historical et (Long)

[Les Smith]

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Stephen Birkett wrote:

> As for 19th C. it seems obvious that the shift to ET (as we know it) was 
> gradual and at different rates of time in different locales...probably 
> coincided with the destruction of tonality and its dramatic effect toward 
> the end of the Century....precisely when the modern accuracy of ET was 
> probably first devised. 

Hi, Steve.

You've hit an important point here, but I interpret it slightly different-
ly. First a little bit about HT's, which you are in a unique position to
understand. Although I speak for myself, I don't think that there's a
single tech on the list who EVER tried to say that the older composers--
Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Clementi, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn,
Chopin, etc,-- used ET. That is NOT the issue. Further, I don't think
any of us have ever tried to say that a clavichord, a harpsichord, or
a forte-piano should EVER be tuned in anything but an HT appropriate to
its day. That, too, is NOT the issue.

What IS the issue is this: The tunings the old composers used were meant
SPECIFICALLY TO ACCOMODATE OR FIT THE TONAL PROPERTIES OF THE INTRUMENTS  
THEY WERE WRITING FOR --ie TO MAXIMIZE THEIR VIRTUES AND TO MINIMIZE
THEIR FAULTS. By that I mean this:Bach wrote the Well-Tempered Clavichord;
 he did NOT WRITE The Well-Tempered late 20th Century Concert Grand!
The tonal differences between a modern concert grand and a clavichord are
the differences between a B-1 Stealth Bomber and a balsawood rubberband-
driven model airplane! The problem arises when one tries to force a
temperament designed to take advantage of, or optimize, the tonal prop-
erties of one instrument, and apply it to another, totally different
instrument, whose tonal properties are light years away from the original
instrument. When you tune a modern concert grand to a temperament intended
for a clavichord YOU ARE NOT HEARING BACH THE WAY EITHER HE OR HIS
CONTEMPORARIES HEARD IT. Am I clear, so far?

Now take Chopin's piano--the Pleyel, NOT the Broadwood. :) Whether restor-
ing an original, or fabricating a reproduction, I can't imagine your tun-
it in ANYTHING but a temperament appropriate to Paris-1840. However, the
tonal properties of that Pleyel differ HUGELY from a modern concert grand.
By "Modern Concert Grand" I mean specifically that instrument which came
into being at the latter part of the 19th century. The very best nine-
footers that Steinway and Knabe had to offer circa 1885. Are you with me?

These pianos not only differed markedly from the Pleyel in matters such
the full cast iron plate, the over-strung bass, the 7 1/3 octave span,
the 200+ strings with their many tons of tension, but the action, too,
was markedly different from the Pleyel. Because their dynamic range was
far greater than the pianos which came before them, and because their
actions gave pianists the ability to control those greater dynamics with
extreme precision, it was concert grands such as these which revolutioniz-
ed piano playing by permitting artists to do things musically which either
had not been possible before, or possible, but not to this degree before.

Pianos such as these changed HOW music was played. With these changes
there were certain things from the past which were lost, but there were
also many new things which were gained. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF THESE PIANOS-- AND THE  STYLE OF PLAYING I AM ABOUT TO DES-
CRIBE-- COINCIDES EXACTLY WITH THE RISE IN THE USE OF ET, which you
have accurately noted started in the latter part of the 19th century.
Here's why I believed it happened. 

Let's talk Schubert's Impromptu in Gb, Opus 90, #3. First some basics
for others following this. First, good pianists ARE ALWAYS PLAING AT
SEVERAL DYNAMIC LEVELS AT THE SAME TIME!!! Beginning students are taught
to play the "melody" louder than the "accompaniment". Thus, even though
the LH may have a three note chord, it's played softer than the single
note RH. TWO dynamic levels. Next. that first year student learns to
"lean" on the bottom note of that triad to play it slightly louder than
the other two notes in order to emphasize-slightly--the bass line. The
result is THREE DYNAMIC LEVELS AT THE SAME TIME--two in the LH and one
in the right. This is with a FIRST YEAR Student! This balancing of the
different voices according to their importance is fundamental to high-
quality piano playing, especially the concert repertoire.

Although the minimum number of dynamic levels required for this kind of
playing is about 16, those late 19th century grands could produce  24
OR MORE different dynamic levels and their actions gave the pianist to
control them with great accuracy when playing multiple levels at the
same time. The best of these pianos--properly regulated and voiced--
could produce a pppp WITHOUT the soft pedal, and at the same time a
high end of FFFFZ! In between these extremes were a seemingly infinite
number of small dynamic gradations whereby small changes in finger
pressure/weight were instantly translated into small, but perceptible
changes in volume. This allowed the pianist to control the balancing
between the many separate voices with an accuracy never before possible.
ANYTHING which interferred with this control of the dynamics of the
various voices was deemed undesirable. THUS A TEMPERAMENT WHICH MADE
CERTAIN INTERVALS PROMINENT BY ITSELF, INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE PIANIST
TO CONTROL THEIR DYNAMICS, WAS NOT LONGER WANTED.

Here--with apologies to Steve--is how Schubrt's Gb Impromptu is played
on a modern concert grand. This piece is written in four voices--
soprano, alto, tenor and bass. Their order of importance is soprano
(which carries the melody), Bass (bassline), tenor, and then the alto
which carries the accompaniment figuration. Four voices, four different
dynamic levels ALWAYS! The loudest voice--the soprano--and the softest
voice--the alto-- are in the SAME HAND. The accompaniment figuration
in the alto consists of over TWO THOUSAND notes. The piano must be
regulated and voiced AND TUNED in such a way that the amount of fin-
ger pressure/weight needed to produce a given dynamic level IS THE
SAME FOR ALL 2000 notes! A flange which is too tight, or too loose;
a single improperly voiced or regulated note; a sluggish jack, or
binding key, will mar the performance. So will any weirdly beating
intervals in this, or any other voice which stand out when they're
not supposed to. The PIANIST controls which notes wil be prominent
and which won't, NOT THE TEMPERAMENT!

As the Impromptu is played, the balance between the voices--S,B,T,A--
is ALWAYS ( well, almost) maintained. The Soprano leads. When it
crescendos, they all do; when it decrescendos, they all do, HOWEVER
always maintaining that S,B,T,A, balance. Sometimes, the pianist WILL
CHOOSE to bring out an inner voice progression in order to emphasize a
key or chord change; When a theme is repeated he can vary both the
dynamics and/or the balance of the voices for variety's sake. The
choice of what to emphasize and when, IS HIS.

This identical balance of the voices occurs in the first movement of
the "Moonlight Sonata". The soprano has the melody, the alto the
moving, accompaniment figuration. Look at the LH-- two C#'s. DON'T
play them "flat". "Lean slightly on the Bass note. It should be played
"slightly" louder than the tenor. Four voices. Four dynamic levels.

You see this same thing in the middle movement of the Pathetique. The
soprano has the melody and the alto has the accompaniment figuration.
There is no tenor to begin with, only the bass. The three voices are
balanced S,B,A. The accompaniment figuration ALWAYS must be carefully
balanced against the melody when both are in the same hand, so that the
listener never is lead to confuse an accompaniment note with the melody.

Fur Elise. The melody is in the RH ONLY!. The LH is the accompaniment.
HOWEVER, the first note in each measure of the LH acc. should be slight-
ly louder than the other LH notes which follow.  Thus three dynamic
levels--two in the LH, another in the RH, which carries the melody.

That last bit wasn't meant for you, Steve, just anyone else who might not
have heard this stuff before. This kind of dynamic balancing of the voices
goes on constantly when a pianist is playing. He is ALWAY playing at seve-
ral dynamic levels at the same time, no matter whether he is playing
Scarlatti, Bach, Chopin. Further, he is able to do this BETTER than any
of the composer's original instruments allowed them to do. A pianist play-
ing a Bach fugue on a modern concert grand not only plays each voice at a
different dynamic level, but as theme and counterpoints switch from voice
to voice he is constantly changing the balance of the voices to bring
that out. Whether playing a clavichord, a harpsichord, or an organ, old
Bach could only dream of an instrument capable of doing such things, so
well.

Well, Steve, that's about it. The thesis is that the development of the
concert grand as it evolved in the latter 19th century, lead to a new
style of playing specifically designed to take advantage of the new
capabilities of the instrument. Its huge dynamic spectrum, coupled with
an action which allowed very precise control of those expanded dynamics
led to the playing old music in new ways. In some ways, such as being
able to precisely control the balance of several voices at the same time,
it lead to being able to play those old pieces with more clarity of the
movement of the individual voices than EVER before. It also put the
control of which voices and intervals would predominate, directly into
the hands of the pianist, NOT THE TEMPERAMENT. And, of course, there
WERE all those new and tempting high-end dynamics! :)    
 
Then too, an aggressive HT that was entirely suitable for a piano like
Schubert's, where--because of its relatively small tonal output-- the
roughness would not be so noticable-- would be ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE on
a modern concert grand where-because of its much greater tonal output--
the roughness would be highly objectionable. HT'S SOUND BEST WHEN USED
ON THE HISTORICAL INSTRUMENTS THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR! If one doesn't
like the way Chopin sounds on a modern grand, STOP COMPLAINING, and
pay Steve to build you a copy of an early Pleyel. The modern concert
grand was no more designed to sound like an early Pleyel, than a
Corvette is designed to drive like a Model T.

Anyway, a temperament was needed that would complement--not fight--
the tonal properties of the late 19th century concert grand, and the
style of playing which evolved to take maximum advantage of those
properties. ET filled the bill. Its rise to prominence in the latter
part of the 19th century, exactly coincided with the coming of age
of the AMERICAN-BUILT concert grand, the best of which still remain
as examples of some of the finest pianos ever built by anyone, any-
where, anytime. Very early recordings clearly show the likes of Moriz
Rosenthal--who studied with LISZT--and Joseff Lhevinne--who made his
debut with ANTON RUBINSTEIN--playing in ET AND SOUNDING GREAT! That's 
why the over-whelming majority of the finest concert pianists this
century has known chose to play and record in ET. They knew EXACTLY
what they were doing. 

Respectfully,

Les Smith