Intonational System Earlier Musicians had in Mind

Hello -

My eye caught a quote of a post by Paul Erlich which
seemed to imply that (condensed) the first Western tuning
system up to the 1400s was Pythagorean, then there was a
brief period when JI may have been the intonational system,
then mean tone became the standard tuning system and held
sway from the 1500s until the 1700s and 1800s, when it was
replaced by equal temperament.

I'd like to put in as my opinion that the intonational system
a great many musicians - theoreticians, composers, and many
practicing musicians had in mind was just intonation from the
1400s up until the 1900s. Most of the writings I have looked at
from those times (not comprehensive, but some original writings)
assume just intonation as being the "true" basis for the pitch
structure of music, with temperament - mean tone and later equal
temperament - being a necessary but not ideal slight modification
of the "true harmonies" needed so that the music could be performed
on instruments having a limited number of fixed pitches. When I've
looked at 18th & 19th century books on music - and even some 20th
century ones, the just ratios of musical intervals are laid out in great
detail as being the foundation of musical pitch and harmony.

Some which I remember are Rameau's Treatise on Harmony; Owen's
Dictionary of the Sciences from the late 1700s quoted in Jorgenson's
work on tuning in which the author speaks of mean tone tuning as introducing
small errors into the true musical intervals which are perceptible, but
still do not harm the music's effect; William Pole's Philosophy of Music
(1879); the first edition of Schoenberg's Harmonielehre of 1911; A
paper on mean tone temperament for the piano in the Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America which appeared in 1943 which implied
that EQT had defects in that its intervals involved "distortions" of the
"true" intervals. The author didn't go into the "distortions" of mean
tone temperament but focussed on the fact that the thirds of mean
tone temperament were not "distorted".

Also, some of these earlier writings imply that much vocal music
was performed in closer to just intonation than equal temperament and
had a different character as a result - a delightful character according
to some of the authors. No mention was made of singers singing in
mean tone temperament in things I've read.

Recently, some early cylinder recordings of vocal music recorded
in the late 1800s have been reissued on CD. Many of the early
recorded quartet songs sound as though the singers were striving for
just intonation.

I have not made an exhaustive study of the historical literature,
but most of what I've seen has pointed in the direction of just intonation's
having been assumed without argument as being the natural basis for
musical harmony - especially after the discovery of overtones was
made in the 17th century by Galileo and Mersenne.

> Most of the writings I have looked at
> from those times (not comprehensive, but some original writings)
> assume just intonation as being the "true" basis for the pitch
> structure of music, with temperament - mean tone and later equal
> temperament - being a necessary but not ideal slight modification
> of the "true harmonies" needed

preach it brother

>From: Ascend11@aol.com
>
> I'd like to put in as my opinion that the intonational system
>a great many musicians - theoreticians, composers, and many
>practicing musicians had in mind was just intonation from the
>1400s up until the 1900s.

(snip)
> Also, some of these earlier writings imply that much vocal music
>was performed in closer to just intonation than equal temperament and
>had a different character as a result - a delightful character according
>to some of the authors. No mention was made of singers singing in
>mean tone temperament in things I've read.

Thanks for this contribution to the discussion.

By the way, what's your name?

John Link

****************************************************************************

Watch for the CD "Live at Saint Peter's" by John Link's vocal quintet,
featuring original compositions as well as arrangements of instrumental
music by Brahe and Taylor, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Claude Debussy, Bill
Evans, Ennio and Andrea Morricone, Modeste Mussorgsky, Erik Satie, and Earl
Zindars.

****************************************************************************

Ascend11@aol.com wrote:

> From: Ascend11@aol.com
>
> Hello -
>
> My eye caught a quote of a post by Paul Erlich which
> seemed to imply that (condensed) the first Western tuning
> system up to the 1400s was Pythagorean, then there was a
> brief period when JI may have been the intonational system,
> then mean tone became the standard tuning system and held
> sway from the 1500s until the 1700s and 1800s, when it was
> replaced by equal temperament.

If my history serves me correct and we are getting into a fuzzy area, tuning
was not universal throughout europe. I remember hearing that just thirds first
came out of Britain. Hearing enough european folk music has made me realize
that only the schools of written music were using certain tunings we associate
with it. This was a result of their awareness of Greek and persian writings on
the subject. That enough of this folk music has survived is amazing. That each
city-state might have had its own tuning is quite possible and that the
theorist from town to town might not have agreed any more than we do today. It
is quite possible that certain hubs of JI or any other tuning might have
existed but the music was "inferior" when translated to latter tunings, was
lost or not written down.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

Ascend writes:
> the first Western tuning
>> system up to the 1400s was Pythagorean, then there was a
>> brief period when JI may have been the intonational system,
>> then mean tone became the standard tuning system and held
>> sway from the 1500s until the 1700s and 1800s, when it was
>> replaced by equal temperament.

Greetings,
While agreeing with Dave's order I feel the need to submit some
alternatives inre the timing. Maybe approaching the evolution with less
defined cut-off points?
I would have considered everything up to maybe 1200 easily defined by the
Pythagorean era, but after that things get murky.
Walter of Odington wrote in the 14th century that English choirs were
singing harmony that used pure thirds. I have seen this referred to in other
sources as being one of the first instances on record of the third being
regarded a concord rather than a discord. If choirs were singing it, I am
going to assume that peasant folksong had been there first. Perhaps the blues
artists of the first millineum?
It must be assumed that this new resource in vocal music was so
attractive that the added complexity of its use was no deterrent to motet
composers of the time. Four voice harmony harmony was know by then (Perotin
etal.) and I be we can Get Margo To Tell Us More (GMTTUM) about that?
Intonationally, instruments seem to have always striven to do what the
voice can do, and fixed pitch instruments had to give up their Just fifths to
get these new thirds to sound so nice. This was happening in the 1300's, but
the first accidental had appeared around 1000, so what happened in between is
of some interest. By 1365, the octave had a full 12 note 7/5 keyboard. and
it continued on from there before settling back down to what we see today.
Even though Aaron spelled out 1/4 meantone in 1513, I get the feeling
that it was being used in place of the earlier Pyth. or JI by the Mid 1300's.
I know that is a bit earlier than most, but the organs of the time don't
obviate the possibility.
Meantone could have dropped from use by 1700 on the strung keyboards,
thanks to Werckmiester's writings and composers desire for more freedom.
However, it lived on in Organs for quite some time after 1800. However, the
use of ET during doesn't have a lot to support it, (except for lutes)
before the late 1800's. If the majority of the Broadwood piano factory
tuners were tuning a well tempered scale in 1885, it is doubtful that the
man in the field would be attempting the harder and less broadly appreciated
ET).
So, I offer the above in support of keyboards being tuned in ET only
since the very late 1800's. Some day in the future it will be the 20th
century that will acquire the status of the ET era. However, we are seeing
a new tonal awareness, primarily computer derived, it seems, and in the
future we will see music being composed in a lot less homoginized format.
Don't get me wrong, I love Hoagy Carmichael, Art Tatum, and friends, but ET
neutralizes a lot of the art that had been created in music composed earlier
than 1900. It is just right for some of it, Debussy and Ravel come to mind,
but there is much great stuff from before them that really loses a lot of
beauty in ET.
Regards,
Ed Foote
(maybe I am just preaching to the choir, I dunno, but I am working on a
well-tempered fifth as I do it.......)

Daniel Wolf wrote,

>In general, theories of harmony classified chords in terms of internal
>interval structure and a static tonal center while theories of counterpoint

>were also localized, focusing on patterns of voice leading from note to
note
>and from note against note. The theoretical tradition says precious little
>about how these materials are projected into real harmonic contexts.
Indeed,
>it is extremely difficult to do so: one might say that we think about tonal

>music in terms of JI although it is not, much as we orient ourselves
locally
>on the earth as if the planet were flat (which I am told it is not).

Thanks Daniel -- that's an exceedingly apt analogy.