Before we get too far afield into obsolete ideas... It is interesting to note that notion of "authenticity" has lately pretty much fallen into disgrace even in the Historically Informed Performance (formerly known as Early Music) field. There is a tacit acknowledgement that the idea of exact fidelity to the notions and practices of the time in which the music was written is both impossible and in many ways undesirable. After all, there is no way we can hear the music as played by Beethoven and Mozart. On the other hand, we do not wish to duplicate the very low technical and musical standards of the time - poorly maintained instruments, poorly trained and under-rehearsed musicians, small, darkly lit venues... Today's musicians and audiences are, after all, steeped in today's musical values and today's musical standards, and there is so much any of them are willing to accept or learn to appreciate of past practices - and that also applies to temperaments. Any notion of "authenticity" as applied to performance of Classical era music on the modern piano is patently ridiculous - anyone familiar with pianos of that era can attest to the fact that they are very, very different musical instruments, both lacking many of the capabilities of the modern instruments (in terms of sonority and dynamic range) and having some that the modern instrument lost (in terms of color, register differences, clarity/transparency, articulation and velocity). Just the tremendous increase in inharmonicity from the older instrument to the newer one makes any comparison between WT on the Beethoven era Streicher and WT on a Steinway pretty much apples and oranges... In terms of historicity, we have two conflicting considerations here. The music was written in the era of the older temperaments, but the rise of the modern, high-tension piano is pretty much contemporaneous with the adoption of the Equal Temperament. So which is more "historically correct" - fidelity to the composer's practices (who used different instruments) or fidelity to today's instrument's historical niche? Which is why the "authenticity" argument leads nowhere. So where does that leave us? Basically, where the Historically Informed Performance stream of music now hangs its hat. There is an acceptance of the notion that no single way of performing music is "correct" - music is a living, changing thing, and every performance and performer brings something to it, no matter what degree of historical "fidelity" they try to adhere to - including all the baggage from the musical practices of the intervening centuries. Audiences are subject to the same baggage... Therefore: The use of earlier temperaments on the modern piano is neither right nor wrong - it simply is an additional tool in the arsenal of the musician, an additional dimension of the music to be explored and adopted to the extent that it can find an audience. The same way as the use of early instruments (or replicas) and historical notions about ornamentation, vocal technique, dynamics, vibrato and other performance techniques have found an audience. (And the insights gleaned from these historically based musical practices have come to influence the "mainstream" music field - through the medium of such musicians as Paul Badura-Skoda and Peter Serkin (on piano), Roger Norrington and John Elliott Gardner (orchestrally) or the many fine vocalists and instrumentalists who today perform in both fields...) >One thing to consider in all this (and I've probably exhausted my thoughts) >is what the major pianist/scholars are doing in this respect. Pianists like >Brendl, Schnabel, Perahia, and most of not virtually all others who pour >over original source material, biographies, writings, documents in order to >glean that small little detail that adds to their commitment to a more >authentic interpretation of the music as conceived by the composer. Of all >these people it seems (and I say this with the caveat that I have not >actually done the research) that most if not all of them, when choosing to >record/perform, opt for ET. Any performing musician who does historical research will adopt those practices that suit his or her preferences, and reject others. So I am not impressed. Besides, it is impossible to tell whether or not Brendel, Schnabel or Perahia ever were aware of the temperament issue - in mainstream musical circles the notion that Well temperament and Equal temperament are one and the same held sway well into the late 20th century, and many very fine musicians still don't know the difference - temperament just isn't on their radar screen. Intonation issues in general are of little interest to pianists - they don't deal with intonation, we do it for them, so many never really develop an ear for it... >While there may be a few who, to their credit, >are exploring these pieces in the temperaments of the times, they are a >stark minority. To suggest that the leading interpreters of classical music >of the last century take such pains for authenticity while rejecting the, we >assume, prevailing tuning style of the times forces you to the conclusion >that they either consciously chose to reject it because it wasn't in their >view relevant to the music and authentic interpretation, or that they >are/were ignorant, biased or, as Bremmer suggests, did it for some strange >business reason. Considering the extent to which they research these issues >and their apparent commitment to the original intent of the composers leads >me to the conclusion that the tuning style was rejected consciously and that >it was not relevant, in their view, to an authentic and musical >interpretation. Who am I to argue? If there is real evidence to the >contrary, I'm open to hearing it. There is no way of knowing who heard or used what temperament when and if they even stuck to one or another - or just slop-tuned their piano until it sounded "OK". Jason's wonderful website notwithstanding, please keep in mind that published temperaments are essentially the work of scholars and mathematicians, and may or may not represent widespread practice at any given time or in any given place. Remember the following: Musical culture until well into the 19th century is very localized - practices as to temperament probably varied widely depending on locality. A published temperament might have been reflecting the practice already in use for many or decades. Or maybe a pioneering conception that was never widely adopted. Or maybe a passing fad - there is no way to know... And until well into the 19th century musicians tuned their own pianos - the professional tuner comes on the scene with the modern piano, sometime in mid 19th century. There was no "tuners' guild" to maintain standards... So who knows what kind of "intonation environment" (if any steady one) any given composer lived in... So, there is no sense in arguing the "correctness" of using WT on pianos - and in any case, it's irrelevant. There is only one consideration that is pretty much a constant throughout the entire history of music - musicians will adopt whatever appeals to them or whatever they think will appeal to their audiences. And that's the only thing that matters... Israel Stein
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC