Historical repertoire in 31t-ET [fearless dumb question]

In the category of "fearless dumb question," I would like to ask about the
following post by Paul Erlich:

Paul Erlich TD 547:23:

>If we need to choose a single tuning for this "revival", I'd like to
>suggest 31-tET. The advantages of a closed system proved strong enough
>to elevate 12-tET to the only tuning our culture has really known for
>150 years. Now that Fokker's organ, Catler's guitar, and the advent of
>electronics have proven the practicability of a 31-tone system, we
>have the opportunity to institute an alternative which can both
>redress the damage that has been done to the performance of 16th-18th
>century music, and open the floodgates for future possibilities
>involving 7-11-limit harmonies, Arabian scales, microtonal effects,
>etc. etc. The difference, to my ears, between any of the "optimal"
>meantone temperaments and 31-tET in the historical repertoire is
>negligible.

It's terrific to think of 31t-ET, a "circulating" or modulating 1/4 comma
meantone system, as conceivably "supplanting" 12t-ET as a "de facto" system
for both past and future musics, but is it practical to perform historical
repertoire on 31-tET keyboards?

Does this involve some kind of "mapping" of pitches where only *some* of
the 31 pitches are "mapped" onto a 12-note keyboard??... That doesn't make
sense, though, since the "normal" 1/4 comma meantone system would already
do that... (??)

If the keyboards are very different from 12 notes per octave, doesn't that
jeopardize the frequency of performances... or am I getting this all wrong
(??)

Certainly people are not being asked to perform traditional composers like
Handel on a keyboard with 31 keys... or *ARE* they?? I would expect
resistance to such a proposal.

Signed,

"Confused"

_______________ ________ ______ ____ __ _ _ _
Joseph Pehrson
]