the system we use today

Joseph Pehrson posted:

> For this reason, in meantone, Db, on the left of the scale becomes *HIGHER*
> than the corresponding enharmonic C#. This actually corresponds to more
> how we would think today in 12-tET where it would seem that a Db should be
> higher in performance than a C#. This also makes a lot of sense since
> meantone is *essentially* the system we use today, with the Pythagorean
> comma "ironed" a little differently and spread evenly as 12v 2...

Don't tell the string players. It'll ruin their day. They appear to believe
(evidenced by their performance) that C# is higher than Db.

I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
normally tuned higher than lowered pitches. It has been rather shocking to
discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.

Jerry

Think of it this way: in pythagorean (orchestral strings are tuned in
fifths) sharps are higher than flats; in five limit just intonation and
meantone (which has just Major thirds) flats are higher than thirds. This
contrast is especially apparent in the low leading tones in early music
performance with meantone continuo accompaniment and the raised leading
tones in romantic-era string melodies. Each alternative is a historically
legitimate expressive practice, but jarring when applied to the wrong
melody. It would be hard, for example to imagine Purcell played with
exaggeratedly high leading tones.

Daniel Wolf

> From: "Gerald Eskelin" <stg3music@earthlink.net>
>
> Joseph Pehrson posted:
>
> > For this reason, in meantone, Db, on the left of the scale becomes
*HIGHER*
> > than the corresponding enharmonic C#. This actually corresponds to more
> > how we would think today in 12-tET where it would seem that a Db should
be
> > higher in performance than a C#. This also makes a lot of sense since
> > meantone is *essentially* the system we use today, with the Pythagorean
> > comma "ironed" a little differently and spread evenly as 12v 2...
>
> Don't tell the string players. It'll ruin their day. They appear to
believe
> (evidenced by their performance) that C# is higher than Db.
>
> I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
> normally tuned higher than lowered pitches. It has been rather shocking to
> discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
> folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.
>
> Jerry

Jerry wrote,

>I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
>normally tuned higher than lowered pitches. It has been rather shocking to
>discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
>folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.

Rather than "ivory tower", I'd call it "historical awareness". In Telemann's
time the difference between sharps and flats was quite consciously realized
by musicians, and the tendency was quite the opposite of what it is today --
Ab was slightly higher than G#, etc. In fact, Handel played on three organs,
two with 14 notes per octave, and one with 16 notes per octave. The reason
for the "extra" notes was to differentiate notes that today are
"enharmonically equivalent," and for Handel, flats were indeed higher than
the corresponding sharps.

Dan Wolf suggested:
>
> Think of it this way: in pythagorean (orchestral strings are tuned in
> fifths) sharps are higher than flats; in five limit just intonation and
> meantone (which has just Major thirds) flats are higher than thirds. This
> contrast is especially apparent in the low leading tones in early music
> performance with meantone continuo accompaniment and the raised leading
> tones in romantic-era string melodies. Each alternative is a historically
> legitimate expressive practice, but jarring when applied to the wrong
> melody. It would be hard, for example to imagine Purcell played with
> exaggeratedly high leading tones.

In the interest of courtesy and thoroughness, I will give some more thought
to the idea of piled-up fifths influencing the tuning of thirds, however my
gut instinct is that the "solution" is more immediate than that. It seems a
real stretch to me to think that human ears hear in such terms. What
fascinates scientists and music theorists many not always apply to practical
perception.

Bottom line: I'm listening, but holding the information in reserve until
some future "missing link" shows up to make it meaningful in a practical
sense.

Regarding style, I'll post some period excerpts today (I have it off and my
"honey, do" wife is golfing all day) that might be interesting in regard to
the high third.

Thanks, Dan

Jerry

This is exactly the difference that Charles Ives intended for interpreting
his notation.

> Think of it this way: in pythagorean (orchestral strings are tuned in
> > fifths) sharps are higher than flats; in five limit just intonation and
> > meantone (which has just Major thirds) flats are higher than thirds.

Since there have been many eras and many places that have had simultaneous
tuning paradigms in their immediate geographical locations, why not now?

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

To my post:
>
>>I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
>>normally tuned higher than lowered pitches. It has been rather shocking to
>>discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
>>folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.

Paul Erlich replied:
>
> Rather than "ivory tower", I'd call it "historical awareness". In Telemann's
> time the difference between sharps and flats was quite consciously realized
> by musicians, and the tendency was quite the opposite of what it is today --
> Ab was slightly higher than G#, etc.

How can you be sure that the string players of Telemann's time "quite
consciously realized" the tuning of the keyboards of the time. Today, string
players don't always confine their tuning to an accompanying piano. Just
because the musical intelligencia of historical periods advocated certain
tunings, it does not logically follow that instruments with flexible tuning
restricted their tuning to follow suit (even if they accommodatingly said so
in print). Unlike singers, string players learn their craft in isolation,
away from the influence of keyboards, where they are much more likely to
"listen to mother nature."

> In fact, Handel played on three organs,
> two with 14 notes per octave, and one with 16 notes per octave. The reason
> for the "extra" notes was to differentiate notes that today are
> "enharmonically equivalent," and for Handel, flats were indeed higher than
> the corresponding sharps.

I'm aware of the mechanical options available to Handel and others. However,
keyboard tunings are irrelevant to the basic issue here.

Thanks Paul,

Jerry

Daniel Wolf wrote,

>> Think of it this way: in pythagorean (orchestral strings are tuned in
>> fifths) sharps are higher than flats; in five limit just intonation and
>> meantone (which has just Major thirds) flats are higher than [sharps].
This
>> contrast is especially apparent in the low leading tones in early music
>> performance with meantone continuo accompaniment and the raised leading
>> tones in romantic-era string melodies. Each alternative is a historically
>> legitimate expressive practice, but jarring when applied to the wrong
>> melody. It would be hard, for example to imagine Purcell played with
>> exaggeratedly high leading tones.

Jerry wrote:

>In the interest of courtesy and thoroughness, I will give some more thought
>to the idea of piled-up fifths influencing the tuning of thirds, however my
>gut instinct is that the "solution" is more immediate than that. It seems a
>real stretch to me to think that human ears hear in such terms. What
>fascinates scientists and music theorists many not always apply to
practical
>perception.

One does not need to suppose that human ears hear in terms of piled-up
fifths in order to ascertain the enharmonic distinctions appropriate to
various styles. Ironically, Jerry, a strict application of "piled-up fifths"
leads to Pythagorean tuning, which is the only system (out of Pyth.,
meantone, and various classic JI systems) that _agrees_ with of what you
"have 'known' all [your] early and professional life" -- G# being higher
than Ab, etc.

>Unlike singers, string players learn their craft in isolation,
>away from the influence of keyboards, where they are much more likely to
>"listen to mother nature."

So you still think the "high third" comes from "mother nature"?

>I'm aware of the mechanical options available to Handel and others.
However,
>keyboard tunings are irrelevant to the basic issue here.

Have you read Daniel Wolf's reply and Margo's preview of a reply to the
issue of whether tonal music arose from tempered instruments or from
free-pitch instruments? I really think you are operating under an inaccurate
picture of how this music developed. Anyway, Handel probably composed his
choral works at the organ (or other keyboard) -- are you suggesting that the
enharmonic relations in these works would naturally assume a reversed
direction relative to how Handel heard them if performed by an unaccompanied
choir?

>From: "Gerald Eskelin" <stg3music@earthlink.net>
>
> Today, string
>players don't always confine their tuning to an accompanying piano. Just
>because the musical intelligencia of historical periods advocated certain
>tunings, it does not logically follow that instruments with flexible tuning
>restricted their tuning to follow suit (even if they accommodatingly said so
>in print).

Here's something Paul Hindemith had to say about the matter:

"A sensitive string player will always find greater pleasure in chamber
music for strings alone than in music with piano, and the latter seems the
less pleasant, the more stringed instruments are set against the piano. In
piano quartets and quintets, the group of instruments capable of pure
intonation holds the balance even against the tempered instrument.
Adjustments of the movable tuning to the fixed, which can be made in
smaller combinations, are hardly possible in such groups. ... The pitches
of a single instrument capable of pure intonation, on the other hand, are
easily adapted to the piano (which "gives the pitch") although mostly
without the player's being conscious of the fact."

Paul Hindemith, "The Craft of Musical Composition, Book 1: Theory", p. 29

John Link

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

The CD "Live at Saint Peter's" by the JOHN LINK VOCAL QUINTET is now available!
To purchase the CD visit www.johnlinkmusic.com, or write to johnlink@con2.com.

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

>> Joseph Pehrson posted:
>>
>>> For this reason, in meantone, Db, on the left of the scale becomes *HIGHER*
>>> than the corresponding enharmonic C#. This actually corresponds to more
>>> how we would think today in 12-tET where it would seem that a Db should be
>>> higher in performance than a C#. This also makes a lot of sense since
>>> meantone is *essentially* the system we use today, with the Pythagorean
>>> comma "ironed" a little differently and spread evenly as 12v 2...

To which I replied:
>>
>> Don't tell the string players. It'll ruin their day. They appear to believe
>> (evidenced by their performance) that C# is higher than Db.

To which Wim Hoogewerf stated:
>
> This is exactly the example I wanted to mention for some time. As an
> occasional banjoist I sometimes play the Gershwin repertory with classical
> symphony orchestras.

What a hoot! (Is that a good term or what!?!)

> As far as I could discover their intonation is more
> based on Pythagorean principles than on meantone.

Why Pythagorean, Wim? Just because the historians suggested it? (If so,
okay; if not, why?) God knows, the natural ear does not operate on meantone.
It may be that there is more to the story than "history." What if human
perception operates on principles not yet known? How exciting to be "in the
hunt."

> Emmanuel Krivine,
> conductor of the Orchestre National de Lyon spotted a C# in the flute part,
> which apparently sounded too high (C#s on flutes *are* already higher than
> usual). The C# was a long note played as a major third in a tenuto A major
> chord. So, what did he ask the flute player? I was sitting right next to her
> and I was astonished. "Could yoy please play that note as if it was a Db?"
> That's what she did and the A major sounded perfectly in tune!

Wow! Too bad you didn't have a tape recorder in your lap to capture the
moment. That would bring the "team" to life, for sure.

Me:

>> I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
>> normally tuned higher than lowered pitches.

Wim:

> That's the result of the Pythagorean approach.

Not really. I never heard of Pythogoras during the early time that my
musical ear was developing (and I'm not crazy about the notion of
piled-up-fifths influencing perception). No "approach" was suggested by
anyone. I simply
listened to the way pitches seemed to fit together. As a young group singer
(choral and barbershop), I simply followed my aural instincts.

> Andreas Stoehr (Paris,
> conductor at the Op®¢F°ßra Comique) *tuned* the string section in The
> Emperor of Atlantis (Victor Ullman) by imposing: "The sharps should be higher
> and the flats are not low enough". The strings played the same passage again >
> and there was no real improvement. And then it was time for a coffee-break.

Again, a recording might be illuminating.
>
>> It has been rather shocking to
>> discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
>> folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.
>
> I do conclude that it's shocking for you that experienced musicans believe
> that raised pitches are normally tuned *lower* than lowered pitches. Is that
> how your last sentence should be understood?

As Regis Philbin would say, "You got it _right!"

Jerry

Keyboard tunings are very basic in this case, because the music we are
talking about was always accompanied by a continuo ensemble (a bass
instrument + organ, harpsichord or a plucked and fretted string instrument).
If you really think otherwise, then please give us some examples of vocal
music by H�ndel without continuo to discuss.

Daniel Wolf

.
>
> I'm aware of the mechanical options available to Handel and others.
However,
> keyboard tunings are irrelevant to the basic issue here.
>
> Thanks Paul,
>
> Jerry

Even without the contributions of xenharmonists and other alternative tuning
specialists, the conventional concert world enjoys a variety of tunings.
The old establishment in conservatory training (and especially Russian
string players) did indeed emphasize raised sharps and leading tones in the
pythagorean fashion, theory in hand or not. For a certain amount of
repertoire, this is probably (for better or worse) the "authentic"
performance practice, and it is very likely that Mr. Eskelin's training was
in this tradition. Alternatively, for playing Schoenberg's twelve-tone
music, music quite conciously built around properties of 12tet, violinist
Rudolph Kolisch insisted on tuning his a to the piano and then proceed to
tune the g, d, and e to the piano as well, insuring that the fifths matched
the tempered keyboard. And finally, the advent of the early music movement
has led to a significant number of players who _are_ able to tune Major
thirds narrowly, to keep leading tones low, matching whatever tuning the
harpsichordist happened to come up with before the concert.

Daniel Wolf

> I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
> normally tuned higher than lowered pitches. It has been rather shocking to
> discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
> folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.
>
> Jerry

>From: "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf@snafu.de>
>
>Alternatively, for playing Schoenberg's twelve-tone
>music, music quite conciously built around properties of 12tet, violinist
>Rudolph Kolisch insisted on tuning his a to the piano and then proceed to
>tune the g, d, and e to the piano as well, insuring that the fifths matched
>the tempered keyboard.

I tend to agree with this and Lou Harrison's view that 12tet is implicit in
Schoenberg's atonality. However, I was in a class taught by Bryan Simms,
and he pointed out that, for whatever reason, one big difference between
Schoenberg's sketches/rough drafts and the final versions of his 12-tone
pieces was enharmonic spellings. As I recall, he could propose no
consistent reason for the changes sometimes, so a string player in the
class suggested that the difference lie in Schoenberg's desire for a
different tuning "shades" -- sharper sharps and flatter flats. There being
little evidence one way or the other, Simms did not dispute this
hypothesis, but acknowledged it as a possibility. Sounds like a good topic
for some Austrian researcher now that the Schoenberg Institute is over
there.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bill!
I remember that maybe either the violin or piano concerto Arnie would
alternate pages using either all sharps or all flats since he could not decide!

ALVES@ORION.AC.HMC.EDU wrote:

> From: ALVES@ORION.AC.HMC.EDU
>
> >From: "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf@snafu.de>
> >
> >Alternatively, for playing Schoenberg's twelve-tone
> >music, music quite conciously built around properties of 12tet, violinist
> >Rudolph Kolisch insisted on tuning his a to the piano and then proceed to
> >tune the g, d, and e to the piano as well, insuring that the fifths matched
> >the tempered keyboard.
>
> I tend to agree with this and Lou Harrison's view that 12tet is implicit in
> Schoenberg's atonality. However, I was in a class taught by Bryan Simms,
> and he pointed out that, for whatever reason, one big difference between
> Schoenberg's sketches/rough drafts and the final versions of his 12-tone
> pieces was enharmonic spellings. As I recall, he could propose no
> consistent reason for the changes sometimes, so a string player in the
> class suggested that the difference lie in Schoenberg's desire for a
> different tuning "shades" -- sharper sharps and flatter flats. There being
> little evidence one way or the other, Simms did not dispute this
> hypothesis, but acknowledged it as a possibility. Sounds like a good topic
> for some Austrian researcher now that the Schoenberg Institute is over
> there.
>
> Bill
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
> ^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
> ^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
> ^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shabang!com is the place to get your FREE eStore, Absolutely FREE
> Forever. If you have any desires to sell your products or services
> online, or you want to expand your customer base for FREE, Come check
> out Shabang!com FREE eStores!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1299/0/_/239029/_/951015873/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

Johnny Reinhard offered:

> Since there have been many eras and many places that have had simultaneous
> tuning paradigms in their immediate geographical locations, why not now?

Of course! The "problem" here is to some extent created by the wording of
the "subject" of this thread. None of us would argue that there is only one
tuning "system" in use today. Also, may I suggest that the same is possible,
if not likely, in those historical periods in which meantone was touted as
the prevailing "norm."

Jerry

Paul Erlich responded to my post:
>
> Ironically, Jerry, a strict application of "piled-up fifths"
> leads to Pythagorean tuning, which is the only system (out of Pyth.,
> meantone, and various classic JI systems) that _agrees_ with of what you
> "have 'known' all [your] early and professional life" -- G# being higher
> than Ab, etc.

Ironic, perhaps. But I know you well enough (I think) that you wouldn't
logically conclude from this that it must therefore explain the high third.
>
>>Unlike singers, string players learn their craft in isolation,
>>away from the influence of keyboards, where they are much more likely to
>>"listen to mother nature."
>
> So you still think the "high third" comes from "mother nature"?

I don't where the high third comes from. My point here is only that string
players are not as likely to be influenced by keyboards as are singers.
That's _all. The question of the "high third" is relevant here (as far as I
know).
>
>>I'm aware of the mechanical options available to Handel and others.
> However,
>>keyboard tunings are irrelevant to the basic issue here.
>
> Have you read Daniel Wolf's reply and Margo's preview of a reply to the
> issue of whether tonal music arose from tempered instruments or from
> free-pitch instruments? I really think you are operating under an inaccurate
> picture of how this music developed.

I'm sure that exchange would be interesting, but time restraints being what
they are, I can't afford the luxury. The reason I assume that it may not be
relevant is that tonal music appears to have been developed vocally in most
world cultures. Sure, that is an assumption on my part, but I am choosing to
believe that instruments--whether tempered or free--had little to do with
the development of tonal music. My experience with "new ears" (as opposed to
"tone deaf) shows that they frequently sing a fourth or fifth below a given
pitch to be matched. I find that very significant and relevant to the point.
I have to believe that the ancients "discovered" tonal music in a similar
way.

> Anyway, Handel probably composed his
> choral works at the organ (or other keyboard) -- are you suggesting that the
> enharmonic relations in these works would naturally assume a reversed
> direction relative to how Handel heard them if performed by an unaccompanied
> choir?

No. I'm just suggesting that keyboard tuning was and is irrelevant to the
way ears tend to tune music if left to their own devices. Very likely,
"mistuned" keyboards in Handel's day were a bane to vocal tuning, just as
they are today.

Jerry

John Link contributed:

> Here's something Paul Hindemith had to say about the matter:
>
> "A sensitive string player will always find greater pleasure in chamber
> music for strings alone than in music with piano, and the latter seems the
> less pleasant, the more stringed instruments are set against the piano. In
> piano quartets and quintets, the group of instruments capable of pure
> intonation holds the balance even against the tempered instrument.
> Adjustments of the movable tuning to the fixed, which can be made in
> smaller combinations, are hardly possible in such groups. ... The pitches
> of a single instrument capable of pure intonation, on the other hand, are
> easily adapted to the piano (which "gives the pitch") although mostly
> without the player's being conscious of the fact."
>
> Paul Hindemith, "The Craft of Musical Composition, Book 1: Theory", p. 29

Thanks, John. Hindemith is definitely one of my heroes. It's very troubling
to me that his view of tonal intervals has been ignored in traditional music
theory textbooks.

Jerry

Dan Stearns said in response to my post:
>
> Keyboard tunings are very basic in this case, because the music we are
> talking about was always accompanied by a continuo ensemble (a bass
> instrument + organ, harpsichord or a plucked and fretted string instrument).
> If you really think otherwise, then please give us some examples of vocal
> music by H�ndel without continuo to discuss.

Of course I do not think otherwise. Nearly all music in Handel's day
included a continuo. However, when the keyboard of choice was not an organ
the quickly decaying sounds would allow singers to seek an optimum tuning
(assuming they chose to do so). When an organ was imposing its sustained
pitches, singers would have little choice but to join it. The same is true
today in regard to 12-tET instruments.

Jerry

Dan Strearns offered:

> Even without the contributions of xenharmonists and other alternative tuning
> specialists, the conventional concert world enjoys a variety of tunings.

Of course. Indeed, there are a variety of tunings within a single orchestral
performance given the variety of ears sitting in the ensemble. Most
conductors I have observed today simply say "please tune that up" and seldom
offer any specifics regarding how. If it sounds "good," print it. It's
mainly theorists, microtonalists, piano tuners and idiots like me who could
give a rip about _which tuning system is the prevailing standard.

> The old establishment in conservatory training (and especially Russian
> string players) did indeed emphasize raised sharps and leading tones in the
> pythagorean fashion, theory in hand or not. For a certain amount of
> repertoire, this is probably (for better or worse) the "authentic"
> performance practice, and it is very likely that Mr. Eskelin's training was
> in this tradition.

I had no early training one way or the other.

> Alternatively, for playing Schoenberg's twelve-tone
> music, music quite conciously built around properties of 12tet, violinist
> Rudolph Kolisch insisted on tuning his a to the piano and then proceed to
> tune the g, d, and e to the piano as well, insuring that the fifths matched
> the tempered keyboard.

That makes a lot of sense (and a few cents, as well) :-) It would be
interesting to know how "tempered" the sonorities were "on the fly" as
Kolisch placed his fingers on the fretless keyboard. While the intent here
is admirable, it doesn't necessarily follow that the ear was faithfully
ignored when "chords" were sustained.

> And finally, the advent of the early music movement
> has led to a significant number of players who _are_ able to tune Major
> thirds narrowly, to keep leading tones low, matching whatever tuning the
> harpsichordist happened to come up with before the concert.

I'm sure this is true. Paul has made a strong point of this. My only thought
is that there is a danger in assuming that string players in historical
periods were more careful then than now in tuning to keyboards. It might be
a good assumption, but then again it may not. I don't really care very much
one way or the other. It just seems a bit suspicious, and perhaps naive.
That's all. No big deal. Take it or leave it.

Jerry

[Gerald Eskelin:]
>Dan Stearns said in response to my post:

> >Keyboard tunings are very basic in this case, because the music we
are talking about was always accompanied by a continuo ensemble . . .

Hey Jerry, just for the record, that's actually a response from Daniel
Wolf to one of your posts.

Dan (the other Dan) Stearns

This was a topic a while back on the list. Schoenberg's letter to Yasser
shows that he really wanted equal temperament (and not "nature" as he put
it). The performances by Kolisch (Schoenberg's brother in law) and
Steuermann of the _Fantasie_ and the Kolisch Quartet of the complete
quartets are models of just how close string players can come to 12tet.

Daniel Wolf

>
> > Alternatively, for playing Schoenberg's twelve-tone
> > music, music quite conciously built around properties of 12tet,
violinist
> > Rudolph Kolisch insisted on tuning his a to the piano and then proceed
to
> > tune the g, d, and e to the piano as well, insuring that the fifths
matched
> > the tempered keyboard.
>