ET

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Greetings all, 
(Lemme see how well I can needle this thread.....)
      When I replied that ET is so accepted because it is all we have ever
known....

Rob writes: 
>So... because the vast majority has practised ET is not 
>because they are wrong (or bent on world domination)...
>but because they have been contributing to an ongoing effort to 
>have a playable keyboard system in the available keys. 

     I don't know about the "contribution" part, except as an ipso facto
example of status quo....(whew, that much Latin, combined with the coffee made
me go ride the white Sportster for a minute, much better now..(:)}}
 
>How does a historical perspective reconcile itself with current 
>instruments and tuning practise?

    It is not uncommon for a pianist, playing Mozart for the first time on a
Kirnberger to exclaim, "I am hearing things I never heard before, and it all
makes sense!" (their exlamation points, not mine)
    Once alternatives are presented in a non-threatening manner musicians are
usually more receptive to the idea of additional resources than when forced to
replace what they are familiar with.  This is a dividing line between
Temperament Crusade philosophies.  I think ET is a magnificent tuning in its
own right, and making temperament choices  an either/or proposition forces an
issue that is better dealt with in other ways.
>
>Let it be known that I have worked with several Baroque 
>harpsichordists and found that they choose tune in ET because 
>this is what they are familiar with and the orchestras are 
>comfortable with.
   Yes, agreed, see the first point
>
>Are they wrong? Should they change temperaments with the 
>programs they play? Should they ditch their 18th C violins and 
>violas for modern instruments?
   Hmmmm,   No, Yes, No
>
>I am asking for some moderation here... 
   Me too!

>we should realize what 
>century we inhabit and what kind of instruments we work with. 
Agreed,  we inhabit the first century that allows a wide perspective.   I am
going to assume that the working tuner of 1800 used the temperament du jour,
but today, we have historical research and technology enabling us a wider
range of alternatives.  
     Without recording to carry knowledge forward, intact, temperament in the
past had to be passed from ear to ear, acquiring a "black magic" reputation of
some secret lore that was protected by the trade.  (that is more my assumption
than fact, at the moment)
 
>We (as techs and musical 
>advisors) have to accept what we are working with and adjust 
>accordingly. 

     This is where I must repectfully disagree!  I don't believe that we have
to accept anything.  We chose to accept.  Rather than "adjust accordingly" to
the course of history,  I want to get my hands on the steering wheel and try
to alter the course a bit to make the world more like I like it.  (Does that
make sense?)
 
>It's not a case of my temperament is better than yours (witness the 
>1/7 comma meantone temperament as a tonic for the ET) but  a 
>genuine appreciation for music evolvement and digression, evident 
>in discussion over temperaments and practise. 

      This is an important point.  Music has evolved and digressed, and
compositions that came from creators using modern tunings needs those tunings
to most accurately transmit the artistry.  Stretching an analogy, I would say
that Van Gogh paintings, viewed under black lights, might actually represent
what the madman was imagining, but we have to view them in daylight, (or night
cafe lighting!) to see what was actually there.  
>
>As technicians, it is our duty (and pleasure) to discuss and present 
>alternate forms of musical practise and technique to interested 
>parties (ie: our clients, should they be receptive), based on our 
>knowledge and willingness to disseminate our knowledge. 
   Yes,  I agree with this 100%.  Now that technology, in the form of Owen
Jorgensen's knowledge and Dr. Sanderson's and Dean Reyburn's tools have
combined to make all temperaments easily possible, we have more to offer than
tuners of any time in the past.  It is worthwhile to consider what a bounty is
at our disposal. 
    My whole gist is that there is no reason to make temperament choice  a
subtractive, either/or issue, when it is in fact, it can be greatly benificial
to have a palette of tunings with which to inspire musicians. 
Thanks for the reply, 
Regards, 
Ed Foote
(didn't mean to offend the Harley guys with the Sportster comment,  I have  a
very old BMW.........)