[CAUT] Montal's book

[Fred Sturm]

On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:22 PM, A440A at aol.com wrote:

>    Umm,  I have a question.  How many other theorists, instrument  
> builders,
> pianists, critics, or tuners wrote anything about Claude Montal and  
> his work?
> I think that is the way we would want to measure his influence, not  
> by how
> nicely his book was produced.  So far, it seems that he is being  
> considered as
> the be-all and end-all of piano technology, but who else cites him?

Hi Ed,
	How about stepping back just a wee bit. My writing about Montal was  
prompted by the following statement, posted by you:

  "it is doubtful that Montal's influence was all that
widespread. His book is rare, mention of his work is scant, (so far as  
I have been able
to Google).  In comparison, Thomas Young was well enough known, in a  
variety
of fields,  to have been able to present his temperament to the Royal  
Academy.
When you have entrance to the highest levels like that, I think the odds
favor wider acceptance, especially since Valotti paved the way."

	I have presented factual evidence to show that Montal's work was  
widely available, and a few notes about the relative public knowledge  
of Young and Valotti. I''ll let those facts speak for themselves, and  
readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not your  
statement, quoted above, was accurate.
	This discussion began as an investigation into appropriate tuning for  
Schubert, with Chopin more or less added as being contemporary. I  
believe that the history of Montal and of his book demonstrate that a  
refined ET was possible at that time. Both Bill Garlick and Richard  
Moody have gone on record saying that Montal's method could create a  
very close approximation to ET, one close enough to pass the PTG test  
(Jorgensen's threshold). I agree with their assessment. Montal's  
method was available both in France and in German speaking lands  
during the time of Schubert and Chopin. Hence, I believe that one can  
say with assuredness that ET would be historically appropriate as a  
tuning for either composer.
	I don't say that it would be the only historically appropriate  
method, and I stand by my recommendation of possible tunings for  
Schubert. They would be more interesting and instructive, as well as  
being historically appropriate. The musicians and the audience can  
decide whether the alternative tuning enhances, detracts or does  
nothing to the music.

	I'll also return here to a post by Alan Eder:

"The underlying issue for the pianist in question re: Schubert is  
really whether or not ET is historically appropriate.  According to  
Jorgensen--and contrary what this pianist is being taught (at the  
doctoral level, no less)--, the answer is no.  Beyond that, it is, as  
you point out, a matter of conjecture.  Though we will never know what  
keyboard composers of centuries past were hearing when they played a  
certain chord or made a modulation, we do know that prior to the  
twentieth century, they WERE hearing non-homogenized harmonies."

	The dominant view expressed on this list over the years has been that  
stated by Alan, very nicely and succinctly. I am providing a contrary  
view, and doing my best to back it with evidence rather than merely  
with rhetoric.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu