HTs using cents offset from ET

[Richard Moody]

----------
> From: Robert Scott <rscott@wwnet.net>
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: HTs using cents offset from ET
> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 7:04 AM
> 
> 
> Stephen Birkett wrote:
> 
.. So this well-espouced problem is really a 
> problem with our anachronous insistence on mathematical precision. With 
> historical flexibility it vanishes.
> <<<<
> 
> Yes, Stephen, I agree that the figures with 5 decimal places of
> precision in Jorgensen are ridiculous.  There is no way that much
> precision can be meaningful.  But when we tune historical temperaments,
> do we dress ourselves in the fashion of an 18th century tuner?  Do we
> use 18th century tools?  Then why should we insist on 18th century
> methods?  What we want are 18th century results.  If a modern method
> can achieve an historically correct result, then why not take
> advantage of it?  

That's the fallacy, there is no way to acheive "historically correct
results". What should be said is that we are attempting to approximate the
tunings that were heard in the classical era. One has to be prepared to
accept the  reality that tuning may have been something so hap-hazzard and
varied we would wonder how the keyboard was used with other players at
all. I personally believe it wasn't that bad, but I don't think it was as
good as we
are lead to believe by beat tables and tuning machine settings. 
	 I think there is
enough evidence that instruments of that period, esp the piano-forte were
unstable enough, not to be concerned with exactitude we are used to day. 
	With every one tuning their instruments you think there would be a wealth
of information from that time, on how to do this.  Yet such evidence as
presented in Jorgensen is
so scant, it makes one wonder "how did they actually tune".  Take WTC,
where are the instructions, plan or scheme for laying the bearings?  Now
you would think if Bach had the inclination to come out with WTC, he would
have made some mention of how to tune it.   We are pretty sure Bach was
technical minded concerning instruments. It only takes one paragraph to
write out a tuning scheme. 

	Right about dressing in the fashion of the 18th century tuner,  but one
concession leads to another so we end up with Mozart on a modern concert
grand with an HT done by a machine. That's historic??  .  
 

> "add a teaspoonful of discord into thy thirds, that thy fifths may not
be too displeasing
> to thy ear".

This is a large part of tuning instructions from the 18th century. Now
from that, how are you going to program the tuning machine with any kind
of  historical accuracy, let alone general agreement? 
I am beginning to be convinced that most musicians
made blind guesses of flatening fifths so the wolf wouldn't be so bad. 
There is the scheme attributed to Handel in Jorgensen, but I come up with
different results than the book. There were efforts to use pure thirds in
places, but this created other problems, which appear to have been dwelt
with on an individual basis. 
 
	While we can't say Mozart probably heard something different each time he
tuned his harpsichord, we can't really say what Mozart heard.  Well if he
tried each scheme that is attributed to his era, he would have heard
something different each time. Or would he?  Some of the proposed schemes
look so close to each other, the listener is likely to end up asking,
"What's the difference?" So which system of tuning do we listen to?  You
might as well listen to them all.  That way you will be more likely to
have heard the music as Mozart heard it, and don't forget to listen to it
on a piano-forte of that era, or a modern reproduction that is
"historically correct". It might help to dress the way the audience did...
which might be the most gratifying part of the whole endeavor.  

Richard Moody