Greetings, I wrote: ><<"DeMorgan was a mathematical genius, yet in the 1800's <snip> >is a person that was very familiar with math, the ratios would not threaten >him, *yet he proposes an unequal tuning.*">> and Jim asks: > Do you base his "proposes an unequal tuning" from this passage or from >some other quote? I don't see him "proposing" anything in this passage. Ach!, I was referring to the temperament Jorgensen ascribes to him on pg 458 of "Tuning". > > I don't equate a disonant chord juxtaposed with >a much less disonant chord as being "power", rather a contrast, perhaps this >is what you are also saying and it is from this contrast that the perceived Yes. The "power" thing comes, imho, from context. The power I am speaking of is not measured in decibels, but rather in the degree to which a listener can be emotionally moved around. Music that brings an audience to tears is powerful music. All this business of temperaments is ultimately aimed at creating heavier emotional reactions in the recital halls and more pleasing response for the person playing for their own pleasure. I believe that this is the power that will increase the popularity of our instrument. What was the tuning really like when the piano made its rise to dominance? 1800-1910? It is looking more and more like it was not an exact rendering of ET, but something more musically organized for key use. I know that using Jim Coleman's Victorian inspired temperaments have delighted every customer I have pitched them to, except one. This is a question I have asked myself, so now I will ask the list to consider it. Could key color, no matter how slight, be an important missing ingredient and its absence partially responsible for the piano's long slide from dominion? I wonder if a retune is a necessity to get out in front again. Regards, Ed Foote
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC