Interesting discussion.... My current "temperament", if you can call it that, consists of almost pure 5ths, except for an occasional one that beats like 3 times per second, slightly faster 4ths (than the 5ths), a somewhat unequal progression of 3rds (some very slow ones in the lower temperament), some upper-note-flat octaves in the killer octave area, and other stuff that needs polishing.... --- Billbrpt@AOL.COM wrote: > In a message dated 2/21/02 9:15:55 PM Central > Standard Time, > piano@charlesneuman.net (Charles Neuman) writes: > > > > I suspect (but can't prove) that there's a problem > with terminology > > (surprise surprise). When some people say "ET", > they might mean any > > temperament where you can play in all keys. Or > they might label any > > attempt an a equal type of temperament as ET. > Jorgensen is strict: he says > > that people couldn't tune in ET before around 1900 > even if they tried. And > > Bill Bremmer pretty much says the same thing about > most people today (no > > offense intended, and correct me if I'm misreading > it). But I wouldn't be > > surprised if there's evidence that showed that > people attempted to tune in > > ET over a century ago and did it to the best of > their abilities for their > > time period, even if it wouldn't pass the RPT > exams. So they call it ET, > > but today we might not. That might be some of the > source of the > > controversy. > > You're quite right, Charles. When there is only > *one* temperament, that one > way becomes whatever version or interpretation the > individual is capable of > offering. The habitual patterns used historically > greatly influenced the > outcome of the temperament just as do those used > today. If there were only a > few small, random errors, there would be little > effect on ET. The cumulative > effect however, of small but sequential errors can > render any temperament > which was intended to be equal into a Pandora's Box > of differences of > substantial musical consequence, yet may still go > unrecogzized or even worse, > ignored and dismissed as unimportant. > > There is a clear division among the HT's between > *circulating* and > *noncirculating* temperaments. The latter were the > strong Meantones where > part of the scale was very dissonant and mostly > considered unusable (although > was used for effect on a limited basis). In the > early years, any temperament > usable in all 24 major and minor keys was considered > to be "equal". Therein > lies the source of confusion. > > Braide White spelled out ET in the early 20th > Century and deliberately left > out any reference to any other possibility except > the obviously unusable (in > his mind), Meantone. He could not provide the > precise aural systems we know > today so any attempt whatsoever was and still is > considered to be ET. I > don't accept that definition of ET. > > I know about all this because I went through it > myself believing at first > only in *The* temperament, then learning that it is > "Equal" Temperament, then > learning to make it "more" equal, then hearing my > first HT's as presented by > Owen Jorgensen and thinking they all sounded > ridiculous and thus dismissing > the idea entirely, then believing in ET with pure > 5ths, then finally being > persuaded by music itself, not what someone claimed > through research that > HT's and other Cycle of 5ths based temperaments have > merit. > > I have also become aware that the entire notion of > ET has been force fed to > the public and that any other alternative has > largely been denied and > ridiculed. Some may feel that what I have to say > means that I think no one > really ever gets it *right* but that is not, never > has been nor will ever be > what I think nor the point I have to make. All > methods and sets of beliefs > eventually become obsolete and evolve. Standards > in general are simply much > higher today than they were 25, 50 or 100 years ago. > > The point is that everyone now has more information, > better tools and > techniques than we did even 25 years ago. > Maintaining that tuning has > already reached its epitome or evolutionary end is > to say that there could > never be anything better. That notion I will reject > until the end of my > life. There is *always* a better way and *always* > room for improvement. > > Bill Bremmer RPT > Madison, Wisconsin > <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: > -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC