>Phil writes: > ><< A Mozart >concerto played by Seth Carlin on a Walter fortepiano with the Philharmonia >Baroque in Herbst Theater is a completely different thing than the same >concerto played on a Steinway D by Andre Watts with the New York >Philharmonic at Lincoln Center. >> > >It may be of some interest that when Seth Carlin recorded a Schubert project >two years ago, he had me come to St. Louis and keep the forte piano tuned in >a Young temperament. He thought it was important. And I'm sure that the result was different than if the tuning had been ET. If that difference was significant to him, then it was important. If you had two identical fortepianos sitting next to each other with different temperaments on them, then some people would notice (others would not, unless the temperaments are dramatically different). But, and my point was that, if you had a D at Lincoln Center with a Broadwood temperament, and a fortepiano in your living room with a Young temperament, the difference in experience in listening to the two that most people would have, would come more from the difference in instrument, venue, and performer than from the different temperaments. > >>The differences made by instruments, >performers, orchestral size, and venue are so large as to render any >differences in choice of temperament incidental or trivial, in my view.<< > > hmm, then why are we so caught up in all the test, checks, etc. to make >ET as perfectly ET as possible when we do tune it? The difference between >the >finest ET possible and one that barely fails the Guild test for ET is far >less than the difference between either of them and a Broadwood. If >temperament >is of so little importance, there is no point in having such stringent,(=/- 1 >cent?) tests. I think that's a good question. I don't see any reason for the test to be so stringent in that regard. It's been my experience that most skilled musicians don't notice a slight (some even a significant) deviation from ET. > > To those that have come to rely on the resources in a WT, the lack of key >color in ET is profound. I think a well-rounded tech should be familiar >with >the various ways of tempering and conversant in regards to their use. I agree, although the level of profundity seems to be greater for some than for others. Perhaps the ability to tune other temperaments should be part of the Guild test. > If >someone wants to make the case that ET is superior to any other, for all >music, >that is their business. Just don't be surprised when a musician choses >something else when given the chance to hear a comparison. I won't be surprised. > > I have, for 10 years, been seeing roomfuls of techs, and musicians, >prefer a WT piano over an ET one. There are exceptions, of course, but in >blind >comparisons, the majority of techs go for the WT. When it is musicians, the >overwhelming majority prefer the WT. Does it make sense for technicians to >continue trying to champion a tuning that is so often rejected as the only >one >that is needed? >Regards, > > >Ed Foote RPT I don't know if you're referring to my post or not. But there was nothing in my post championing ET (or any other temperament for that matter) or condemning non-ET temperaments. My point was that experiencing a Steinway D (with whatever temperament you choose) in Lincoln Center with the New York Philharmonic playing a Mozart concerto isn't going to remotely resemble the experience that Mozart had listening to his own music. If that is what you are trying to achieve, just applying a WT without changing anything else isn't going to get you there. Perhaps those that question whether ET is the proper temperament to use should carry that a step or two further and consider whether the modern piano is the proper instrument to use or the modern concert hall is the proper venue to use for the musical experience they are seeking. Phil Ford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC