In a message dated 8/7/99 9:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, you write: << The old guys really knew of only two temperaments, meantone (the "old one") and something that allowed free use of all keys (the "new one"). There was no attempt to achieve anything specific, any more than anyone now would precisely measure how much salt they put in their dinner. "To taste" was the operating mode for practicing musicians and tuners. I'm sure anyone coming back now would think we are all very silly on this topic. >> There is plenty of evidence to show that tuners historically used their own taste to create a satisfying temperament but the above statement makes it sound like there were no standards whatsoever, only the idea of "rough" and "smooth". Indeed, it was Owen Jorgensen's lecture and section 73 of his "Tuning" book (Tuning the Representative 18th Century Temperament to Suit One's Own Personal Taste) that gave me the idea that I did not have to follow a specific set of rules if the results of those rules were not satisfying to me or the customer. There are many kinds of Meantone Temperaments, Modified Meantone Temperaments, Well-Temperaments, Victorian Temperaments and Quasi-Equal Temperaments. The people who designed and used these all had very specific ideas in mind. Sometimes however, they did use descriptions that left a lot open to interpretation such as "...as sharp as the ear can well bear". Whatever that meant back then is likely not to be the same as it means today. Keep in mind however that there is only room enough for a small amount of interpretation before the mistuning of any note or interval will lead to some kind of dilemma, regardless of what kind of temperament is intended. It is true that from Bach's time until the early 20th Century that virtually any temperament that presented an acceptable musical sound in all 24 major and minor keys was thought of and believed to be "equal" temperament. Today however, ET takes on a strict and precise definition. The electronic tuning programs attempt to divide the scale perfectly evenly. They never allow for the favoring of one interval over another. If that is desired, corrections or deviations from those programs must be applied to get the desired results. The aural tuning techniques that have been developed to achieve ET are just as exacting and unforgiving. An error on the PTG RPT Tuning Exam is proven or disproven by these techniques. The judgment of whether or not a note in the temperament section is in error most often requires the very most precise listening that we know to be possible. Virtually all but the latest of 19th Century temperament styles were used on instruments that are largely unfamiliar to us today. Clavichords (how could anyone tune one of those with anywhere near the precision that we tune a piano with today?), harpsichords, fortepianos and the precursors to modern pianos that didn't have a cast iron plate or perhaps not a full, well designed one like today's and virtually everything built before the late 1800's did not have the tone nor stability that the modern piano has. It was seen once again (as I have read) at the Convention that the tone itself can affect the amount of octave stretch desired. So the tone of the early keyboards may have easily affected the perception of temperament. The ability to tune precisely with stability was also far different from what is possible with the modern piano. The fact is that a harpsichord used as "continuo" with a small ensemble produced much more of a background kind of sound that was very faint compared to that of a modern piano. In short, it perhaps did not matter so much back then but it does now. We can hear all of the beat speeds. These are what gives the piano it's resonance and "vibrato". When we choose a temperament, we are choosing a mode for that resonance and vibrato to be set in. Most who believe in the strict use of ET believe that the very best compromise is to have all of that beating distributed as evenly across the scale as possible. To do that, you need precision. Any audible imprecision upsets and alters the plan. If a different temperament is chosen, precision is need to effect whatever that scheme has to offer. To say that precision is not very important is to accept a very wide range of tolerance in tuning in which there is lots of room for interpretation. I would fully imagine that if people from the past could hear our pianos of today, they would be astounded by their power and beautiful tone and would be in awe of the precision in which they can and should be tuned. Would they not be just as astounded and in awe of the automobile, the jet plane, the computer and the Internet? Would they think our ways of transportation and communication are silly? There were pitch and temperament "wars" in the past too. They seem silly when I read about them today but so do the things that people fought about back then. "This is *our* land. We have a right to it and you don't" and people were driven from their homes. I always thought while I was growing up that all of that finally ended before I was even born but as we have seen recently, it can and does still happen today. And so will people's arguments about pitch and temperaments. There will always be opinions and commonly used practices and there will always be people who will challenge them. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC