There are few out there who appreciate a nice historical tuning better than I, but I think it is a stretch to say that there is something haywire with us as techs, and/or musicians if we don't hear the subtleties. I have tuned countless harpsichords for all manner of groups, from "period" instruments, to the standard chamber ensembles. I tend to use a tuning appropriate to the period and "aimed" at the keys of the music where appropriate. Never had a complaint, and usually got compliments on the richness of the sound of the instrument, but nobody has ever recognized that the difference was in the tuning until I mentioned it. As listeners, we hear the music one way, as tech / tuners, we listen differently. Toulouse-Lautrec, when asked what he saw when he looked at a tomato, replied, "That depends on whether I am going to paint it or eat it!" To be sure, we lost something in ET when C# minor sounds just like C minor a half step higher, but we also gained in tonal flexibility and consistency. Everything comes at a price. Is the music "better" performed in a historical tuning? If I had to live with one tuning all the time, for Bach, Prokofief, Mozart, Chopin, Szymanovsky, Billy Joel, Thelonius Monk, I think I would be inclined to pass on the charms of the historical tunings, for the flexibility and consistency of ET. But until you hear the Goldberg Variations or the WTC of JS Bach in Werckmeister III, played on a fine harpsichord, you haven't heard everything ol' JS was trying to tell us. There really was a reason Ludwig picked C# minor for the "Moonlight". And there's room for all of us. At the risk of getting preachy, Duke Ellington said it well: "If it sounds good, it is good." Just my opinion.. Steve ;-)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC