Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Vallotti-Young

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your question. Actually the name does make sense: the history of
Vallotti's temperament, like many other systems, is quite complicated. To
make a long history short, it was devised and used by Vallotti and others
from the 1730's on in the Veneto in Italy: it consisted of tempering the 6
diatonic fifths F_C_G_D_A_E_B by 1/6 Syntonic comma, leaving the other
fifths pure. Since that would not close the Circle (by the Schisma or
difference between the two commas, approx. 2 Cents), one of the fifths was
slightly tempered to that effect. In later years Barca and others proposed
either to spread that slight correction by tempering every pure fifth by 1/3
of a Cent, an almost inaudibly amount, or else to temper the 6 diatonic
fifths by 1/6 Pythagorean comma, which is the easiest-to-tune variant used
nowadays. Nobody can tell the difference between the three in performance,
not even tuners. Very slightly favouring the flats, many modern musicians
have found Vallotti it an ideal temperament for J.S.Bach.

Half a century later Young proposed the same sistem, shifted 1 fifth
clockwise, i.e. tempering C_G_D_A_E_B_F#. Very slightly favouring the
sharps, this temperament is better for some Baroque music.

Nowadays Vallotti/Young is used to refer to all the variants, and also to
specifically to Young's particular one.

Kind regards

Claudio
http://temper.braybaroque.ie/

PS: ("Vallotti/Young" occurs 62 times in my U.T. Book, the main treatment
being in p.121-123)

<http://temper.braybaroque.ie/>
_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
martinsj013
Sent: 30 April 2009 21:43
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Vallotti-Young

A question for Claudio, or anyone else who cares to answer: why is the
Vallotti-Young temperament so-called? On the face of it, the name doesn't
make much sense.

Many thanks,
Steve M.

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

🔗martinsj013 <martinsj@...>

🔗Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>

> Nowadays Vallotti/Young is used to refer to all the variants, and also to
specifically to Young's particular one.
> Claudio,
> thanks for your answer; I knew some of what you said, but not all! It's
not a very important point perhaps, I just think that "Young 2" is a more
appropriate name for the specific temperament referred to above. I noticed
(at harpsichords.pbwiki) that Young's publication of 1799 (or was it 1800?)
does not mention Vallotti. Is it known if Young knew of Vallotti?
More interestingly perhaps, although Young clearly states (in his second
temperament) that the run of 1/6 PC tempered 5ths starts from C, could this
have been a mistake? Starting from F instead, i.e. the Vallotti temperament,
would give a better approximation to Young 1 (which was his stated aim).
What do you think?
Kind regards,
Steve M.

Hi Steve,

The reason why modern musicians prefer to call it Vallotti/Young is because,
if you call it Young 2, the reader believes that, being a temperament from
around 1800, there is no reason to use it for music written in Late Baroque
1st half of the 18th century music, written perhaps 70 years earlier. Yet
that is precisely what this temperament is best at, and is much likely (NOT
proven) to have been in use. We know (from Vallotti's letters and later from
organ tuning documents all many years before the publication by Tartini)
that Vallotti's original system was in use from the 1730's in Italy's
Veneto. It was later discussed between him and others with no less than two
variants, and though a "clockwise shift" (i.e. Young 2) was not specifically
mentioned, it is historically likely. Its use in Germany is justified
because it resembles (though it is not identical) to quite a few of
Neidhardt's proposals, but they have some serious issues (making Neidhardt
unlikely to achieve accuracy in pre-beat-rate times) that are resolved in
Vallotti. As for Young, his 2nd system is not only a variant of Vallotti but
also a VERY obvious variant of Werckmeister's III (see my UT p.127) and this
is the main reason why its use is justified for Late Baroque German music.

As for Young knowing about Vallotti, can't tell: do not have here the
original text by Young, but I have read quite a few accounts and do not
recall that anybody noticed any reference to Vallotti in Young. Besides, by
the 1800's the main source for Young would be Tartini, who described the
original version by Vallotti, 1/6 S.c-based, not the corrected 1/6 P.c.
version which is identical to Young shifted. As for what Young had in mind
for use in his time, it is not really relevant, because his work was largely
ignored. It is well documented that in his Beethoven times everybody would
tune in E.T. except a few still attached to meantone in English-speaking
countries and Latin-speaking old church organs. Circular temperaments were
no longer in use and the only sources discussing them in the 1800's
according to Barbieri's research are in Italy where anyway they were a small
minority in a prevailing E.T. scenario. (All this is clearly explained in my
pp. 166-173).

Kind regards,

Claudio

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@...>

> A question for Claudio, or anyone else who cares to answer: why is the
> Vallotti-Young temperament so-called? On the face of it, the name
> doesn't make much sense.

Vallotti's layout has 1/6 comma 5ths from F-C-G-D-A-E-B, and all the
other notes are arranged in pure 5ths from either side of that. (Technically, he specified it as 1/6 syntonic comma, and there's a schisma to burn off within the pure 5ths; but, everybody does it now as if it were 1/6 Pythagorean comma, for simplicity.)

Young's presentation (1800/1807) reproduced at
http://harpsichords.pbworks.com/f/Young.html
gives no indication that he was aware of Vallotti's work.

Nevertheless, his first (and preferred) temperament puts 10 of the 12
notes in the same places as Vallotti. The only differences are that his
F is slightly lower, and B slightly higher. Among other niceties, this
gives less harsh major 3rds B-D# and Db-F than Vallotti has.

The complete specification works out to: C-G-D-A-E 1/6 Pythagorean comma; E-B-F# 1/12; Gb-Db-Ab-Eb-Bb pure; Bb-F-C 1/12. (An easy way to do it in practice is to set Vallotti first, and then simply nudge the F downward to an average spot within Bb-F-C, and the B upward to be average within E-B-F#. That's about 15 seconds of work on a harpsichord.)

His second temperament, which he said is the simpler way of getting "nearly the same effect", has only six notes in common with Vallotti: C, G, D, A, E, and B. The other six (F#/Gb, C#/Db, G#/Ab, D#/Eb, A#/Bb, and E#/F) are all lower than in Vallotti.

They are both easy to do by ear, without needing Young's monochord lengths. I have details here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/practical.html

"Vallotti/Young" isn't really anything, historically, until some 20th
century musicologists and musicians started running the ideas together:
as if these three temperaments are interchangeable, in some way.

All of these temperaments have nothing to do with Bach, one way or the
other. They just happen to make some (not all) of his music sound
unobtrusively smooth, without solving all the practical problems.

Brad Lehman

🔗Afmmjr@...

Hot off the NYC MicroFest concerts, I took notice of Bradley's recent post:

My opinion runds differently. There is circumstantial evidence that
Valotti's good friend, violinist/acoustician/composer Tartini, who announced
Valotti's tuning to the world, used it. We have a recording that I can make
available that exhibits the amazing fit. And with the orchestral world using
sixth comma meantone as a norm for centuries, as many now believe, a work with
keyboard in the late Romatic, as with Brahms makes excellent sense.
Manfred Stahnke first alerted me to the match of Brahms to Valotti tuning.

"All of these temperaments have nothing to do with Bach, one way or the
other. They just happen to make some (not all) of his music sound
unobtrusively smooth, without solving all the practical problems.
Brad Lehman"

On a positive note, I agree fully that none of this has anything to do with
Bach. :)

best, Johnny

**************The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376998x1201454298/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=M
ay5309AvgfooterNO62)

🔗Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>

I stand by my previous post.
IMHO, Vallotti and VallottiYoung:
- ARE historically important and ARE interchangeable, with their due subtle
differences
- have A LOT to do with Bach's music: I substantiated this in Early Music
back in 1981 and much more detail is shown with full detail in my book.
- Of course there is not any DIRECT link between Bach and Vallotti, or ANY
temperament for that matter: all the evidence is circumstancial.
Some important points:
- Vallotti's circle of fifths are a "natural" variant of Werckmeister III
- Vallotti's circle of major thirds are similar to temperaments by Neidhardt
- Vallotti already mentioned his temperament in letters in the 1730's,
decades before Tartini included it in his treatise
- Church organs in Italy were tuned to Vallotti around 1750.

Best,

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Afmmjr@...
Sent: 03 May 2009 16:47
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Vallotti-Young

Hot off the NYC MicroFest concerts, I took notice of Bradley's recent post:

My opinion runds differently. There is circumstantial evidence that
Valotti's good friend, violinist/acoustician/composer Tartini, who announced
Valotti's tuning to the world, used it. We have a recording that I can make
available that exhibits the amazing fit. And with the orchestral world
using sixth comma meantone as a norm for centuries, as many now believe, a
work with keyboard in the late Romatic, as with Brahms makes excellent
sense. Manfred Stahnke first alerted me to the match of Brahms to Valotti
tuning.

On a positive note, I agree fully that none of this has anything to do with
Bach. :)

best, Johnny

_____

The Average US Credit Score is 692. See
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376998x1201454298/aol?redir=htt
p://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=May5309
AvgfooterNO62> Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

🔗Afmmjr@...

Dear Claudio,

It is with great pleasure that I address you directly. My memory of
finding your book Unequal Temperaments was momentous, many years ago. Long since
then, my ideas have taken new directions. To that end I have written a book
called "Bach and Tuning" in which your name does come up a few times.

I particularly like your support of the 81/64 ditone when others have shown
it disdain (Rasch). However, wonderful was, and is, your book, one should
not expect 100% agreement.

"I stand by my previous post.
IMHO, Vallotti and VallottiYoung:
- - have A LOT to do with Bach's music: I substantiated this in Early
Music back in 1981 and much more detail is shown with full detail in my book."

Pushing back Vallotti tuning to Bach when Werckmeister III is SO MUCH MORE
LIKELY for reasons such as chronology, vicinity, profession, and the simple
fact that it works eminently well for Bach, is unpersuasive. Perhaps I am
missing something, but all the "circumstantial" evidence supports
Werckmeister III tuning in my reading of history.

"Some important points:
- Vallotti's circle of fifths are a "natural" variant of Werckmeister III
- Vallotti's circle of major thirds are similar to temperaments by
Neidhardt"

Neidhardt is entirely variant on Werckmeister III, and so then are all
circular but unequal well temperaments. This offers little regarding Bach.
Werckmeister III is a variant of equal temperament in that Andreas Werckmeister
first considered ET before publishing his first book in 1681.

As much as I love Vallotti for Tartini and Brahms, it is a travesty on
music it was not intended for. I would include Bach in this assessment.

all best in discovering histrorical musical truths with value in
contemporary performance.

Johnny Reinhard

- Vallotti already mentioned his temperament in letters in the 1730's,
decades before Tartini included it in his treatise
- Church organs in Italy were tuned to Vallotti around 1750.

Best,

Claudio
**************The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376998x1201454298/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=M
ay5309AvgfooterNO62)

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@> wrote:
> >
> > - ARE historically important and ARE interchangeable,
> > with their due subtle differences...
>
> http://harpsichords.pbworks.com/f/Young.html
there Table XXI, column A
> "
> C 50000
> B 53224
> Bb 56131
> A 59676
> G# 63148
> G 66822
> E#[sic] 71041
> F 74921
> E 79752
> Eb 84197
> D 89304
> C# 94723
> "
>
or when approximated into todasy more common Cent-units

C_ = 0.0
C# ~ 93.8559854...Cents
D_ ~195.843958...
Eb ~297.791118...
E_ ~391.688875...
F_ ~499.869527...
F# ~591.931446...
G_ ~697.925918...
G# ~795.829263...
A_ ~893.732709...
Bb ~999.756401...
B_ ~1091.82139...
C' =1200

Column 'B' results in seven classes
of sharpnesses in the major-3rds:
"
1 C __ .0013487 * 3987 = ~ 5.38 Cents above 5/4 ~386.31C
2 G, F_ .0019006 * 3987 = ~ 7.58
3 D, Bb .0024525 * 3987 = ~ 9.78
4 A, Eb .0034641 * 3987 = ~ 13.81 ~almost ET ditone ~400C
5 E, Ab .0044756 * 3987 = ~ 17.84
6 B, C# .0049353 * 3987 = ~ 19.68
7 F#,__ .0053950 * 3987 = ~ 21.51 the syntonic-comma 81/80
"
Column 'D' yields three different classes of 5ths respectively:
"
1 Eb, G#, C#, F# .0000000 ~701.96 Cents JI-5th
2 F, Bb, E, B .0004597 ~700.12 Cents
3 C, G, D, A .0010116 ~697.93 Cents
"

Historically viewed,
that sounds well feasible for the 19th century performance,
as possible transition inbetween Kirnberger#2 and ~ET,
but works less apt for the earlier 18th century,
especially it appears to be applied only
rare in the Baroque era,
as by its forerunner-model 'Valotti'.

bye
A.S.

🔗Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>

Dear Andreas,

Temperament in Northern Italy in mid- and late-18th c. was fully surveyed in
Prof. Barbieri's 264pp. treatise "Acustica Accordatura e Temperamento
nell'Illuminismo Veneto", Roma 1987. Throughout the book you find notes on
the very roundabout ways Vallotti's temperament was discussed by him, his
interchange with contemporaries, and later theoreticians. They all discussed
comma fractions and the related group of diatonic tempered fifths
counter-balanced by chromatic almost-pure ones.
Historically therefore, there is no such a thing as Vallotti's monochord: he
did not work using string lengths.
But of course we can nowadays work out a monochord for his temperaments of
which there are no less than 3 variants (diatonic fifths 1/6 S.c. and
chromatic fifths pure except one, same but with uniformly-tempered chromatic
fifths, and diatonic fifths 1/6 P.c. and chromatic fifths pure which is
Young rotated anti-clockwise).

If we use the latest version, we know that, because of the rotation, all the
naturals except F coincide, and F and all the accidentals are different.

We can of course using spreadsheets compute modern string lengths for any of
the above versions, but what do you need them for?

Kind regards,

Claudio
http://temper.braybaroque.ie/

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Andreas Sparschuh
Sent: 04 May 2009 12:47
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Vallotti-Young

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Claudio
Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:
>
> - ARE historically important and ARE interchangeable,
> with their due subtle differences...

Dears Claudio & Johnny,
in order to dtect just that "subtle-differences',
please attend:
Table XXI, ratios in first column:'A':
http://harpsichords <http://harpsichords.pbworks.com/f/Young.html>
.pbworks.com/f/Young.html
"
C 50000
B 53224
Bb 56131
A 59676
G# 63148
G 66822
E#[sic] 71041
F 74921
E 79752
Eb 84197
D 89304
C# 94723
"

That's, when compiled into the modern
http://www.xs4all. <http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/scl_format.html>
nl/~huygensf/scala/scl_format.html

!YoungMonochord.scl
stringlengths in: 'Philosophical Transactions,vol90,London,(1800)'
12
100000/94723 ! C# ~ 93.8559854...Cents
100000/89304 ! D_ ~195.843958...
100000/84197 ! Eb ~297.791118...
100000/79752 ! E_ ~391.688875...
100000/74921 ! F_ ~499.869527...
100000/71041 ! F# ~591.931446... insted of the write fault error "E#"
100000/66822 ! G_ ~697.925918...
100000/63148 ! G# ~795.829263...
100000/59676 ! A_ ~893.732709...
100000/56131 ! Bb ~999.756401...
100000/53224 ! B_ ~1091.82139...
2/1
!
!

Quest:
Does anybody here in that group knows Vallotti's original
corresponding monochord string-length numbers?

bye
A.S.

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:
>
>> - Of course there is not any DIRECT link
>> between Bach and Vallotti,..

Johnny replied:
> On a positive note,
> I agree fully that none of this has anything to do with
> Bach. :)
>
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/04/g-by-any-other-name.html
Quote:
"
....Prof. Lehman may see his "eight or nine of twelve" in C. P. E.'s "most," but it is still not specific evidence of what Lehman sees in the title page squiggle. He is convinced, once again, that the strongest evidence is the C. P. E. Bach's music also "sounds right" when an instrument is tuned to the Lehman system. I stand by my statements above, that there is not sufficient evidentiary information to accept Prof. Lehman's assertion that the squiggle means what he surmises it does. I still think it is an interesting hypothesis, but only a hypothesis.]...
I am not as convinced as they are that Bach's music sounds the best in this system, and even if I were, that judgment is so subjective that it cannot be accepted as evidential. I could easily be convinced that the squiggle means something, because it does appear to have a pattern and that added C is not something that looks completely random to me. However, before we can be sure that Bach meant it to mean something and just how to decode it, we would need something else...."

...than such wild speculations,
that had been proved as untenable,
as barely private wishful-thinking:
http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/613
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/music/tuning/
http://www.hpschd.nu/index.html?nav/nav-4.html&t/welcome.html&http://www.hpschd.nu/tech/tmp/lehman.html
Quote:
"Is this the real Bach temperament? I donât know: There have been many contenders to fill this in the pastâ"some of which weâve discussed here, although not a recent effort extrapolating a temperament from the left hand ornaments contained within a prelude for W.F. Bach. Dr Lehman is as enthusiastic as the others. However, it remains that the squiggle occurs on only a single copy of the music, and you might find its cryptic nature is a little odd if Bach was hoping for wide dissemination and understanding of his Das wohltemperirte Clavier."

https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2006/05_2006/msg00491.html
http://bachtuning.jencka.com/essay.htm
http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?ID=344215
http://www.bavington.nildram.co.uk/temperament.htm
Quote:
"Before I leave Ross Duffinâs book, I must express my disappointment that he has perpetuated the idea that Bradley Lehman has âdiscoveredâ J. S. Bachâs keyboard tuning, encoded in the decorative device on the title page of the 1722 autograph manuscript of the first book of the Well-Tempered Clavier. All that Lehman, and his predecessor Andreas Sparschuh, have shown is that it is possible to interpret the âsquigglesâ as a key to a practical keyboard temperament: there is no evidence to suggest that this was really Bachâs intention. Readers will be left with the impression that the question of Bachâs keyboard tuning has been settled without doubt, which is very far from being the case."
Agreed.
bye
A.S.

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:
> Prof. Barbieri's 264pp. treatise "Acustica Accordatura e
> Temperamento nell'Illuminismo Veneto",
> Roma 1987.
or better his recent
http://www.patriziobarbieri.it/1.htm
or some downloadable articles from his own pages:
http://www.patriziobarbieri.it/works/articles2.htm
especially on that topic:
Barbieri, P.
"Calegari, Vallotti, Riccati e le teorie armoniche di Rameau: priorita, concordanze, contrasti."
Rivista Italiani di Musicologia, 26, 2 (1991): 241-302.
http://www.patriziobarbieri.it/pdf/acustica_contents.pdf

Hence:
All in all i do agree with Prof. Barbieri's
results from his research about
the late Baroque usage of 'Vallotti' within Italy.

>.... Historically therefore,
> there is no such a thing as Vallotti's monochord:
alike in T.Young's later case
>he did not work using string lengths.
Why?
Vallotti had no reason to consider his own tunings in
Young's archic way.

>... Young rotated anti-clockwise).
Because he preferred following the old fashion
to temper 4ths widen broade
(alike C.P.E. Bach before him, J.N.Hummel after him)
instead of 5ths narrow flattend, when persisting
in his conservative view on interval ratios as
quotients of monochord string-lenghts,
instead reciproce ratios of pitches.

But from that mathematically point of view
that both approaches can be easily converted into each-others,
simply by transition to the reciprocial counterpart.

> We can of course using spreadsheets
> compute modern string lengths for any of
> the above versions, but what do you need them for?
Personally in that aspect I follow
Beekman's, Descartes's & Mersenne's
change-over from the obsolete monochord string-lengths
(anti-clockwiese in 4ths)
towards the reverse considering
in absolute frequencies of pitches.
(clock-wise ordered in 5ths)

bye
A.S.

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@...>

Claudio wrote:
> I stand by my previous post.
> IMHO, Vallotti and VallottiYoung:
> - ARE historically important and ARE interchangeable, with their due
> subtle differences

The word "interchangeable" means they don't have differences, "subtle" or otherwise. :) It means all the notes are in the same places. Vallotti, Young 1, and Young 2 are three different layouts.

> - have A LOT to do with Bach's music: I substantiated this in Early
> Music
> back in 1981 and much more detail is shown with full detail in my book.
> - Of course there is not any DIRECT link between Bach and Vallotti,
> or ANY temperament for that matter: all the evidence is circumstancial.
> Some important points:
> - Vallotti's circle of fifths are a "natural" variant of
> Werckmeister III
> - Vallotti's circle of major thirds are similar to temperaments by
> Neidhardt
> - Vallotti already mentioned his temperament in letters in the 1730's,
> decades before Tartini included it in his treatise
> - Church organs in Italy were tuned to Vallotti around 1750.

I'd say that the Werckmeister 3 layout is merely a crude, quick, and lumpy way of converting meantone organs to be *sort of* like the simplest symmetric layouts (i.e. "Vallotti", 70 or more years before Vallotti himself wrote it down, or "Kirnberger 3", more than 100 years before he did), moving as few pipes off their meantone positions as necessary. I already demonstrated that in this article:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/outline.html
and the basic speculative point about organ conversion was in one of Mark Lindley's _New Grove_ articles before that.

But, let's take a step back. I believe some people are over-thinking this. Let's look at some simple and practical points:

- Mid-17th-century keyboard music (music as evidence!) already demands the enharmonic flexibility to play notes interchangeably: A#/Bb, E#/F, D#/Eb, G#/Ab, C#/Db, F#/Gb, and more rarely C/B#. A# and D# are required to play in keys as simple as E minor. Ab and Db come up whenever we start in G minor or C minor (or F minor!) and do normal musical things. (And I say "minor" here, fully aware that it was more modally based than that, but making the point about the *scales* in practical use...and because all those accidentals outside the mode got written in as needed, anyway.) Wherever those enharmonic pairs of notes got used within the same piece, or the same small collection, there was likely some moderate way of tuning so the compromised pitch on that keyboard lever could be played adequately as either named note.

- Good musicians have never needed "permission" from treatises or theoreticians, or any other mathematically-inclined individuals, to do things in practice that sound good in the music they are facing (or composing or improvising).

- The conventional keyboard layout, assuming no split keys, is symmetrical across D. (It's also symmetrical across G#/Ab, but let's see it from the perspective of a natural note.)

- A symmetrical system is easy to do in practice, working symmetrically. It is also easy to check, mirroring the quality of any interval on either side of D, or on either side of G#/Ab.

- Without getting caught up in any numbers, it is easy to tune well by simply listening to and comparing the *quality* of intervals, averaging out their relative spiciness by trial and error...not needing to count any beats.

- Easy systems tend to win, especially with beginners and intermediate musicians.

So, try this one:

- Get middle C from your reference source.

- Tune E from it, a little bit wide from pure...i.e. as much as you know it needs to be, for the next steps to work out...where it's giving a bit of vibrato, but not yet high enough to sound rough.

- Pure E octave down to tenor E.

- Put tenor G#/Ab at the spot where E-G# and Ab-C both sound equally bright and spicy.

- From that Ab, tune pure 5ths or 4ths: Eb, Bb, F. Your F should be pretty good with the C, wobbling a little bit, but gently.

- From that G#, tune pure 5ths or 4ths: C#, F#, B. Your B should be pretty good with the E, wobbling a little bit, but gently.

- Almost done, already. Put middle D midway between Bb and F#, so its quality D-F# and Bb-D is equally spicy.

- Put G where it averages out quality from both C and D.

- Put A where it averages out quality from both D and E.

- Check that all of F-C-G-D-A-E-B by 5ths or 4ths sound similar in quality, all gently impure, but not enough to bother anybody. If something is off, go back a few steps and correct your error.

- Finish the rest of the keyboard by octaves. Check 4ths and 5ths along the way if you want to get really good octaves....

Voila, that's the symmetrical layout (aka "Vallotti") working only by practical listening skills. I did it on a harpsichord this morning in 11 minutes, easily.

And if you want to refine it a little bit, go back to the B and the F. Nudge the B ever so slightly upward so both of E-B and B-F# have a hardly perceptible impurity. Do the same for F, downward, so Bb-F and F-C are both slightly impure (instead of having it all in F-C). Your B-D# and Db-F are now better than they were, at hardly any cost, and you've also made the 5ths F-C and E-B more gently tempered than they were.

Voila, that's Young 1. It even matches up with the way Young described it: "It appears to me, that every purpose may be answered, by making the third C : E too sharp by a quarter of a comma, which will not offend the nicest ear; E : G#, and Ab : C, equal; F# : A# too sharp by a comma; and the major thirds of all the intermediate keys more or less perfect, as they approach more or less to C in the order of modulation. The fifths are perfect enough in every system."

- C to E put as sharp as you know it needs to be, to work out, without offending even the nicest ear....

- G#/Ab midway inside the major 6th E-C.

- F#-A# "too sharp by a comma" because both those notes come from four pure 5ths in succession. (G#-D#-A#, and G#-C#-F#)

- All the other major 3rds going gradually smaller toward C-E, on both sides (around this symmetrical layout).

The circumstantial evidence of *musicianship* suggests that people could have been doing this in the 17th century: because their music requires such flexibility, and because it's so easy to do, without needing any written-down notes about string lengths or commas or any other mathematical apparatus.

Brad Lehman

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

🔗martinsj013 <martinsj@...>

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@> wrote:
>
> > - Easy systems tend to win,
> > especially with beginners and intermediate musicians....
> >.... I did it on a harpsichord this morning in 11 minutes, easily.
>
> But how about more skilled expert tuners among professional
> musicians, that want to invest some more time into an real proper
> neat and clean tempering?
>
> kind regards
> A.S.

"Kind regards" in what universe? Is there a moderator in the house?

I have posted in this group three times this week (after a month off-list, handling other responsibilities), and every one of my postings has been greeted by belittling nonsense against my person from the keyboard of Andreas Sparschuh. Please make it stop.

Mr Sparschuh's quip about "more skilled expert tuners" is uncalled for. He knows very well that I have been tuning harpsichords professionally by ear for more than 25 years, efficiently and with care for detail. The bearing section takes only the first 4 or 5 minutes (with any reasonable temperament!), and all the rest of the work is octaves. [Tables of made-up calculations to the nth decimal place do NOT count as "reasonable" temperaments for that efficient work, though. That's ludicrous, when dealing with harpsichords that are only going to stay in best tune for only a couple of hours at best.]

A point of my posting this morning was simply that "Vallotti" and "Young 1" ARE both very easy to put onto a harpsichord in very few minutes, WITH GOOD ACCURACY and checking all the 5ths and 4ths along the way (as I always do), by a person who knows how to handle a tuning lever.

Other skilled harpsichord tuners here are welcome to corroborate my remarks about the feasibility of speed and accuracy, from their own experience. If it's this easy to perform the task efficiently now, entirely by ear (with no mathematical calculations), why wouldn't it be similarly easy for 17th century musicians to do the same?

Maybe the 17th century experts were even better at it than we are today, because THEIR time wasn't being wasted by personal attacks in public every single time they said something. They were allowed to deliver their expert opinions and their work. And through apprenticeships or guilds, they probably had more focused time available to train their skills, too.

Brad Lehman

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@...> wrote:

> > > - Easy systems tend to win,
> > > especially with beginners and intermediate musicians....
> > >.... I did it on a harpsichord this morning in 11 minutes,
> > > easily.
> >
> > But how about more skilled expert tuners among professional
> > musicians, that want to invest some more time into an real
> > proper neat and clean tempering?
> >
> > kind regards
> > A.S.
>
>
> "Kind regards" in what universe? Is there a moderator in the
> house?

I'm your friendly neighborhood moderator.... mohahaha!

Just kidding. Is this person annoyin' you, ma'am?

Just kidding.

> I have posted in this group three times this week (after a month
> off-list, handling other responsibilities), and every one of my
> postings has been greeted by belittling nonsense against my
> person from the keyboard of Andreas Sparschuh. Please make it
> stop.

Sorry, I didn't see the other posts (you may fwd them to me
offlist if you like). I can't tell if the above is referring
to you specifically or not. Andreas, are you willing to
clarify/apologize?

We don't have active moderation here, but I can make sure that
repeated personal insults don't continue after the offender
has been asked to stop.

-Carl