----- Original Message ----- From: <A440A@aol.com> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [ctuner] Brahms & Well Temperament > Mr. Good's preference of a particular tuning for Brahms isn't a >reflection on any exact temperament as much as it is of his personal >aesthetic sense of harmony. Sounds good but what are you really saying? Edwin Good liked a "well" (which he didn't specify) , but stated he didn't like a "very competent ET" Sounds like he liked an exact temperament that wasn't ET, because he stated his tuner came back and "restored its rich lively tone." So does "his personal aesthetic sense of harmony" have nothing to do with "any exact temperament" ? Don't tell that to Mr Good's tuner who tunes exactly every time. The arguments that temperament influenced music as far as history is concerned is coming to a rapid close. After each tuning scheme is finally translated, it is seen by tuners, musicians, musicologists, and music historians, that temperament doesn't really matter unless it produces wolves. When the so called Wells are put up against ET no one can tell the difference. Now we hear that Edwin Good says he can. So if he can demonstrate he can tell the difference between an ET and the Well he prefers, I will gladly learn to tune the well he prefers because all musicians would want to hear a "rich lively tone" in their freshly tuned pianos. >Since a pianist can, in a highly tempered key, play either > expressively or harshly, one's preference may not suit another. Maybe > changing the instrument's voicing would cause him to switch his preferred > tuning, Good, I will voice it then and tune in ET. >or he could possibly think another temperament would sound best for > someone else's playing. ?? .. ?? .. And I suppose pay for it.... ?? > Simply switching temperaments doesn't automatically "color" the music >to its optimum. Ah the myth of "color" caused by temperament. Hmmm looks like you are now saying it (temperament) doesn't color music............. > The pianist has to do the actual creation of musical > sensations, and they all do it differently. in fact, I think the musicians' > interpretation makes a bigger difference in the music's impact that any > difference between the typical Victorian tunings. We are starting to agree. What is the big deal between the "typical Victorian tunings" (which was never practiced, as research is revealing) vs a sloppy ET? >And I really like some of > those temperaments! > > > Ed Foote RPT ] The trouble is, "some of those temperaments" were never the same, just as you say ET was never consistent before the 3rds checks. When you tune by ear according to the historical directions (without relaying on modern tests) you may be surprised at how different each tuning is, but yet is still musically viable and pleasant even. The modern machines with theoretical offsets will give a consistent temperament, but compare that with results from the original directions that guided the ear. I think you will find, the aural tunings will give much more musical pleasure, especially the ET of Claude Montal of 1836. ---rm
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC