evolution/ Horace G's Marpurg I choice

[Horace Greeley]

Bill,

Take a soma.

Give it all a very long and, hopefully convincing, rest.

Your decision to cc: me separately while posting publicly
is, at the least, annoying.  Thus, I am returning the favor.

Doing real concert work is rather like riding a Harley.  Since it 
seems clear that it needs to be explained, you wouldn't 
understand anyway, so I won't try.

Have a nice day!

(With contrite apologies to the rest of the list for this snit.)

Horace



At 06:33 AM 3/26/1998 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-03-23 12:34:06 EST, you write:
>
><< Oh, well.
> 
> Back to what passes for reality, and no, Bill, I wouldn't think of using
that
>Viotti temperament for Beethoven 5, Marpurg I is a much more appropriate
>choice.  Further (just to keep things really rolling), the instrument is
tuned
>to 444, with the top streched to beat the band (literally), and the bass
>almost-but-not-quite collapsed for the same reason.  (Beethoven uses way too
>much first inversion writing to trust an orchestra that plays _really_ wide
>thirds.)
> Best to all.
>  Horace >>
>
>Your choice of temperament seems quite odd to me.  Why would you choose a
>Quasi-Equal Temperament with 9 pure 5ths only to have 2 of those which are
>noticeably tempered be the very ones which the piece has written more than
any
>others?  Wouldn't a regular ET have sounded better?
>
>Wouldn't the very wide broken chords and 10ths in B major in the slow
movement
>in the Valotti temperament have better suited this orchestra that you say
>plays such wide 3rds?  When the piano plays in close harmony in Eb & Bb,
it is
>mostly solo work.  How could this conflict with the orchestra?  Why would
they
>play wider 3rds than what they hear from the piano?  The Marpurg I 3rds are
>only a little wider than the Eb & Bb in the Valotti.  Why is this such a
>better temperament and why would you "not think" of using the Valotti or any
>other WT?
>
>Why is it that, as you say, only 3 artists you have ever met could tell which
>temperament was on the piano even worthy of posting on the List as a comment?
>Is that any reason to make any decision about any temperament whatsoever?
>What does this imply?  Should ET be the only choice because in your
>experience,  very few could identify which temperament you tuned by name?
>Why did you challenge Tom Cole to identify which temperament you tuned?  What
>would that prove or demonstrate either way?  He obviously knows ET as his
>working temperament and is interested but inexperienced in the HT's.  Why
>would you challenge someone to identify something that you would expect him
>not to be able to do?
>
>Previously, you made a point of saying that your temperament would definitely
>not be Victorian.  Would you please explain to the List why a Marpurg I is
>such a superior choice to  Victorian?  Would not the cleaner sounding
>Victorian 5ths of all the keys played in the Beethoven 5th have been suitable
>to the music?  Why is the atonality of the Marpurg I superior  to the
>historically precedented tonal qualities of the Victorian in your opinion?
>
>Did you ask the artist if she wanted ET or a Marpurg I?  If not, do you think
>you imposed your judgment upon the artist without asking what she preferred?
>If you did not ask, were you afraid that she would say, "no" to what you
>personally thought would be a better temperament?  Was it unethical of you to
>not tune the piano in ET if you did not get explicit instructions or
>permission to do otherwise?  Did you consider the Marpurg I to be the
>equivilent of ET?  If so, can an RPT Tuning Exam Examinee use it instead
of ET
>to take the RPT Tuning Exam?  Can anyone freely substitute the Marpurg I for
>an ET at any time without disclosure of the fact?  Will all artists accept
it?
>Will recording studio engineers accept it as an equivilent to ET?
>
>Can you find any historical precedent whatsoever in any publication that
>supports your choice of the Marpurg I as being more appropriate to the
>Beethoven 5th than either any Victorian or any WT such as the Valotti?
>
>Is your method of tuning based mostly on makeing the piano sound "smooth" to
>you as you test intervals chromatically rather than what the tuning would
>sound like when actual music is played?  Does the Marpurg I represent to you
>the ultimate in the evolution of tuning and temperament?
>
>Why was the pitch at 444?  Wouldn't it have been better to tune at A440 and
>use a temperament which permits wide octave stretching such as a WT?  If you
>start with your pitch that high, don't you simply create a "contest" with the
>orchestra and have to stretch your treble and high treble octaves even
higher?
>Does this high pitch really result in making the music sound better?  If so,
>do you advocate doing this on every piano so that they will all sound better?
>Should PTG and the music industry be looking at changing the international
>standard to 444?
>
>I'd really like to know the answers to these questions and I'm sure some
>others on the List would too.
>
>Bill Bremmer RPT
>Madison, Wisconsin
>
>
Horace Greeley, CNA, MCP, RPT

Systems Analyst/Engineer
Controller's Office
Stanford University

email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
voice mail: 650.725.9062
fax: 650.725.8014