This temperament thing

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

Hi Dennis:

Just recently at the AZ State Seminar I had two pianos which were tuned in
advance of my class. One was tuned in a Kirnberger Well (which is not a
particularly mild Well Temperament), the other was tuned in the Pure 5ths
Temperament which I have used often of late. This pure 5ths temperament 
is not to be confused with any historical temperament, for it is Equal 
Temperament just with wider octaves to accommodate the pure 5ths. All 
other intervals progress in beat speed just as in standar EQ.. 

At the end of the class we had several selections played on each piano in
varying order with even a change of position at the midpoint of the
selections. The audience of technicians and musicians did not show a decided
preference for either style of tuning just from listening to the music.

In the first class the voting was:  58 Kirnberger   65 Pure 5ths
In the next class the voting was:   50 Kirnberger   48 Pure 5ths

No one in either class seemed to recognize there was anything funny about
either tuning. Some pieces showed a preference for one tuning style and
other pieces showed a preference for the other style of tuning. The pianos
were judged by me to be of about equal tone quality and power before I 
did the special tunings. The selections were in the favored as well as the
unfavored keys.

One of these pianos was tuned with the SAT and the other was tuned with
the RCT. Even with that, there was precious little difference. When the
voting is this close, I think we need to drop the silly ideas about Equal
versus Historical and about SAT versus RCT.

We've already done the TuneOffs to prove that there is little difference
between good Aural and Visual tuning. Of course, it would be fine with me if
others would propose future Tuneoffs between any of these combinations,
but I think the results would be pretty much the same unless we pit a novice
against an expert. If we were to pit a novice against a novice, the machine
tuner would win.

Jim Coleman, Sr.

PS These comments are not directed at Dennis or Ed, but for the 
consideration of us all.


On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Dennis Johnson wrote:

> 
> 
> Thanks Ed. That was well put.
> 
> Regarding the preferences that are sometimes voiced by musicians, it is
> interesting that if you ask most players who have a preference for ET why
> this is so, they will recount some unhappy experience of a particular
> piano in which the tuning was labeled "historical", and consequently, they
> are not much interested in going there again. I always want to ask why
> these same players never blame ET for an unhappy experience when the 
> tuning was not labeled?  I suggest that in both cases the technician was
> ultimately responsible, but usually the technician is only blamed in the
> later case. That sure sounds like a double standard to me.  
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis Johnson
> St. Olaf College
> 
> 
>