re: Bach? Puhleeze?

>I have to speak up when ET and Bach are found in the same
>sentence, I suppose Pavlov was right.......

Isn't it funny how only 30 years ago, before the "original instruments"
thing got trendy, the fact that "Well" didn't mean "Equal" was all but
forgotten? Even with armies of musicologists, I'd wager that upwards of 1/3
of the Julliard campus doesn't know the difference to this day.

And the history problem isn't only in conservatories. Even though I had
read that "Well" was probably Kirnberger 3 almost two years ago, I was
shocked to learn rather recently that Liszt didn't use equal either --
pianos weren't shipping with 12 until after the turn of our century.

>The well tempering schemes of the early 1700's offered a lot of tonal
>resources. Some of these temperaments had a palette of thirds that ranged
>from pure to tempered by a full syntonic comma. This is very different from
>ET, is it not?

Yup. But not different enough for somebody (like me) who's into extended
Just Intonation.

>In fact, these early temperaments, aka Werckmiester, can be
>seen as the basis of compositional imperatives.

Right on. I think it was Jules Siegel who postulated that the return of the
church modes around the turn of the century was a result of equal, which is
an approximation of the 3-limit, whereas the earlier un-equal temperaments
were 5-limit.

And there was some post not too long ago (from you?) about a set of
Beethovan recordings coming out in un-equal. I'd like to get updated on that.

>observe the different constructions of the WTC 1

And WTC 2. Bach wrote each Prelude and Fugue pair to fit the
characteristics of the key it was in. Not "to demonstrate that playing in
all keys was possible", as I have read in many a conservatory circle-> So
much for all "interpretations" based on that!

>I suppose my ignorance is in the variations of dissonance that exist in
>all of these exotic ET's that are so often discussed on this list, but the
>soul of ET's is very different from the variety found in a Well Temperament.

Seldom discussed is the fact that each of the "exotic ET's" have as many
un-equal counterparts as does 12 tone.

>Am I to understand that the goal of getting into more than 12 TET is to
>find purity in all intervals? If so, is that not BORING?

The closest thing I know of to a unified goal was the Xenharmonic one, and
that was simply to find something DIFFERENT. Not necessarily more pure.

As far as contrast between pure and dissonant, nothing is as good as Just
Intonation, as Partch had to say again and again. The variations between
consonance and dissonance in even the most un-equal temperament is aneamic
compared to what is possible with a good Just tuning (number of pitches
being the same).

Carl


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: Johnny Reinhard
Subject: re: Bach? Puhleeze?
PostedDate: 01-12-97 03:29:45
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 01-12-97 03:28:08-01-12-97 03:28:09,01-12-97 03:28:04-01-12-97 03:28:05
DeliveredDate: 01-12-97 03:28:05
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256560.000D8C0F; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:27:58 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03105; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:29:45 +0100
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:29:45 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03103
Received: (qmail 26700 invoked from network); 30 Nov 1997 18:29:42 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 30 Nov 1997 18:29:42 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

> I've seen other jokes of this nature, but I don't think I've seen this
>one in particular before.

Ooop! Sorry folks, I accidentally added the tuning list to the
distribution list of this message. I was aiming for the name above it.

Oh well, I hope you found it amusing anyway!


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: bq912@freenet.uchsc.edu (Neil G. Haverstick)
Subject: equal temp discussion
PostedDate: 01-12-97 07:22:47
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 01-12-97 07:21:08-01-12-97 07:21:09,01-12-97 07:21:05-01-12-97 07:21:05
DeliveredDate: 01-12-97 07:21:05
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256560.0022E20C; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:21:01 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03171; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:22:47 +0100
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:22:47 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03169
Received: (qmail 9034 invoked from network); 30 Nov 1997 22:22:44 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 30 Nov 1997 22:22:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199712010620.XAA29660@freenet.uchsc.EDU>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu