Poetry? Get Real!!!

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Susan writes: 
P.S. All this chasing after .15-cent-perfect exactness of
>equal temperament reminds me of a statement by a very fine
>professor of ceramics in the 1970's, when teaching people
>to use a potter's wheel: "A perfect pot is a dead pot."

   Hmm,  since I got my BFA in ceramics, and spent many smokey nights on the 
potter's wheel,  l feel compelled to say, "there is no such thing as a 
perfect pot....".  I think this can apply to ET.  There is a limit to what a 
listener can distinguish, so once you have every third beating no faster than 
the one above, nor slower than the one below, there are very few people that 
can tell the piano is not tuned "equally".  
 
>Now, when one tunes an HT, the "distant" keys get further
>and further toward the spicy side, and the "simple" keys
>are bland, right? And the progression is even? That is,
>A major would be tangier than D major, and E major would
>be tangier than either?

    "Tanginess" depends on how a pianist uses the resources.  As Enid Katahn 
has said,  "You can use the tempering to make things sound harsh, or you can 
use it to make things expressive".   The progression is not always even, (the 
Young, and Coleman tunings are extremely symmetrical, but the Young is the 
most "even", in that the steps between keys are all the same size).  
 
>Two questions, really:
>
>First of all, why is it assumed that all HT's will
>center (and ALWAYS HAVE centered) on C? Or isn't
>that assumed, but no one has bothered to
>mention other options in my hearing?

   Virtually every documented WT follows the way key signatures go, ie,  the 
keys of C and Am have no accidentals, so their tonic thirds are the 
smoothest.  The key of F# has the most accidentals, so its tonic third is the 
widest.  The Vallotti is one that centers on F, but represents a minority. 
 
>Secondly, if people are aiming at Equal, and make a few
>little "mistakes", or slight inexactitudes, small enough that
>they aren't aware of them, WHY (she asked, incredulously)
>would one assume that these errors would line up perfectly,
>so that the keys progressed evenly but BACKWARDS? 

   Random errors will not line up at all.  

 
>Also, it seemed to me, when I first heard about Reverse Well,
>that if it happened at all, it would likely happen with
>a fourths-and-fifths tuning. But, I feel, most of us use
>something more sophisticated these days, so we just don't
>chase around the circle of fifths. So why would any small
>discrepancies from a scientifically "PERFECT" ET end up
>with a backwards slant?

They don't.  However,  an F temperament, such as we learned at North Bennett, 
uses fourths down, fifths up, with M3-m3, M3-6th tests.  I don't think you 
would want to call it "unsophisticated", in that it enables me to create an 
octave in which ALL intervals progress evenly in their beat rates. 
    The "backward slant" can occur when a tuner attempts to tune the first 
four intervals in the typical Holder bearing plan too consonant, making the 
first encounter with a M3(the C-E) wider than it should be.  
 
David adds:
>>I think the reverse well fear mongering is so much politics.   

   I agree. There is only one person I have ever heard use the term to 
describe a temperament, and it seems to fall into the "straw man" category.  
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT