Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning New webpage on tuning in late 18th century England

> http://harpsichords.pbwiki.com/Cavallo
>
> The whole article of 1788 was much too long to transcribe -
hopefully
> you should get something worthwhile out of the excerpts that are
> there.

From the excerpts as presented, i.e. the white sections of that page:
it appears to me that Cavallo was testing his usable and less-usable
scales (both major and minor) with actual music, and not merely by
plunking a series of I-IV-V triads as a quick test of each.

Take, for example, A major (which Cavallo says is "less agreeable"
but short of "disagreeable"), and assume that the A-C# and E-G# were
not too far from equal temperament's size, as the other excerpts from
Cavallo imply. The key of A major as a whole could still be rather
lousy or lumpy for real music, if notes such as E# and A# are
uncomfortably high for their musical contexts. Those notes do come
up frequently in 18th century A-major music....

This type of enharmonic problem comes up, even in temperaments that
are as moderate as "Vallotti" is (or, for that matter and sticking to
England: Young's #1 of 1799, which is merely the same layout as
Vallotti but with the B nudged up by about 1/12 comma, and the F
similarly nudged down).

So, how is anybody sure that -- as the green section of that web page
asserts in several places, inserting a premise into the presentation -
- Cavallo was reacting to anything near the tightness of 1/4 comma,
or its resulting pure major 3rds? Why couldn't he have been
describing a "common" system more in the 1/5, 1/6, or even 1/7 or 1/8
range, and have just been a good musician assessing intonation in
whole compositions, beyond plunking the central triads per key? On
the Cavallo excerpts as presented, it appears he was sensitive enough
musically to have done so.

And if Cavallo omitted G minor among the good keys, in whatever
temperaments he heard in common use, maybe he was reacting to typical
things that are problematic in G minor music -- such as some too-low
Ab, Db, and/or Gb in some harmonic or melodic contexts, drawing undue
attention to themselves? Cavallo cites Handel's music. Well, I have
some Handel pieces in G minor right here, and they have plenty of Db
occurrences in them, and they sound (IMO) unfelicitous at those spots
when played in Werckmeister III, or some of the other typical
circulating temps. Perhaps Cavallo was hearing something similarly
subtle.

On a harpsichord, try something as simple as straightforward
Vallotti, and then at the end knock down the Bb/A# a little bit so
the F# major triad is nicer, at not much expense of Bb major. (This
will improve the usability of B minor for music, but without making
F# major itself very good yet for full-length pieces.) Then play
around in some Handel, plus some other B minor music, with Cavallo's
commentary in the background. Do you hear the same effects he's
describing, as to the usability of the keys he says he likes and
dislikes? I do. That's not to say that he was hearing specifically
that type of recipe...but only that the usable/unusable assessment
for Cavallo may have been geared toward subtleties, not toward the
broadsword obviousness of meantones or slightly modified meantones.

He's omitted E minor from the good list, but has B minor on there
(so, we might assume that A# was not a terrible note in context).
Maybe some musicians around him were fond of relatively high D#s, or
a narrow Eb-Bb? Or perhaps is the omission of E minor implying a
lousy E#, in modulations to ii (F# minor) of E minor, and/or
melodically....?

Brad Lehman

New webpage on tuning in late 18th century England

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>