(careful, it is about temperaments)

[A440A@aol.com]

Davcid writes:

<< The problem with these types of explanations is that
they ignore the data.  In reaching a conclusion you first have to look at
the data and what that tells you.  After that you look at factors which
might mitigate against your conclusion.  The data suggest that people who
are presumed savvy about issues such as temperament are not choosing them.<< 

    My data is primarily from usage today.  I don't presume any artist is 
savvy about temperament because I have never found one that is.  I think the 
majority of them are totally in the dark about the history of intonation since 
1700 and will remain so until the actually hear the difference.  I have 
repeatedly been told by pianists freshly introduced  to WT that nobody has ever brought 
the subject up!     
 
>>When you stick to your conclusion (really your opening
premise) in spite of the data then it suggests a bias.  You're really
starting with a conclusion and then looking for reasons to support it rather
than collecting the data and reaching a conclusion based on what you find.   
>>

    My opening premise in my career was that the more equal the temperament, 
the better.  After becoming familiar with alternatives and offering them to 
pianists, I was profoundly amazed at the positive reaction I was getting for 
these "weird" tunings Jorgensen proposed.  I was also amazed at how attracted 
pianists I have tuned these for were.  If I say nothing and let the tuning speak 
for itself, the response has been overwhelmingly positive about 94% of the 
time.  I have now come to a different conclusion; that for the majority of 
listeners in blind comparisons, the ET pianos sound harsh and somehow out of tune 
when up against at mild WT.   
 
regards, 
Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html