Bach and E.T. or W.T.

[A440A@AOL.COM]

  JIM  writes:
<<  at least be an equal opportunity 'temperament basher' and 
continue this thought by saying that "unequal" temperaments are also "out of 
tune" but unequally so! :-) >>

 Greetings, 
      This seems to be a slight oversight that I would like to respond to.  
It is difficult to say that a temperament is "out of tune",  without first 
defining what "in tune" actually means.  Does "in tune" mean that it sounds 
like it normally does, with nothing in the tuning calling attention to 
itself?  Or does "in tune"  refer to realized super particular ratios and 
Just intonation, such as one might find in a meantone?  Maybe, "in tune" 
could refer to an ideal equality. 
    Perhaps a tuner of 1800 would consider a piano "in tune" when he got 
every one of the tonic thirds to ascend in "color" around the circle of 
fifths.  Perhaps a graceful balance among the keys was the same holy grail in 
1850 as the symetrical perfection of ET was to Braid-White in 1917.  Deciding 
which of the two is more attractive, musically, depends on comparison.  So 
far, ET has usually been rejected when two temperaments are side by side and 
the unequal tuning is played first.  Some string players hate it, though.
      
    There are some UET''s (unequal temperaments) that actually produce 
intervals of Just intonation ( the Kirnbergers),  so they may be accurately 
regarded as "more in tune" than a temperament that doesn't have any interval 
nearly that close to perfect.  You can generate a LOT more consonance on a 
well temperament than ET, and you can make a lot more dissonance, too, if 
that is the composers desire.  
    Our next recording has a Scarlatti piece played in 1/4 comma meantone,  
there is no wolf to be heard.   On an experimental digression, that same 
tuning was used for a Mozart fantasy, it was a disaster, but that same 
fantasy played on a 1731 well temperament has no wolf in it,  and produces a 
beautiful harmonic interplay.  That cut is included on CD.  
    It is a reasonable position that there is no such thing as "in tune",  
and everything we do is a compromise.  Within this milieu,  the only sure 
fire erroneous course of action is to say that there is only one temperament 
that is the best.  There may be one that provides the widest applicable 
resources, ( in my case, this would be a Coleman 11,  but ET is close behind, 
due to market conditions yet), but there are many harmonic voices within the 
piano's reach, and no one temperament will display them all. 
    If we are going to be all that we can be, shouldn't we have more than one 
tuning in our repertoire? 
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT