Temperaments

[Kent Swafford]

Billbrpt wrote:

>    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.

In a later post, Billrpt wrote:
>Styles come and go.  ET is on its way out. Remember, it's only "equal" if it
>is and if it isn't, then it must be something else.  If it is something else,
>it isn't "equal" so then, what is it?
>
>Bill Bremmer RPT

Hi Bill,

It is a given that equal temperament cannot be perfectly executed on a 
piano.  However, you almost answer your own question about what "it" is 
if not equal when you suggest that a piano can be tuned so that its 
temperament "is absolutely devoid of any distinction from one tonality to 
another."  In musical terms, a temperament "absolutely devoid of any 
distinction from one tonality to another" is in fact equal temperament by 
generally accepted definition, and I think more than a "very few" tuners 
can accomplish this.

As to your question, "If it is something else, it isn't "equal" so then, 
what is it?"  I have always referred to "equal temperament of the piano" 
as a term that describes the temperament that we tune on the piano that 
is modified by the vagaries of inharmonicity.

Kent Swafford