e.t. comment for your response

[Frank Weston]

ralph m martin wrote:
> 
> Horace
> 
> I'm going to join you in the minority on this one. If these tuners didn't
> count beats, I believe they at least perceived them as "a degree of
> roughness" for want of a better term.
> 

List,

I don't think Jorgensen's point was that tuners could not hear and count
beats.  His point was that the mathematics required to determine
precisely what beat rates were proper for ET was beyond the grasp of the
average tuner, and what knowledge there was on the subject was not
widely shared.  Don't forget, this was before the age of calculators and
computers, and figuring logs to the 9th place was a challenge with
pencil and paper.

Nor does Jorgensen's second argument discount the ability to recognize
and count beats.  What he is saying is that tuners used other methods to
recognize intervals, and that the asthetic of the time viewed these
methods as more artful and hence superior.  

To my ears, ET is somewhat cold and mathematical, and in my experience,
what passes for ET as tuned by the best aural tuners is usually a little
colored one way or another (mine included).  My preference is the
Vallotti-Young, which is described by Jorgensen as "the most perfect
form of Well-Temperament ever published".

I have this temperament tuned on the pianos in my home, and I have tuned
it on about half dozen quality pianos belonging to serious customers. 
No one who has tried this temperament has ever requested a return to
ET.  Ed Foote may have a few words on this subject as he has recently
tuned for some recordings in Vallotti-Young as well as other
well-temperaments.


Frank Weston