Fred, Thanks for this characteristically thoughtful and thorough response. It puts many things into perspective for me: Hummel; the integrity with which temperaments may have been realized; and why Neidhardt would be a good choice for Schubert. Alan Eder -----Original Message----- From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> To: caut at ptg.org Sent: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:10 am Subject: Re: [CAUT] temperament for Schubert On Jan 12, 2009, at 9:38 AM, reggaepass at aol.com wrote: > As I begin to delve into historical tunings, based on a cursory > initial glance, it appears that Hummel might have been used by > Schubert, not only because the dates are close enough, but because > Hummel was such a highly regarded pianist and composer who worked in > Schubert's Vienna. What is it, then, that would make Neidhardt's or > Peter Prelleur's temperament's likely candidates? Hummel didn't actually "have a temperament." He simply provided tuning instructions in his treatise on playing the piano, and they are essentially nothing but a circle of 5ths. (The only thing that stands out is his use of an A fork as a starting point instead of C). The intention was essentially equal temperament. Certainly a tuning called "Hummel" would have more of an historical connection, much closer in time and place to Schubert (Neidhardt was 1732). But it seems to me like a waste of time to bother putting Jorgensen's emulation of Hummel's instructions on a piano, as it will sound like ET to virtually anyone. Unless you play through a bunch of interval sequences slowly, you won't be able to distinguish it - try it, maybe your ear is that acute. Mine isn't. I suggested Neidhardt because he was German and quite influential in the German speaking world. I think it likely that at least some of his tuning notions penetrated into the practical world, and, given the rather conservative tendencies of craftsmen, might well have lasted into Schubert's time. As evidence of this notion, we have Broadwood Best #4, a measurement by Ellis in the 1890s of a tuning supposedly done in equal temperament by one of Broadwood's best tuners, but which was actually a pretty strongly flavored well temperament. It is also instructive that Young's temperament was published around 1799, so the notion of temperament with considerable inequality was still in the air in the years just prior to Schubert. The fact is, we have only a vague idea what individual people did in a practical sense. We can only speculate based on a very diverse and contradictory set of evidence. I don't think there is any real way of connecting - securely, with very rare exceptions - any specific tuning to any specific composer with much credibility (though it might make sense to choose ET for Hummel - but who cares <G>). I'll note also that we don't have a very good idea of how the theory - the way people described their tunings - translated into practice. I suspect there was a great deal of variati on. Bottom line, a fairly standard circulating unequal temperament will be the best bet, to do something that will make a musical difference. More piquant, less piquant as a matter of taste. It makes a good story, and good press, to put a name on it, and make as close a historical connection as possible, but I'm not sure how much musical difference it will make. A historical case can be made either way: Schubert in ET (or quasi-ET) or in a WT. If you have time, experiment for various rehearsals, and see what the performers have to say. I'd love to hear about the results. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090112/a619fc03/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC