Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:50:04 -0600 From: David Doremus <algiers_piano at bellsouth.net> wrote: > > A440A at aol.com wrote: > > The important thing is that the tuning increase the emotional effect of > > the music, and not call attention to itself. That means that there is a > > limit when deciding how wide the thirds are allowed to be. This limit depends > on > > the instrument, (with the modern piano arguing for less dissonance than a > > fortepiano or harpsichord), how the composer used the 'color' in the > temperament, > > and the audience's expectations. > > Hi Ed, I might argue somewhat the opposite. I learned to tune non equal > temperaments on the harpsichord and the thirds are much more prominent > there than they are on the relatively less brilliant piano. This may not > apply to some of the asian PSOs I've tuned in marble foyers...<sigh>.. > But I actually do think the pianos can take quite a bit more crunchiness > in the thirds than harpsichords or organs, a pure third on the organ > sounds stunning, on a piano it just sounds lifeless. ET thirds > throughout a harpsichord are almost unbearable. JMHO! > > > --Dave > New Orleans Dave, Thanks, Dave. This factor is usually missing from temperament discussions among piano tuners: that the musical affect of a given temperament is quite different from instrument type to instrument type. The corollary is, when used on a modern piano, does a given temperament (even if "historically accurate") even approximate what the composer heard or intended? In the so called "historical performance" world, any pretense to "authenticity" or "historical accuracy" has long ago been abandoned as impossible. After all, there is no way to hear how the music sounded back then - and isolated written sources simply cannot be taken as representative of general practice. Perhaps these were the writings of some maverick swimming against the stream? Or an isolated local practice? And how accurately do these words (or numbers) describe actual practice? And how accurately do we actually understand what the author intended to write? So in that musical milieu - as far as I know - the prevalent notion is "historically informed performance". In other words, a guess at what might have occurred back then sometimes, based on the best available scholarship - and heavily seasoned by considerations dictated by the need to "put on a good show" for a 21st century audience... So I find some of these crusades for older temperaments on modern pianos justified by h istorical precedent quite silly. The bottom line is, if the musical affect is pleasing - then it's worth doing, history notwithstanding. Just another way to enjoy the music. Speaking of Schubert, back in Boston I took care of a Schubert-era Rosenberger transitional Viennese fortepiano for the Director of the Historical Performance Department at the Longy School. Built in 1825-30 or so, I believe. Quite a bit lower tension than the modern instrument - so a much weaker fundamental and much stronger middle overtones. Much more prominent thirds - and much more obvious key differences in WT. Approaching this from a musical standpoint - are key differences relevant to musical expression in Schubert? Is he modulating in order to express a different feeling - or is he running the same melodic material through a whole bunch of different keys in order to demonstrate how cleverly he can do it? In the former case, he would be interested in accentuating the key differences - hence WT. In the latter case, the more outlying keys would be rather unpleasant to listen to - in which case he would be more likely to favor something approaching ET. Any takers out there for this approach? I am not a Schubert expert by any means... Israel Stein
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC