? That I commit a sin
 every time I tune a piano "quasi"-equally? I will not let you pass
 judgment on my craft so arrogantly. >>

OK, OK  Let's all simmer down.  Conrad got over it a long time ago.  I realize
that I am writing about a topic that challenges people's thinking.  I believe
in what I say and do and that's why I stick my neck out, it's not for my sake,
it for the betterment of music and the continued existance of the piano
itself.

If you are tuning in ET, it is because that is what you were taught was the
right way.  It has been accepted as the right way by virtually everyone who is
alive today who tunes or has anything to do with a piano.  The very idea of an
unequal temperament  just doesn't seem right or even worth discussing.  I want
to be able however to at least broaden people's perspective on this.

Some wrote me in a private post,

<< I think you actually believe what you say about temperaments. I was
disappointed that with all your study you still said "a few beats" of change
from 1 cent change in a major third.   As far as I can make out, it is closer
to 1/4 beat, but I was hoping some
 of the technical people could confirm that. >>
 
   If you flatten or sharpen one of the notes of a major 3rd anywhere within
the F3-F4 octave, it will quite effectively change beat speed of that interval
by "a beat or so, perhaps even a few beats per second", certainly more than
1/4 bps.  This is why the the RPT Exam tolerance is 1¢.  It is at the
threshold of what has been determined to really matter.  So to answer your
question without being emotional about it, a 1¢ error is significant.  If
there was only one 1¢ error, of course it wouldn't really matter too much.
    But indeed, Owen's book has one of the late 19th Century Quasi-Equal
temperaments which is precisely that.  An ET with one note different:  C is
raised by 1¢.  The temperament is no longer "equal".  It is a Quasi-Equal
Temperament.  (I really don't think it would be unethical to tune a piano this
way, with or without telling the customer , artist, etc.  It might even be
done accidentally.  Of course, it would be best if the customer were informed
as to why it is being done, no argument with that). What this does do,
however, is align the "vibrato" that I was talking about in a recent post with
the cycle of 5ths, if only for two intervals.  It makes the Ab-C 3rd beat
faster, giving the key of Ab a more brilliant sound and it makes the C-E 3rd
beat slower, giving the key of C a more gentle sound.  Chopin's music would be
enhanced by this.  Bach's WT Clavier music would be enhanced by this.  As I
have asserted, virtually any music would, in this case, just a little bit.
     If you raised one note of a 3rd by .9¢ and lowered the other by .9¢, both
notes would still be in tolerance on a hypothetical RPT Exam, if only barely
and technically.  If you played your 3rds to test for smoothness, this
interval would stick out as beating unevenly faster than the others near it.
Those contiguous to it would beat unevenly slower.  You could probably prove
something wrong with other aural checks as well but the Exam scoring would not
show any error.
     Consider this hypothetical:  If you alternately raised and lowered each
note of the temperament octave by .9¢, in the same pattern as the De-tuning is
done but still within tolerance, you would have a clearly aurally unacceptable
ET but the Exam would show no errors!  This does not mean I think the Exam
standards are too low.  It is simply an idea to ponder.  It means that the
idea many people have of "just getting the temperament pretty smooth" being
good enough really may not be so good after all.
     What I'd much rather see is people channeling the typical amount of
temperament "error" to where it will actually enhance the music, not literally
run against its grain.
      Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to be getting this across.  I'll
admit that I may well have shot myself in the foot from the very beginning and
perhaps that's why people aren't really reading my posts for their intent,
they see my name, remember that I "flamed" Conrad and to them that was a
"biggie", and the only thing about my posts that is remarkable are things that
are really insignificant but taken out of context, are blown out of
proportion.
     On the other hand, the majority still just might not be ready to accept
anything but ET as a goal.  I might be just as ineffective as I am being now
even if I had offended no one.
     I may have to leave the list again soon because of a heavy workload
coming up.  I've had a little lighter schedule recently.  I'd like to provide
information and explanations about HT's for those that want them but I really
don't need or want these heated, emotional arguments any more.  I'll try to be
to the point in what I say and not get personal.  Please give me the same
respect.
    Bill Bremmer RPT
    Madison, Wisconsin