Fred, Thank you for the thorough and sensible exposition of the folly of trying to definitively match specific tempering systems with specific figures in music history. Or even specific time frames. The bottom line is - it's all conjectural. Just because some scholar publishes a description of a tempering system on a particular date means little in terms of what actually was used when and where... Just to put it all in even greater perspective, there is a letter in existence from an English musician complaining about the prevalence of that "ugly equal temperament" on the continent dated - 1877... Tells you about how prevalent the use of older tuning systems was among musicians and how much "newfangled" tuning systems may have been ignored or resisted. Anyone remember Ludwig, one of the concert tuners at Steinway? (he was there in the 80's and 90's, as far as I know). He came from Romania. On one of his visits to Boston someone got him into a conversation about historical temperaments. He was interested - so they tuned something for him - I don't remember which temperament. He listened to it and said something like "...that's how they taught me to tune back in Romania..." Israel Stein Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:10 am Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote: > ? 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- > 0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:53:56 -0700 > From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> > Subject: Re: [CAUT] temperament for Schubert > To: caut at ptg.org > Message-ID: <2F1B4A90-81B4-4E73-B3E9-979BF2DA259E at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:08 PM, reggaepass at aol.com wrote: > > > 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 > Just one more note about all this, having to do with Hummel's > attitude. There is a quote in Jorgensen's book (I happen to be tuning > in the studio of a piano prof who has the book on his shelf, hence my > seemingly encyclopedic knowledge <G>), where Hummel notes the various > tuning systems published by several authors, and says that they were > more appropriate for earlier instruments (including early pianos with > bichord stringing). Because the "modern" piano has thicker strings and > more of them, he says a different tuning system is needed, one that is > easier to accomplish: > > "The complicated propositions laid down by these authors, cannot now > be so easily put into practice, and we are compelled to adopt a system > of temperament by which tuning is made much more easy and convenient. > That such is the case appears evident, since many who profess to be > tuners can hardly be said to have an ear so acute as to discriminate > with the requisite nicety the minute deviations in the different > chords of the unequal temperaments proposed by the authors." > > I think this is very telling. Hummel was one of the most important > composers of his time (Schubert was dwarfed by comparison, in his > lifetime), and he is saying essentially that ET is good enough, and > that he doesn't really care about the niceties of the theoreticians. > Certainly makes you think. > BTW, the other person I mentioned, Peter Prelleur, I like > particularly because he was a practical musician, not a theoretician > (like Neidhardt). So perhaps what he has to say about tuning has more > basis in reality. Most writing about tuning comes from theoreticians, > figuring things out mathematically and fiddling with their monochords. > Prelleur was English, same time as Neidhardt. > > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CAUT mailing list > CAUT at ptg.org > http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut_ptg.org > > > End of CAUT Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 > ***********************************
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC