what's with the new temperaments?

[Vanderhoofven]

At 12:49 AM 3/6/03, you wrote:
> > At 02:01 AM 3/4/03, Richard Moody wrote:
> > >And you say they chose the Broadwood.  Isn't that ET?
> >
> > Respectfully, The Broadwood Best or the Broadwood usual are not
> >Equal Temperament, they are mild well temperaments.  >
> > David A. Vanderhoofven
>
>
>I think you are referring to an opinion of a modern writer.  If
>James Broadwood in 1811 claims to be tuning equal temperament, why
>not accept that?

Good point.  I am depending mostly on the research of Owen Jorgensen and 
his lecture at the Smithsonian about historical tunings which was 
taped.  It is on two audio cassettes and contained his lecture along with 
music played on period instruments.

I will admit I have not done the research myself other than to skim through 
Owen Jorgenson's Big Red book "Tuning", Owen Jorgensen's audio tapes, 
several other books about temperaments and contact with people here on 
Pianotech and at conventions.  Ed Foote's class and David Lamarouex also 
have been influential to me.  In addition to private conversations with 
several other piano tuners I respect.  Oh, I have also done a lot of 
searching online and reading web pages about historical tunings.

May I state that I think what a piano tuner in 1811 would call Equal 
temperament and what a piano tuner in 2003 would call Equal Temperament are 
not the same.  Compared to Meantone, the Broadwood tunings would be 
considered Equal, in that you can play in every key without hearing a 
wolf.  But I would not call the Broadwood tunings equal.  Of course, I am a 
modern writer.


>"...the old system of temperament is now deservedly abandoned, and
>the equal temperament generally adopted.."  James Broadwood, 1811.
>The only controversy here is what he meant by "old system".  I
>think it was Meantone, but I need a few more facts to prove that
>point.

I believe that Owen Jorgensen on the tape said that the old system of 
tuning was Meantone.


>     Fast forward to the 1870's.  Ellis measured three of
>Broadwood's best tuners.  The results are in the appendices of his
>translation of Helmholtz.   He makes no mention of "mild well
>temperaments".   He presents his measurements in cents in a table
>called, "Specimens of Tuning in Equal Temperament"  (p435).  From
>the data and his comments I am convinced the objective was ET  and
>not a "well" what ever that is.      ----rm

I must confess I don't own a copy of Helmholtz and have never read it.  Now 
I have an incentive to get the book and read it for myself.  I defer to 
you, since I have not read it.

The word "mild" is my way of describing a temperament that isn't very 
strong.  By that I mean it is not as big a deviation from Equalt 
Temperament as a lot of other temperaments.  This is not a dictionary 
definition, but a well temperament is one that follows a recognizable 
pattern, or arrangement of the intervals in the scale.  While Equal 
Temperament has the speed of the major thirds increasing as you play major 
thirds chromatically up the scale, a well temperament would be one in which 
the increase in speed of the major thirds increases as you play major 
thirds going around the circle of fifths.

ric, I am sure that the objective was Equal Temperament.  But I think that 
his definition of Equal and my definition of Equal are not the 
same.  Again, I have not read Helmholtz, so I guess I should before I make 
a fool of myself.

Sincerely,
David Vanderhoofven