Dear List, Be sure to read Skip Becker's excellent article in the June Journal. It is his latest in his continuing series on Historical Temperaments (HT's). In the course of artistic practices, it often happens as it does in other human events and endeavors that old theories and practices become new and that which was once held for a significant period of time to be the one and only truth is actually discovered to be a lie. Such discoveries can cause great emotional turmoil among some of those who are affected. To suddenly learn that what you have always believed in is not quite what you thought it was and is actually a false premise can be very disturbing to one's peace of mind. It really doesn't have to and shouldn't be that way with the issue of temperament tuning of the modern piano but there are some who have made it a very inflamed and emotional subject. The insistence upon using Equal Temperament (ET) and ET only has actually caused an even bigger lie to be believed: that slight variations from strict ET don't matter. It is ET if one believes it to be and meant for it to be, regardless of the actual and real effect the errors in temperament may have. Thus, Reverse Well (RW) has been born and accepted as ET. Few understand what RW means or have heard of it because few technicians of today know what "Well" really means (in the context of temperament tuning). "Well" means an alignment with the cycle of 5ths. The 3rds, rather than progressing in speed evenly as they do in ET vary in speed chromatically but are slower or faster depending upon the key signature. The fewer sharps or flats, the slower, the more sharps or flats, the faster. Composers throughout Western musical history and even today, choose a key signature based upon the kind of energy they expect from it, be it mild, moderate or highly energized. Many pianos, if not most, are tuned with some kind of inequality in the temperament. This has become less so during the last 20 years but it is still highly prevalent. Unfortunately, the inequalities result in tonal distinctions that are not intended and all too often they end up being the exact inverse of what they should be: Reverse Well. Yet this is tolerated today but any kind of true Well Tempered Tuning is called "unethical" by the few who have made an emotional issue out their own ignorance. Skip's article also talks about the lost temperament tuning magic of Meantone Tuning and it's special gem known as the "wolf". Both terms literally frighten people. "I wouldn't want any *MEAN* tones!" The same irrational fear applies to the so-called "wolf". Very few people today would actually ask for it but composers certainly knew of its musical power or they wouldn't have written so much of their most powerfully emotional music in the "wolf" keys. The "wolf" is not an interval that is deliberately tuned. It is the remainder and result of the amount of tempering given to all of the other intervals. If you tune a series of 11 tempered 5ths, by any amount more narrow than the -2 cents that an ET 5th has, you will leave the 12th 5th that remains actually wide. It's 3rd will be very wide too. It is usually placed between Ab and Eb but sometimes between Db and Ab. In the very mild Meantone Temperaments such as the 1/7 Comma Meantone (which was one of the temperament arrangements which was loosely called ET in its day) and the modern one that Paul Bailey demonstrated at the Temperament Festival in Providence, the slight "wolf" gives great "electrifying energy" to the key of Ab and thus gives a powerfully emotional foundation for Romantic literature in that key. Both Chopin and Debussy that many people think should only be in ET gain far more appeal when played in a mild Meantone. But there are some who just can't handle that. Gina Carter and Ed Foote, whom you'd think would know better, have decided that their opinion is the one which you should believe. When Gina Carter heard Beethoven and Schubert played in 1/7 Comma Meantone, her response was to become angry and lead a small group of others who were just as disturbed as her to complain to Kent Webb about it. Now even though Kent Webb and the artists liked the way the piano sounded and the artists, especially the young man who played the Schubert Impromptu gave superlative performances, Kent Webb felt compelled to do away with the idea of ever having any HT of any kind, ever again at the Annual Convention Baldwin Scholarship Recital based on the highly inflamed and angry complaints of a few ignorant but highly vocal members. They said that the use of the HT was "unethical" and demanded that only ET be heard at Conventions. Now, Ed says that "half the people didn't know the difference and the other half thought it was out of tune." I really wonder where he got his data. I invited two gentlemen from Steinway to hear a preview of the temperament earlier in the day. As you might expect, they both scoffed at it and said, "Bill! That's OUT of TUNE!" But the flat octaves and failing unisons of the Steinway pianos at their recital the next night sounded out of tune to me. I would never want a piano I tuned to sound the way I heard the Steinway sound and they felt the same about mine. Disappointed in both, of course, I expected that opinion from them, one of whom has written the very poorly worded description of how to tune a piano in the Steinway Technical Manual. It is a literal recipe for Reverse Well. I heard plenty of proof of that on my two visits to Steinway Hall. It's not that some Steinway tuners don't do better, it's that the ones who tune RW don't even know they're doing it or even what it is. Now, Ed Foote, the very fine tuner and technician he is has his own very narrow and slanted view of what HT tuning ought to be. I've seen him write negative things about Meantone Temperaments that imply that anyone who tunes them is crazy or way outside of what could be considered acceptable many times. His disastrous description of the sound of the Baldwin tuned in 1/7 Comma Meantone was yet another example of how he regards *his* practices as the only proper ones. How many times have you heard a tuner make that claim? His opinion ran contrary to the likes of John Travis and Yamaha's top technician, Enzo. Ever since that date, Enzo has corresponded with me and sends me a Christmas card all the way from Japan. He praised the "magnificent sound" the piano had but also added that he knew I would get into trouble because of it. He gives me his strongest encouragement nevertheless. John Travis was overwhelmed by the sound he had heard. I'm so glad that I could please such an esteemed individual so late in his life. It was a true honor. I know a technician who tunes exclusively 1/7 Comma Meantone and has all of the pianos for all of the performances in his showroom tuned that way for all kinds of music. Never once has an artist or an audience member ever complained about the tuning at all much less the way both Gina Carter and Ed Foote did publicly on this List. Both artists and audiences, teachers, students, piano purchasing and tuning customers keep coming back for more. But Gina Carter and her buddy Jim would have no problem in publicly stating on this List that his practices are "unethical". Many more people were very intrigued and interested in what they heard and offered me congratulations. But none of those people's opinion mattered. Gina Carter's did. Gina Carter's opinion also mattered more thyan anything else the following year when I tried to organize an HT recital. No response to the letter to the Home Office about it, no returned phone calls. Only after having to apply the kind of pressure that should never be necessary did she give in. Once again, the HT recital drew a standing room only crowd as it always does. Yet each year, the Institute Committee and the Equaholic Director (with the nice exception of Providence) say that there is no room and not enough interest in that subject. So, this year we have Ed Foote who has thankfully just become a member. Ed will do fine, of course but if you ask me, he has the "Uncle Tom" approach to temperament tuning with its own individualized slant and overpowering fear of being rejected. Can you imagine? "Oh ya suh! I's a gwine a tune y'all a real nice timpamint, suh! Ya suh! Real nice and smooth, like dem rich white folks up yonder in New Yawk City does. None 'o dat ruff stuff! Nah suh! Ain't gwine a be no woofs comin' round, neithah. Na suh! Ain't nobody hoid no woofs 'round hyuh nigh on 200 years! Ain't no sense bringin' dat back now! Nah suh! Dem woofs might make de missus cry and all. Y'all don't want dat, now. Na suh! " Then if the customer or artist still rejects his efforts, "Oh I's so sorry suh! Please don't tell dat cracker ta whoop me now! Oh please, massa! I's a gwine a smooth dat timpamint out fo' y'all now. Ya suh!" Then as he secretly spits in the piano, he tunes the Marpurg-Neidhardt Quasi Equal Temperament and muses to himself, "Whut massa don' know ain't a gwine a hoit him none!" Because of ignorance and attitudes like these, we won't hear any HT recital that is planned at the Convention this year. Whatever Ed does will be his interpretation of what he thinks you should hear and it won't be Meantone, not in an actual performance setting, at least. Gina Carter's influence will be felt for years to come too. Do you really want her and her small group of friends to decide what you cannot hear? Do you want Gina Carter, et al., to dictate to you what is "ethical" or "unethical" as the case may be? They don't have that right and you don't have to give it to them. Sincerely, Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC