Greetings,
Hmm, where to start? Richard Moody and I have a collection of both common
beliefs and points of contention, I think, so lessee:
I said:
>> The last 50 years of research, from Murry Barbour on, have actually
>pointed out that the documented use of equal temperament on keyboards is a
rather late development.
And Richard replies:
>Regarding historical research and conclusions based thereon. One generally
>chooses what best supports his hypothesis.
Well, yea. I do that, doesn't everybody? and then we go out and start
finding all the arguments, learning where to give up and where to charge? I
think that is what is so great about this medium, we get to access to a lot
of heretofore sequestered ideas about where we came from, intonationally.
Richard again:
>From what I remember Barbour did not
>believe even in 1934 that many tuners acheived ET.
Yes, This is telling, that even after J.Cree Fischer's writings,
(1911, which gave a workable plan to create an acceptable ET), and
Braid-White etal, tuners were still not on the target. Were their errors
simply random and scattered, or were there biases in there from the
historical path? Did the deviation from ET evoke the shape of the earlier
temperaments, or was it just a motley collection of thirds? I am open to
suggestion on the condition of temperament practises in the early 1900's. I
have just assumed it was all ET.
Then I said:
>My understanding of the Aristoxeneans argument with the
>Pythagoreans was that it centered not so much on temperament,
And Richard replies:
> ... the idea of distributing
>this error among the 12 Fifths was obvious. Aristoxenus, a pupil of
Aristotle....
>is said to have advocated this." (p 548)
The practical appication of this theory would be lost on an eight note
octave species, wouldn't it? The basic tetrachords of the time would not, at
any one time, need to accomodate the accidentals, so the thought of
tempering along 12 note lines in 400 B.C. had not occurred to me. It wasn't
until around 1000 A.D. that we see the first accidental make its way onto the
keyboards, (organs).
In regard to our seemingly different views on Aristoxenus , I have
found M. Barbour's passage to be believable. He writes:
"(Aristoxenus), raised a question that is eternally new: are the cogitations
of theorists as important as the observations of musicians themselves? His
specific contention was that the judgement of the ear with regard to intevals
was superior to mathematical ratios".
I don't see anyway that this would indicate his advocacy of ET, since
judging by ear is quick way to a poor ET. Anyhow, to continue with Barbour
on Aristox.
"Aristoxenus was hailed by sixteenth century theorists as the inventor of
equal temperament. However, he may have intended this for the Pythagorean
tuning, for most of the other scales he has expressed in this unusual way
correspond closely to the tunings of his contemporaries. From what we gather
his protest was not against current practise, but rather against the rigidity
of the mathematical theories."
(Barbour "Tuning and Temperament" pg 2)
This is the view of Aristoxeneus I was identifying with.
>But the point is that lutes and fretted instruments being tuned in ET means
>that people were hearing ET in music in 1637.
Lindley and Barbour put the date of ET on lutes and viols as somewhat
earlier, around 1550, I think. However, the problems of trying to combine
lute tuning with "keyboard tuning" were still there in 1800, so I am not
convinced that the keyboards had yet been compromised for ensemble
convenience.
Richard again:
>Actually a case can be made that the best sounding lutes, guitars, etc can
only have >their frets arranged in equal proportions.
"Best" is a hard word to prove. I would submit that the use of ET, even
back then, was in attempt to blend with other instruments, or in the case of
vocal accompanyment, to be able to modulate up or down a fret to suit the
voice. For these utilitarian purposes, ET was the correct tool, but "Best" ?
I don't agree. Even my old Martin guitar has a beautiful and different voice
when I tune it in any variety of slack key or open tunings. Having the buzz
of 14 cent thirds, EVERYWHERE, is not really what I consider best, anymore.
ET is a really distinctive sound, yes. but I won't say it is the best.
Maybe we will have to agree to not on this one. ?
Richard continued, and I disagreed with:
>> >The problem it seems is that ET was a goal, but no one knew how to tune
it.
and
>I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. That ET was a goal, or that
>no one knew how to tune it.
Both, the published bearing plans don't give us the means of getting a fair
ET before Montal, ( at least, that is what I read, but would be glad to see
earlier bearing plans for it), I just haven't seen any evidence that it was
doable on a pianoforte of say, 1780 with the documented procedures for
tuning. The voices proposing something else were louder than the few
avante-garde theorists calling for ET on keyboards. The fact that ET is the
hardest to tune is also going to lend support that it was not necessarily a
prime target of these early tuners.
>But certainly the vast bulk of documentation points to the desire "tune
>so that all the keys can be played in, without making some keys sweet and
other keys sour"
I was agree with this. I take it to just as logically mean no meantone
as a proposal for ET. It also requires that we define what is sour, what is
sweet? Does the C-E have to go to 0 tempering to still evoke whatever a
pure triad evokes? Does a 21.5 cent wide third on a Stein pianoforte really
grate on the nerves, or is it just colorful? In comparison to the wolves
left over in the latter meantones, a temperament that contained the worst
third at one comma might be considered equal to the ears of the day.
Then Richard states:
>From this desire we have ET.
There sure were a lot of people that wrote specifically against the use
of ET, (Jorgensen quotes many), obviously, there was an awareness of its
principles and a lot of rejection. It appears to me that the push for ET was
a real fringe movement before 1850.
I had used Claude Montal's book on piano care as an example of the earliest
valid method of achieving ET, and wrote further:
> Montal's booklet of 1832 certainly didn't take the world by storm, but
if >followed, will yield a fine ET. How come it didn't see any widespread
popularity?
Richard asks:
>How do you know it didn't? Or what was popular then? Or perhaps ET old
>hat by then.
I assume it didn't because it didn't show up in any of the literature of
the times, and there was quite a bit of published material concerning
temperament. Montal's book didn't leave a "trail of fame", and was only
discovered by finding the actual artifact in France about 1995?, ( I think I
have that right, but please correct me if I am wrong here).
A publication that provided the means of constructing history's
ultimate goal in tuning would have caused enough comment during this period
for the researchers to have at least known more of its existance.
<big snip, cause this is already too long,>
I wrote:
>is it just coincidence that the factory tuners of 1885 were still tuning
temperments >that followed the intent of Werckmiesters rules?
And Richard asks:
>And the data shows that?
Yes, I think it does. The Ellis analysis gives us the shape of the
temperaments. The progressive nature of increasing dissonance in the tonic
thirds as one modulates by fifths was a commonly accepted form since
Werckmiester proposed it, at least, it shows up in virtually every
documented temperament I have seen.
>The intent of Werckmeister is.......? not ET? Or anything but ET?
I take Werckmiester's intent to be the creation of maximum harmony while
providing for modulation. The harmony of the keys was arranged around the
keys that were used most, thus C or F was always the key with the nicest
third. This is a logical carry-over of the meantone philosophy that directly
preceded the well tempered era. The thirds were still a fundamental interval
in the harmony of the Classical./Romantic eras.
Richard again:
>In this I am in more agreement with Ellis than Jorgensen. I doubt if tuning
>by only fourths and fifths I could come that close. If this is closer to
Werkmiester
>than ET
> I would be interested to know why.
I don't think it would be very close to a Well temperament, as those take
a certain organization. Forgive me if I have misread the question, but an
unequal temperament shouldn't be looked at as the imprecise result of
attempting ET. They were specifically constructed to give a progression of
color, a palette of harmony and contrast. I call these temperments "harmonic
Toolboxes" . From one perspective, they are all the same, just varying in the
degree of contrast between the most and least tempered.
The reactions from customers, both classical and modern, also convinces
me of the added musical power to be had from unequal tunings. ET is nice,
but my customers have formed some powerful attachments to others. This is
worth examination, but should be another thread.
Regards,
Ed Foote
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC