Option B

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

Hi Bill:

I heard your tunings during the three years in which Baldwin allowed you to
tune their piano for the Convention recitals.

Virgil Smith and I sat together near the back. My spontaneous remark to 
him was that: "That is the finest Baldwin I have ever heard."

The octaves sounded just right. The Unisons were impeccable. Modified 
meantone tuning or 1/7th comma tuning (whichever it was) did not show any 
wolves which were noticeable to my ears. I was impressed. Paul Bailey has
been encouraging me along the lines of Well Temperament for about 4 or 5 
years now. I have tried his Holy Grail and the Kellner only on my own piano.
Perhaps I would like them better if I were hearing those tuning played by
someone else. I have had your tuning on my piano a few times. To my novice
ears (lack of fine appreciation of the equal beating, leading tones etc.),
the stronger tunings come off like slightly out of tune unisons whenever a
faster beating 5th is encountered. This may be what turned Gina off when
listening to that program.

I am not just a beginner at Historical tunings. While in College in '48 and
'49, I tuned my voice teacher's piano in a meantone tuning after reading 
James Murray Barber's book on temperaments. I demonstrated the beauty of the
Meantone while playing the Mozart C Maj Sonata. I then showed the 
problems in the harmonies while playing the Chopin Nocturne in F# Maj. 
It was obvious to me at least that that was not the tuning Chopin was using
when he composed that piece. I suspect that with the proper well temperament
the Nocturne would sound quit nice.

It is my considered opinion that without prior education, the general piano
playing public (even piano technicians who play) is not concerned as much
with the type of temperament the tuner uses as they are with the clarity of
the unisons. Again I say that the Tuneoffs with which I have been 
involved prove this.

I am also persuaded that a mild temperament does no disservice to the piano
owner, and can be used successfully along with an Equal temperament 
Organ in Church situations. My own church piano is tuned thusly in either
a Moore Victorianized Well or a Coleman V or Coleman VII Well. This has gone
on for over 2 years without an adverse comment from anyone.

Jim Coleman, Sr.

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Billbrpt wrote:

> In a message dated 98-01-28 06:13:27 EST, you write:
> 
> << Well if you say Helmholtz was an "evil"scientist ...(snip)
>  But hats off to Helmholtz for helping to develope what thousands of
>  musicians were asking hundreds of keyboard makers to produce, a
>  system of tuning that would spare us from the wolf  >>
> 
> Please remember that this was a piece of satire and that I explicitly said
> that it was not to be taken literally or seriously.
> 
> A tuning system that "spares us from the wolf"  was developed long before
> Helmholz came along.  In fact, the concept of ET was too but was always
> rejected as having gone TOO FAR in that pursuit.  Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier
> Music was written to demonstrate that a keyboard could be tuned so that all 24
> major and minor keys would be ACESSIBLE.  They, of course, accessible in ET,
> as they are in 1/7 comma meantone as our colleague, David Vanderhoofven has
> recently discovered.  The 1/7 comma meantone still has a "wolf" but it is so
> slight and mild that it is often thought of as an enhancement to the key of Ab
> rather than being a reason you cannot play in it.
> 
> The now infamous Baldwin recital at the Annual Convention, made so through the
> gratuitous, hostile and I might add libelous (by the very description of the
> term that was provided) condemnation by the all-knowing and all-powerful
> Regina Carter, Queen of the List (I'm expecting an "Off with his head!" order
> from her any time, now) featured a piece by Schubert in which the so-called
> "wolf" key of Ab clearly enhanced the music and the performance, in MY
> opinion, of course, definately not so in hers.
> 
> But let me explain why I think it was enhanced.  Of course, there are those
> who think any music of the Romantic period REQUIRES ET in order that it dull
> and dumb down all of the emotion there is in it.  A few of us, however, see
> and hear the value in that.  We actually like the emotional response it
> evokes.  In ET, the only way to express yourself emotionally is to speed up,
> slow down, play softer or louder.  This Schubert Impromptu (sorry, I don't
> know its Opus number) is highly emotional in nature.
> 
> I have actually come to call it the "Bi-Polar" or "Manic-Depressive" piece
> because I believe it was written to express just such a crisis and
> contradiction in a person's emotional state which is out of control.  A person
> experiencing such a crisis is never comfortable, never at ease.  As the piece
> begins, the mood seems content enough but in the key of Ab, played in
> virtually any Well-Temperament but particularly enhanced in the 1/7 comma
> meantone, the normally "happy sound" of a major key is pushed to a point of
> question as to whether this mood is really a healthy one.  The compser
> deliberately indicated a dynamic marking of "pp" here.  Few people play it
> that way though.  ET forces the pianist to try to get something more out of it
> than it has to offer in the "homogenized" harmony of ET.
> 
> This brilliant and sensitive young pianist did respect the dynamic markings
> though.  As much as I wanted to talk to him about the difference there might
> be in the piano, I was not permitted to do so.  It was not really necessary as
> it turned out anyway.  He may have thought it was an exceptional piano.  Or
> then again, I think he may have been intelligent enough to realize that it was
> tuned differently and that he could make that difference work for him and did
> so, phenomenally well.  
> 
> As the piece progresses, the relatively happy mood, seemingly wrongly
> indicated by the composer's "pp" dynamic marking (which most modern pianists
> override using their opinion of how they think it should sound, believing that
> it was Schubert that didn't know what was correct, never  guessing that the
> totally arbitrary imposition of ET against everyone's will and without
> consultation is the true culprit) changes progressively into a very
> electrified mood of intense ecstasy. If the pianist starts out too loud and
> fast with this piece, there is no room left to acheive the intensity that the
> composer intended.
> 
> After reaching this point of ecstasy a few times, each one being more intense
> than the last, the poor soul's mood finally crashes to the depths of
> depression and changes into A minor with a plodding, "drag the feet" rhythm
> and tempo.  The victim finally raises himself up out of this abysmal rut only
> to begin the cycle over again.
> 
> Of course, nowadays, most "normally thinking" people like Regina Carter, the
> all-knowing, all-powerful Queen of the List, never think about things like
> this.  They only hear "dissonance" in the 3rds and try to neutralize it out.
> I'm sure this composition and the way it was played merely "hurt her ears" as
> it did the few others who had their manic depressive fits with Kent Webb after
> the recital and therefore killed his willingness to ever have an HT used in
> the Baldwin recital, ever again.  People like Regina "turn off the music when
> it comes on".  They want all hills flattened, all dips filled in.  They only
> want pleasant, easy going moods in their music.  Low calorie, quickly prepared
> and consumed.   There just isn't time for any real texture or emotion.
> 
> Now the Baldwin recital has returned to the state of normalcy as the majority
> of this list would have it.  Does anyone remember anything remarkable about
> the last two?  Anyone talk about them?  Were there any technicians going up to
> the piano afterwards to check out how it was tuned?  Anyone discussing
> options?  Or was everyone simply content that some nice music was played and
> they all filed out afterwards?
> 
> Of course, this is all just my opinion and I am trying to force my way of
> thinking on to everyone else.  Only my ideas are worth considering, no one
> else's.  I am unreasonable, unethical and go around doing just as I please
> every day just for my own self gratification.  But then I have a right to do
> so.  It's a free country.
> 
> Bill Bremmer RPT
> Madison, Wisconsin
>