Re: Reply to Paul Erlich

>Dante, have you tried writing to Mark Rankin at either of the addresses
>posted so far? If not, I volunteer to write him for both of us.

Hi Paul-

No I haven't had a chance. Been too busy refretting my guitar, so if you
want to try writing to him, please do. I'd still be interested to know
about interchangable fretboards.

regards,

dante

Paul said:

> Fifths and fourths arose vocally -- I believe you're absolutely right.
> Tonal music, with functional triads, major and minor keys, and
> modulation -- those only arose in Europe in a specific environment --
> one laden with composers at meantone-tuned keyboards.

Tonal music, in general, seems universal and probably predates God (at least
man's concept of him/her). At the change of the millennium, polyphony was
introduced in Western music, however it was still largely vocal,
particularly in the altus and superius voices, each tuning to the sustained
tenor.

In the Renaissance, often called the "Golden Age of A Cappella," it would
seem that "ear" tuning was still basic. The only keyboards around at that
time, I believe, were rich man's toys (virginals, clavichords, etc.) and
probably were not involved in the very complex and chromatic madrigals of
the late Renaissance.

The important event of the early Baroque period was the "revolution" toward
homophonic texture, largely due to the incorporation of the harpsichord (and
organ) in the "new style" (as Monteverdi called it). By the middle of the
seventeenth century, instrumental music flourished, largely because of the
invention of the sweet sounding and incredibly flexible violin. This must
have created quite a dilemma for music makers--whether to let the strings
tune to each other or confine these young stallions to the tuning "corral"
of the problematic keyboards. What would you have done? (As you can see, I
don't necessarily place a lot of stock in what historians say. They (like
me) often tend to approach a subject from a "point of view.")

> Even in the
> century before Monteverdi, the triadic language was to some extent
> predicated on the compromises of meantone -- see Blackwood's book.
> Jerry, if this issue interests you (and since you are an author), I
> suggest you at least read Daniel Wolf's recent, and Margo Schulter's
> forthcoming, comments on this issue.

I'm sure you are right, and I will put these readings on my long list of
pressing things to do. At least I should know what these folks have to say.
Clearly, you value their contributions and that speaks loudly to me.
>
> Particularly interesting for you, though on a slightly different
> topic, would be for you to read the comments of musicians in various
> decades of the 18th century on the issue of temperament. Many of them
> were clearly as attuned to the tuning practices of their time as you
> are to those of today, and reading their reactions, and the way their
> reactions change between the 1720s and 1750s may force you to
> reconsider your apparent assumption about the level of ignorance with
> respect to tuning that existed among musicians at that time.
> Jorgenson's big book _Tuning_ contains a few enlightening quotes along
> these lines.

I didn't mean that I think historical musicians were unaware of tuning
issues. I simply think that there would have been many, like many musicians
today, who understood the theory and then did what they "heard." I have
observed, in many arenas of life, that what people _think they do is not
always _what they do.

I'm not saying the authorities you cite are "wrong." I simply am filtering
the ideas through my own first-hand observations of "real life." I think
that is what an "education" is all about. On topics of which I have little
experience, I'll believe anything.

Thanks for the suggested readings. I'll do my best to get to them.

Jerry