> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 14:14:31 -0800 > To: pianotech@ptg.org > From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley@leland.Stanford.EDU> > Subject: Re: e.t. comment for your response > Reply-to: pianotech@ptg.org I would think the "musical quality" of a tuning would be just as futile as the "mathematical accuracy" of a tuning. I have never tuned anything but ET but I am becoming interested in historical tunings. My question is do we have more room for errors or fudging on an historical tuning than ET? David ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA > > Frank, et al, > > Once again, Owen strikes home. > > In writing the following two sentences, he > deconstructs the current myth (myth in the > sense of something which has an essence of truth > which may have been forgotten/changed over time) > of the importance of mathematical accuracy: > > > 19th century tuning by ear was a highly developed > >art based on aesthetic judgments for every tone, and test chords were > >used more than test intervals. By contrast, 20th century tuning is a > >mathematical skill." > > Let me hasten to add that a reasonable understanding > of the mathematical tools applied in tuning is important. > What I continue to question is valuation of mathematical > accuracy (appropriately pointed out as a futile pursuit) above > musical quality. Like so much else in art, this latter presumes > a "best one can reasonably possibly do under the given > circumstances" level of technical performance, but makes > allowances for the infinite variety of (human) experience > and ability. > > The purpose of technique in art is to develop one's > technique to the level that technical limitations do not > dictate one's artistic performance. This is just as true > for tuning in the 20th Cent. as it was for Michelangelo, > VerMeer, or any other artist/art form one cares to think > of. > > Germane to this discussion is the comparison of two > works on tuning: Owen's "Tuning the Historical > Temperaments by Ear"; and the much earlier > work by J. Murray Barbour "Historical Temperaments" > (with a subtitle that does not spring to mind. As > ground breaking as Murray's work was, it was dry > as old shoe leather. Owen's, on the other hand, never > loses sight of music as being as much a listener's art > as anything else. The one area in which I disagree > with Owen is that he takes the position that, prior > to (roughly) the 20th Cent., people could not hear > beats. I find this to be inconsistent with the aurally > based tuning systems which he then presents. No > doubt, a minority view. > > Other thoughts? > > Best. > > Horace > > > > > At 03:04 PM 12/4/1997 -0500, you wrote: > >Stephen Birkett wrote: > >> > >> In an on-going discussion on hpschd-l the following comments appeared: > >> .... > >> >> A.Streicher specifically states that the fifths beat equally. Your > >> >> statement makes the "naive" think than modern tuning was in use in > >> >> 1800. > >> >Please define "modern tuning." What I'm trying to say with this > >> >thread is that equal temperament or something very close to it was > >> >used in late 18th- early 19th-century music. I don't know of any > >> >piano tuners who tune *perfect* ET on modern pianos. Does this mean > >> >that modern pianos are tuned to circulating temperaments? > >> > >> (neither of these is from me) > >> > >> Any comments from you piano tuner guys and gals? Don't you all tune > >> perfect ET? > >> > >> Stephen > >> > > > >If I ever saw flame bait, this is it! But, I'm a sucker for tuning > >arguments so here goes: > > > >It's highly unlikely anyone ever tuned "perfect" ET. Close maybe, but > >not perfect. Even machine calculated tunings can't be perfect because > >of the physical limitations of the instrument and the person translating > >the perfectly calculated theoretical tuning to a real tuning. > >Furthermore, if by chance, someone did happen set a perfect ET, it > >would last only as long as the first keystrokes. We try to set > >"perfect" ET, and we get close, but attaining mathematical perfection is > >almost impossible. > > > >The definitive expert on the question has to be Jorgensen. Here is SOME > >of what he has to say on the subject. > > > >"__ we must conclude that equal temperament as we know is was not tuned > >on pianos during the 19th century. A study of the instructions for > >tuning given in the present book (by A. J. Ellis who invented the cent > >measurement) for the years through 1885 verifies that essential > >acoustical information for tuning equal temperament was lacking. This > >was one reason for the 19th century tuners' inability to tune equal > >temperament by ear. Other deviation was due to the basic concepts of > >tuning then in vogue. 19th century tuning by ear was a highly developed > >art based on aesthetic judgments for every tone, and test chords were > >used more than test intervals. By contrast, 20th century tuning is a > >mathematical skill." > > > > > >Frank Weston > > > > > Horace Greeley > > Systems Analyst/Engineer > Controller's Office > Stanford University > > email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu > voice mail: 650.725.9062 > fax: 650.725.8014 > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC