Temperaments

[Billbrpt]

In a message dated 98-01-23 16:11:51 EST, you write:

<<  Jeffrey Siegel did a concert
 > >at SMU of all Beethoven.  I asked him if he would like to use a
 > >historical temperament like a Youngs.  Since sound only travels at 1020
 > >feet per second, his "NO" answer was out before my last sounds made it
 > >to his ear.
 > >
 > >If an artist doesn't want to use a historical temperament for a program
 > >of all pre-ET music, he certainly won't want to use one for a program
 > >that includes Beethoven et al AND Ravel & Poulenc.  ET is the only thing
 > >that will give a reasonable performance of older and contemporary music
 > >IMHO.  Having said that, if a performer wants some different
 > >temperament, I want to be the one who can deliver for him/her. >>

   Jeffrey Siegel has been performing in Madison, WI for many years doing a
series of concerts.  He is known for remarks that show that he believes
historical temperaments to be archaic.  What he doesn't know is that the
temperament tuned on his piano never has been ET.  In fact, it always has been
pretty far from it.  It would score in the 50% range if compared to the RPT
Exam standard.
    This, I believe is a reflection of the great amount of misconception and
misunderstanding that there is regarding the issue of temperament.  It seems
that so many people believe that there are only two temperaments:  the nice,
smooth, universal, pleasant, harmonious, magical, sensible, modern and correct
ET and the vile, out-of-tune, crazy, whacko, only works in certain keys,
archaic, proven useless hundreds of years ago why keep bringing it up, nasty,
stupid, laughable, unethical, dangerous and destructive to the minds of
children, Historical Temperaments.
    The following is not an opinion but a provable fact:  Virtually no one
tunes a perfectly "equal" temperament.  Those who use the most sophisticated
electronic programs and a very few, very exceptional aural tuners come close
enough that their results yield a temperament which is absolutely devoid of
any distinction from one tonality to another.
      The rest, the great majority, may be attempting an ET but the inherent
"error" in their methods and perceptions result in a temperament which often
has considerable distinctions in the different keys .  Often, these "errors"
are at random so the temperament is so disorganized and unfocused that the
listener has difficulty distingushing one tonality from another.  All to
often, the bearing plan used by aural tuners actually results in what has
become known as "reverse well" temperament.  That is, the smooth, harmonious
tonalities are harsh and strident, those that should exhibit dissonance are
quietly harmonious.
     This runs against the grain of virtually all music of past and present
and yet this is what is so typically presented as a piano tuning to both
artists and ordinary customers alike.  Therefore, the performer learns to
"back off" while playing in the keys which should exhibit quiet harmony and
"bang" hard where more brilliance is desired.  When some people who are used
to a piano which does not respond properly for tuning and other reasons such
as voicing and regulation, are presented with a well-prepared instrument tuned
properly in an authentic historical temperament, it is overwhelming in the
power of expression it has.  Once again, the mediocrity of the lowest common
denominator, ET is demanded to "correct" and narrow down this wonderfully wide
range and becomes touted and accepted as a standard even though it is rarely
acheived.
    Just because relatively modern music may have what may be considered
dissonance, this is not a reason to require ET.  There is actually very little
music which is truely atonal which is ever performed.  Most music which people
enjoy listening to, in all of the many styles that there are, is all tonal  by
its very nature and therefore requires distinctions between the keys, not the
absence of distinction.
    To endlessly pursue the perfection of a completely equalized scale is a
tragically misguided goal.  One succeeds only in erasing all of the key
"color" which the music has in it by design and which people expect to hear.
I often hear people, both the general population and sophisticated musical
experts, speak of "key color".  If ET were the reality it is supposed to be,
these notions would have vanished long before most of us were even born. The
Key Signature of a piece is a designation of character, not just of pitch.
    The example that someone gave of transposing down a half step to
accomodate a singer who is having difficulty acheiving higher notes in a
certain key as a reason to require ET is also not well conceived.  In such as
case, a half step does very little to help a singer who is at the limits of
his or her range.  Transposing a whole step, a 3rd or 4th would create a much
more comfortable range.  In going a little further than a half step, one can
find a key with similar characteristics to the original.
    There will be another Historical Temperament Recital at the annual PTG
Convention in Providence.  This will be an important and positive event.
Hopefully, many of the myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings that
technicians and performers alike have will give way to new enlightenment.
     There is no "Holy Grail".  That is only a concept.  There is only a
virtually infinite range of possibilities of how to temper a scale and how to
stretch the octaves.  The future of tuning is in exploring, understanding and
implimenting these diverse approaches.
     Bill Bremmer RPT