Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup mills-tuning-list Well temperament, WHEN??

Jonathan Walker writes;

> McGeary's article is based on a survey of
>contemporary keyboard treatises and related literature; most of these
>writers endorse ET as a keyboard standard, but a substantial minority
>mention Kirberger II.

A non-restrictive tuning was at one time called an Equal temperament, was
it not?

I strongly believe that the ease of setting has a lot to do with the favor
of a temperament, i.e., the easier the system of tuning is, the more likely
it is to be used.
To this extent, the Kirnberger should have been popular, it is rather
easy. The theorists could easily champion the cause of the mathematical
tuning, (ET), but that does not mean that that was the temperament that was
in general use.

When I quoted Johann Joseph Loehr statement of the early 1800's;
> "There never was a man capable of tuning by a ear a pianoforte or
> an organ so as not to leave some inequality of temperament, and
> there never will be", etc...........

Jonathan responded;
>>There is a logical problem here, which would seem to undermine its
>>usefulness for your argument: namely, we can always choose a margin
>>of error small enough to wrong-foot the best tuner, and if we set the
>>margin at 0, then of course no-one can tune flawless ET.

Let's talk about this "margin". I would challenge anybody to tune an
equal temperament, on a fortepiano, using the known tuning procedures of
1800, so even that a sensitive composer could not tell the difference between
keys.
It is quite easy to use octaves and fifths to get all the way around the
circle without a "wolf", however, the thirds will give it away as being
unequal, and it is the thirds by which we judge the level of musical tension
in a given key.

Walker goes on to say;
> What you would
>have to find is not evidence to show that ET was not achieved to
>perfection, but rather that musicians/tuners were not _aiming_ for the
>equality of all keys, but continued, rather, to favour some over
>others. In other words, you will need to find contemporary evidence
>not for inequality of results, but inequality of _intention_.

This one is easy. When I was first instructed in the process of tuning, (
1972), my tutor pointed out to me that the fifths leading up to the C-E third
could be made a little "noisy" so that the key of C would be the "nicest".
This was in north Louisiana!!!!! If the tradition of "key favoritism" was
still extant 25 years ago, I really believe that in 1800, the practise was
probably more widespread .

In response to my statement;
> I don't think ET was possible, given the state of
> science in the 1700's.

Walker replies;
>>You could make much the same argument for meantone temperaments being
>>impossible in the 15th century, but we have corroborating evidence to
>>show that they did indeed employ such tunings then;

Comparing the ease of production between meantone and 12TET seems like
a stretch. Equal temperament is much more difficult. Meantone (1/4 comma
Aaron) is so easy in comparison, that it's use doesn't mean that everything
else followed as well, i.e. tempering four fifths at better than 5 cents
each is a lot easier than tuning 12 fifths at 1.95 each. The scale of
difficulty doesn't translate.

Walker again;

>pronouncements Beethoven made, well into his career, upon key
>characteristics, might seem to indicate his continuing preference for
>and use of well-temperament (for as long as he could hear any
>difference). My point was that he also claimed to be able to
>distinguish between Db and C# (and other such "enharmonic
>equivalents") and this renders his other statements on key
>characteristics useless as a supposed Beethovenian endorsement of
>well-temperament.

Why does this render his other statements useless? Do we know what he was
talking about inre Db vs.C#? I don't, and though it seems that from our
point of modern view, there is no difference, was he talking about meantone?
or was he talking about orchestral intonation, or singers?. But his
pronouncements upon key characteristics are easily understood when listening
to his sonati in Well temperament.

What it comes down to when deciding performance practises is listening to
the music, and making decisions. It is easy to say that composers didn't
write anything down about their preferences, but is that true? Did they not
write down the notes? Is music a language or not? If it is, then can it not
tell us something about the composers intention?
Extrapolation of temperament practise from composition is pretty thin
stuff, I know, but coupled with what documentation we have of the state of
science, (ET is a scientific tuning), and demonstrated differences in the
sound of say, the "Pathetique" performed on Well temperament and Equal
Temperament, I am convinced that it was not composed with ET in mind. I
just cannot imagine Beethoven would have been oblivious to, or uncaring about
the lack of tonal contrasts that follow from the use of Equal Temperament.

Walker again;
>If pianists need their confidence
>bolstered by foundationless arguments, concerning the tunings
>Beethoven would have heard,

Foundationless arguments? The way I read and hear it, there is more
foundation for the use of unequal tuning than there is for ET.

Regards,
Ed Foote

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 03:52 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03598; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 03:52:14 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03664
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id SAA15582; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:50:13 -0800
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:50:13 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

J. Pusey wrote:
>
> While doing some research on the Bohlen-Pierce scale recently, I came
> across the following reference:
>
> M. V. Mathews, L. A. Roberts, and J. R. Pierce, "Four new scales based
> on nonsuccessive-integer-ratio chords," Journal of the Acoustical
> Society of America 75, S10(A) (1984).
>
> Upon tracking down this reference at the library, I was dismayed to find
> that it only refers to an abstract of a paper presented at the 107th
> Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. I have been unsuccessful
> so far in locating the complete paper. Can someone on the list point me
> to where I might find the full paper? If anyone actually possesses this
> paper, can you contact me directly about obtaining a photocopy of it?
>

You might consider contacting the ASA via email: . Ms.
Elaine Moran is the administrator there. She and her colleagues have
been very responsive and helpful to me in my own bibliographic
searching.

Good luck!

Kathleen Seidel

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:06 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA04114; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:06:54 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA04085
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id GAA18908; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 06:04:38 -0800
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 06:04:38 -0800
Message-Id: <331C2BC2.62ED@cavehill.dnet.co.uk>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

Well temperament, WHEN??

🔗A440A@aol.com

🔗Rabia Kathleen Seidel <seidel@...>

🔗xen@tiac.net (J. Pusey)