Non-ETs; more organic than ET?

[Avery Todd]

Jason,

Do you really think he cares?

Avery

At 03:36 PM 4/3/04, you wrote:
>Don, your credentials do not extend to musical history. Please educate
>yourself a bit before declaiming like this. You might look at my website
>http://www.rollingball.com/TemperamentsFrames.htm  for a visual of how the
>mathematics work in these temperaments. Mozart probably played on
>instruments tuned to the Prinz temperament, which you can find in the group
>of Well temperaments.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Don A. Gilmore" <eromlignod@kc.rr.com>
>To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
>Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 1:12 PM
>Subject: Re: Non-ETs; more organic than ET?
>
>
> > I may be an engineer, but I'm also an advanced, conservatory-trained
>pianist
> > of some 32 years experience (I started at the conservatory when I was
>eight
> > in 1972) and  I come from a line of five generations of professional
> > musicians (my grandfather was a famous jazz bandleader, singer and
> > saxophonist in Kansas City).  That's more than can be said for most
>tuners.
> >
> > What was heard in Mozart's day was inferior, just as automobiles of 1915
> > were inferior to the ones today.  Mozart didn't play in a primitive
> > temperament because he wanted to; he did because there wasn't a better way
> > yet.  There is a concrete, musical reason why virtually all instruments
>are
> > tuned to ET and it has nothing to do with the "tidiness" of mathematics
>(and
> > ET isn't constucted with a rational number, by the way).  ET is the *only*
> > temperament where everyone plays the same intervals within a key and in
>all
> > the keys all the time.  There is no other.  In *all* other systems *no*
>two
> > keys sound alike.  In *all* other systems you cannot have equal consonance
> > for all intervals, even in the same key.  If you flatten the E in the
>major
> > third between C and E to be more consonant, the resulting third from E to
>G#
> > will not be the same...in fact it will be *worse* than ET.  And all other
> > intervals that include that E will be changed by varying degrees.  I have
> > played in other temperaments and it is a pain in the ass, especially when
> > accompanying other instruments.
> >
> > ET wasn't foisted upon the musical community by dastardly engineers,
> > politicians, or by divine decree; it was invented *by* musicians and has
> > been universally adopted because WE LIKE IT and because it solves the many
> > problems and limitations you experience if you don't use it.  I AM a
> > musician.  ET vastly simplifies music for us and lets us all play and
> > modulate with complete freedom.  Any other temperament is a gimmick, like
> > titanium golf clubs or a six-string bass guitar.  A $500 cue isn't going
>to
> > make you shoot pool any better and a fancy tuning isn't going to make you
> > sound any better.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David M. Porritt" <dm.porritt@verizon.net>
> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 1:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Non-ETs; more organic than ET?
> > > Engineers (who are not always the most artistic lot) tend to think that
>if
> > a temperament can be constructed with a rational number it must be right.
> > However, if one wants to hear what Mozart was hearing you can't use ET.
>Of
> > course hearing what Mozart heard might not be important to you, but if it
> > is................
> > >
> > > dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives