On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:30 AM, A440A at aol.com wrote:
>
> My arguement is not a polemic because of what I said, but,
> rather, how it
> was received.
The word polemic can be applied to me just as well: it simply means
using language in a persuasive way, and I do that just as Ed Foote
does. I stand by my characterization of Ed's approach as being "anti-
scholarly." A "true scholar," in my idealization of the term, means
someone who maintains an open, inquiring, skeptical mind, and who
follows the evidence, all the evidence, wherever it may lead. A true
scholar does not make up his or her mind and then look for evidence in
support and ignore evidence that contradicts. (There are lots of
examples among the scholarly community of people who aren't "true
scholars" by my definition. But the process of scholarly argument and
peer review means that the final result tends very much in the
direction of "true scholarship").
None of us on this list is a true expert on the subject of the
history of tuning, especially not in the detail needed to give
informed opinion about specific areas of Europe during specific
periods of time (and the 19th century in particular). We must, to some
extent, rely on "authority." How do we choose the authority to rely
upon? One way is to find out who has credibility of peers in the
field. Another is to take a look at the works of such a person, and
judge from what you see.
Patrizio Barbieri appears to be accepted universally among the
fractious people who concern themselves with historical tuning as an
authority and as a straight shooter - someone without an axe to grind,
but who simply tells it like it is. He has done a prodigious amount of
original research, much of it in Italy. It is cited in books and
articles throughout the field. I have looked at some of his articles
myself, and I am very impressed, both by his thoroughness and by his
judgment. His article on Equal Temperament in the Florence of
Frescobaldi's time is a case in point, examining all the written
evidence, looking at it in the light of physical and circumstantial
evidence, and drawing reasoned conclusions.
Owen Jorgensen, on the other hand, is not viewed by tuning scholars
as an authority, or as a reliable source. There are objections to his
methodology, to his selective use of materials, to his lack of
inclusion of critical sources (where are Werckmeister and Neidhardt,
for example?). In short, he is not taken seriously in the field,
except by many of his fellow piano tuners. His work suffered from lack
of peer review: it was not subjected to the type of critical analysis
that scholarly works receive in general. There were a couple of
reviews slamming his book in the German scholarly press, but for the
most part, it had smooth sailing among enthusiasts of unequal
temperament in the US.
Once again, I have no problem with Ed proselytizing about the use of
WT in the 21st century, telling people that unequal temperament is
more musical and fits better with tonal music. I tend to agree, though
I am not convinced it is as important as he makes it out to be. What I
object to is taking that argument and trying to persuade people that
Schubert or Chopin didn't use ET, ignoring the evidence to the
contrary, and pretending to be an authority on what piano tuners and
composers did and heard in the 19th century, based on how some people
hear and think in the 21st century.
[from Ed's post]
>
> I am not necessarily attacking, but simply saying that, to
> me, the written evidence doesn't address the question of
> temperament as
> effectively as the music. This keeps the scientists from having
> much say, since the
> question of beauty is beyond their realm.
> Why would I refuse to accept the written record? I don't trust it.
> One example that may have bearing here is, according to Jorgensen,
> John,(or
> maybe James) Broadwood publicly advertised their pianos as all being
> tuned in
> equal temperament in the early 1800's, but the 1850's account of
> A.J. Hipkins
> tells us that the tuners weren't tuning anything like ET. 30 years
> or so
> later, the Ellis research confirms that an approximation of ET was
> being
> produced by only one out of the 4 factory tuners. So, if a major
> manufacturer is
> stating that ET was the coin of the realm, those that rely on the
> written record
> are going to be thinking something other than what the tuners of the
> day were.
Looking at this same this series of information, what strikes me is an
image of Broadwood trying to project itself as modern, in keeping with
what is happening on the continent. And then in the 1850s, Hipkins,
appalled at how backward his country is since the rest of civilized
Europe has universally adopted ET, tries to bring England into the
19th century. With mixed results. And the rest of the evidence points
in this direction as well, showing England as the one part of Europe
that was slowest to change to ET.
> [Ed]
>
> I find it implausible that the tuners in the field had found
> much reason
> to adopt the more difficult tuning, at this time. I also question
> whether
> the tuners on the continent were that much different.
You may find it implausible, but the evidence very strongly shows that
tuners did so. Following is Montal's account of why ET is superior
(from the introduction to his book, in a section about the history of
tuning):
"The practitioners [as opposed to theoreticians]
proclaimed the superiority of unequal temperament, in which the keys
of F, C, G, D, A, and E sounded with great justness to the detriment
of the others. They gave as their rationale that, since the keys that
were used more were more perfectly just, the temperament provided
variety and energy when one used the keys that were more altered,
since intervals affect us differently in accordance with how much they
are altered. Many theoreticians influenced by these arguments didn’t
express an opinion, and limited themselves to accepting both systems;
on the other hand, those who were focused only on theory argued in
favor of equal or mean temperament, in which all the keys are equally
acceptable and where none is favored at the expense of others; so that
the ear is never offended, and the stringing together of modulations
is more agreeable. In fact, the true aim of temperament ought to be
that of sharing the alterations needed over the largest number of
intervals possible in order to make them less apparent. The organists
and harpsichordists of the time, who had little in the way of
technique, were happy with a small number of keys that were easy to
play, but today, when pianists play equally well in all keys, equal
temperament has become an absolute necessity, because our composers do
not choose the easiest keys like the old organists, but they follow
their inspiration and write in F-sharp as well as in F, in D-flat and
A-flat as well as in C and G."
It seems pretty clear to me that we can, indeed, get inside the mind
of a tuner of that time and, whether we agree with him or not,
understand what he thought and what he tried to do. I prefer to follow
the evidence rather than speculate based on my own prejudices.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC