---------- > From: A440A@AOL.COM > To: pianotech@ptg.org > Subject: Re: The temperament crusade continues > Date: Monday, December 13, 1999 5:13 AM > > Richard writes: > >I would welcome any evidence from the composers themselves. If temperament > > was so important they surely must have said something on the subject. > > There is no direct evidence (to my knowledge) of how Mozart's or > > Beethoven's piano was actually tuned or which tuning if any they did > > prefer. > > Now that you mention it, I don't think George Gershwin ever said a thing > about temperament, Ok, but I am still looking for composer's statements about temperament. If that is so about Gershwin, then one may deduct he only heard one. Which one,? probably ET. Have we established any facts here, No, only probabilities. But If that deduction is allowed then we must extend it to Mozart and Beethoven. There is historical evidence that leads us to believe more than one temperament were tuned and heard in their time. That is why we are having discussions of historical temperaments today. Since it is reasonable to assume there were more than one temp in Mozart and Beethoven's time, the question arises, which one if any did they favor? The evidence to that question is lacking. Only those who can play their music in the different temperaments of that time can give us a guess. It is only a guess, but I must admit a very educated one., and just as valid unless contrary direct evidence is discovered. After all these years the chances are slim. It is the presenting of FACT that so and so used thus and thus temperament that is contrary to the historical method. Direct evidence is needed to establish historical fact. Given that, your statement below when seen through the historical method would ask, "what is your source" and "what exactly is the direct quote" > Yes, and according to Kirnberger's account of Bach's son statement, > Bach himself didn't want an equal temperament. That is concrete evidence > right there, no? Here we have a fifth hand source. The fifth hand is you, the fourth hand is the person who wrote about Kirnberger's account, the third hand is Kirnberger himself, the second hand is Bach's son, and the source or primary source is J.S.Bach himself. Now Kinrberger's account, ie his actual words would be of interest here, since Kirnberger is a historical figure who had direct effect or influence on temperament. Unfortunatly Kirnberger's words are not given nor the source of his words is given, so no further research can take place, I should add to Beard's dictum, "No evidence, no History", to say "No research, no evidence". The primary foundation of the historical method is research, and the primary dictum of research is documentation of sources. That "Bach didn't want ET" is often quoted, and simply taken at face value. But being in the profession of piano tuning, I have an interest to see the source of that quote and evaluate it as a piano tuner in the 20th century. From third and fourth and fifth hand sources I have read, I have reason to suspect that Bach objected to a "mathematical basis of the establishment of temperament". I know that in his time the monochord was used to present musical intervals mathematically derived, especially ET intervals. However when these were attempted to be parallel tuned to other instruments the failure was dismal. If this is what Bach was objecting to, then the words "Bach objected to ET" takes on a different meaning. This I am not presenting as historical fact. Only a hypothesis that I have not proven. I probably don't even have enough evidence to present a formal hypothesis, and I didn't document my sources. But still the material is out there which may or may not prove my point. > I must respectfully disagree. Saying "So and so MAY have used > this temp at that time" doesn't quite mean the same as saying that there > was a genre of tuning style that was extant at their time. I didn't mean it to mean that. My point was, no matter what genre of tuning style extant at their time, we don't know what genre they may or may not have used, favored, or recommended for us to use. -- >There is a > preponderance of evidence that indicates something other than ET was in use > for the period between 1400 and 1900. There is a ton of evidence that ET in concept at least was known since the Greeks. Aristoxones proposed a scale in ET. ET was in use when lute makers were using 18/17 to space their frets which gave semitones of 99 cents. ET is most suitible for lutes and the other fretted instruments. Mersenne in 1638 reports this was in use much earlier, and gives the ET intervals for keyboards and organs even more exactly. CAUTION this does not mean tuners actually tuned keyboards and organs to these figures. As far as actual tuning Mersenne describes narrowing the fifths "by a barely discernable amount" This was not meantone, as those fifths are narrowed "as much as ye eare can beare" nor could it involve pure fifths as the Wells did. Was this ET in 1630? The methods reported by Ellis in 1870 in at least three English factories indicate a tuning of narrow fifths, just enough so the last fifth "comes out as good as the first". Ellis reports that John? Broadwood published an article in an English scientific journal explaining how to tune a piano in ET. This was in 1809. Ellis history of ET in The appendices of Helmholtz, _The Sensation of Tone_ is must reading. Mark Lindley who wrote the article in New Groves gives documented evidence of ET as far back as you wish to go. >The production of ET requires more work than any > of the others, so that is another reason to assume that the average 1700's > shop worker sent out to tune wouldn't even consider it. Why would an poorly > paid instrument worker want to push the avante-garde notion of ET when it is > the most difficult tuning there is and very little evidence that it was > desired? Especially in an era in which ET was the province of just a few > theorists? That doesn't seem reasonable. ET was a theoritical concept up until, well some say until when machines were perfected in the 1990's. ; ) As far as the difficulty of tuning ET that concept is lost with machines. By that I mean any tuning I would assume to be as easy as the next with a machine. . If one attempts the tuning of historical tunings by their historical procedures, ie aurally, the notion of "difficulty" becomes more "real". For me Meantone and ET are the most difficult. The "irregulars" or the ones involving both pure fifths and tempered fifths seem the easiest. Of course the easiest of all is the Pythagorean, which is a temp of all pure fifths with the last one as the wolf. There is an interesting article by Mark Lindley in the journal _Early Music_ that covers Pythagorean tuning and some very interesting effects gained from different placement of the wolf. In that article are some insights into the early applications of ET also. Jan 1977 I believe is the date. In this article he quotes composers talking about ET in the time of Frescobaldi(sp) When Ed mentions what shop workers might favor, I have to believe they would favor the easiest of a Valotti or Werckmeister. It is without a doubt that the elimination of the "wolf" was the goal in keyboard tuning. That would enable playing in all of the keys. Meantone does not allow this nor Pythagorean. Only the so-called Wells and there are at least 3 or 4 of them, or ET. The Wells being easier to tune perhaps were favored until the profession of Piano Tuner came along. I would like to date that with Broadwood's article on how to tune ET in 1809. First I need to get a copy of that article. Perhaps a list member in England can slip into a library and scan it and email it. I don't want to propose anything illegal, I will pay for it if such a service exists. ---ric > In short, there is more reason to believe that Mozart and Beethoven used > irregular, circulating tunings than there is reason to believe that they used > ET. So, with concrete evidence lacking, I would like to see translations of Werckmeister, and a German theorist Neidhardt.of 1730. I saw a mention somewhere that German theorists used a unit sort of like a comma that stood for the amount that was needed to make the fifths equal. Was this in New Groves? ---ric
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC