Stephen Birkett wrote: >>>> Historical instructions for setting temperaments are actually much less precise than implied by Jorgenson's methodology. Any system that involves counting beats is a-historical. I guess it's all a bit like "add a teaspoonful of" in a recipe. So this well-espouced problem is really a problem with our anachronous insistence on mathematical precision. With historical flexibility it vanishes. <<<< Yes, Stephen, I agree that the figures with 5 decimal places of precision in Jorgensen are ridiculous. There is no way that much precision can be meaningful. But when we tune historical temperaments, do we dress ourselves in the fashion of an 18th century tuner? Do we use 18th century tools? Then why should we insist on 18th century methods? What we want are 18th century results. If a modern method can achieve an historically correct result, then why not take advantage of it? The "modern method" can mean anything from counting beats in 4ths to using an SAT. Having a "cents offset from ET" method for tuning an HT serves a real need. It allows someone with an electronic tuning aid to quickly jump into the HT arena - something they might have otherwise been reluctant to do if the only instructions were "add a teaspoonful of discord into thy thirds, that thy fifths may not be too displeasing to thy ear". Robert Scott Ann Arbor, Michigan
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC