On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Ed Sutton wrote: > Fred- > > I believe you are confusing Valotti, Valotti-Young(Transposed > Valotti) and Young. > See Jorgensen pp. 180, 254 and 264. > > Ed Sutton Nope, I am not confused. My sources for both Vallotti and Young are impeccable. There are some quibbles that may be made. Young made a couple revisions and improvements, so that to be precise there are more than one "Young." Vallotti's instructions make clear that he actually meant 1/6 syntonic (not Pythagorean) comma 5ths, and hence needed to deal with the schisma, which he said should be placed between F and Bflat (IOW, that 5th is 2 cents narrow in his instructions, though nobody bothers today). But essentially what I stated is correct: Young is Vallotti transposed by one fifth. Young came up with his notion independently of Vallotti, many years later. Young's temperament was known in the 20th century before Vallotti's, as Vallotti's was hiding in a manuscript of a second volume of a work - the first volume was published, the second wasn't. Some other Italians were aware of Vallotti's pattern, and other Italians of Vallotti's time came up with similar patterns (whether they were copying one another or whether there was a simultaneous evolution of similar ideas is an open question). When Vallotti's manuscript was rediscovered in the 20th century, the Young temperament was re-named "Vallotti-Young" in order to credit the earlier discoverer or inventor. There has been a lot of confusion ever since. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090918/4fce90ea/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC