The conquistadores were scraped from the rabble of Spain's streets and barrooms, and the Jamestown lot were not much better. I have read portions of Vespuccis letters on the native women here, and they are hardly a "scientific" treatise! And the article I read cited them as a major recruitment tool in gathering adventurers to this continent. Fortunately, good manners prevent me from repeating their contents on this list. If you wish to live in a fantasy wherein everything American is Godly and noble, I have no objection. Its still a free country ( well, for the moment, at least). Thump --- tune4u@earthlink.net wrote: > >From whence do you extrapolate the fact that > "uncouth men" were incited to > travel to the New World? Or, that only because his > observations on the > native peoples included "sexual" information did > they use his name for the > discovered lands? No offense, but methinks you think > too much, sometimes. > > Alan Barnard > Salem, MO, United States of Vespucci > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org > [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]On > Behalf Of gordon stelter > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 7:03 AM > To: Pianotech > Subject: Americus Vespucci > > > After his first visit, Americus Vespucci wrote a > pornographic book on the sexual prowess of the > native > women here, which was a runaway best seller all over > Europe, greatly inciting interest ( among uncouth > men, > at least ) in travelling to the "New World". > And that, dear friends, is the actual reason > why > these lands were named in his "honor". > No kidding. > Thump > > --- A440A@aol.com wrote: > > R. Moody writes: > > >>who was Columbus's navigator? > > > > I said: > > > > > Americus Vespucci. Our country is named for > him. > > > > >> Unless the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, > > Vespucci was not on board in > > 1492, he did > > > > not meet Columbus until the 3rd voyage. > > > > Actually, my elem. school teachers were wrong > > first so I was taught > > otherwise, but Vespucci wasn't with Columbus. He > > sailed 5 years later,(and > > many history books have argued whether he did that > > or not!) > > > > > > Moody again: > > >>but where, when and how was "well-temperament" > > taught and by > > > > whom? Hipkins makes no mention of it, nor does > > Ellis, or Montal, > > > > or Mersenne. Where actually in the historical > > record are these > > > > "wells" mentioned? > > > > Thomas Young presented his to the Royal > Society > > in 1799, Werckmeister's > > writings have been referred to for centuries, and > > Kirnberger waged a pretty > > solid war with his. Jorgensen lists a lot of > this. > > What is more important, > > to me, is that ET was discussed, at length, prior > to > > 1850, and it mostly > > seems like it was absent. > > > > According to Jorgensen (Tuning, pg. 455) > > George Grahame wrote in the Encyclopedia > > Britannica of 1842 that "The > > unequal temperament is that usually adopted". > > > > Joseph Loehr, writing in 1836, says" "There > > never was a man capable of > > tuning by ear a pianoforte or organ so as not to > > leave some inequality of > > temperament". > > and: > > " Before Mr. Scheibler's invention(the set of > 12 > > tuning forks), no such > > means existed by which even a tolerable equality > of > > temperament could be > > obtained. In theory, and upon paper, the > requisites > > of such a temperament > > were indeed known long ago: the precise number of > > vibrations for each > > semitone had been correctly calculated, and the > > necessary deviations from the > > mathematical scale pointed out. But when it came > to > > practice, when a musical > > instrument had actualy to be tuned, then all the > > calculations of the > > theorists proved so much worthless rubbish, > because > > practice knew of no other > > means or criterion to regulate the pitch of the > > different sounds and their > > ratios to each other, than the ear. snip<> "The > > perfection of intonation(ET) > > is such as cannot be obtained by the finest > musical > > ear". > > > > Jorgensen also quotes Ellis writing in 1864 > > "On the pianoforte the Hemitonic system is > > universally adopted in > > intention. It is, however, so difficult to > realize > > by the ordinary methods > > of tuning that "equal temperament" has probably > > never been attained in this > > country, with any approach to mathematical > > precision." > > Fast forward to 1876 and we have Robert > > Bosanquet, a fellow of St. John's > > College in Oxford,(can we accept that he knew of > > what he spoke??) saying, > > "There are few tuners that can produce a tolerable > > equal temperament". > > In 1880 we have A.J. Ellis writing that "Equal > > temperament is that which > > is usually aimed at, though seldom really > obtained". > > > > So, what was in use in the mid 1800's? We > have > > some documentation here > > that says ET wasn't. If not that, then what? AT > > best, it seems that ET was > > a theoretical ideal that was being pursued by > > tuners, but according to some > > very learned observers of the century, was not > being > > actually produced. If > > this is so, then the musicians of the time were > not > > writing under the > > influence of equality, but rather, the historical > > bias that had existed on > > keyboards since their invention. It is not > > coincidence that virtually all of > > the deviations found in the Broadwood survey > shared > > similar directions. That > > is certainly evidence of the well-tempered bias. > > > > The nomenclature of the time is not ours today. > > According to Jorgensen, > > "Well-Temperament" was not a term used while these > > tunings were in vogue. > > The same goes for "Meantone", a term that arose > > long after the tuning to > > which it referred was out of fashion. It is not > > illogical that what we call a > > well-temperament today was viewed as "equal" in > > contrast to the "keyboard > > tuning"(meantone) that proceeded it. > > In light of the number of authors of the time > > specifically stating that > > ET wasn't being produced, it seems illogical to > > claim it was widespread > > because it was simply known of, or that some > > theorists proposed it. The > > concept of a perfect circle is simple, does that > > make it possible for a > > person to draw one freehand? I don't think so, a > > tool must be used. The > > concept of ET is simple, but can you tune one > > without the techniques > > published in the the mid to late 1800's? I don't > > think so. It is for that > > reason that I cannot accept that composers in 1800 > > had the pan-tonal nature > > of ET in mind when they chose the keys that they > > did.(and once again, the > > choice of keys used during this period in keyboard > > music certainly seems to > > indicate that not all keys were the same.....) > > > > Now, to today....... > > > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC