from ric m: The implementation was not flawed. <snip> Yes they the tunings then were not as fine or close as today, but that is not the point. If you are truly interested in how ET was tuned in the 19th century you might be interested in the research of Ellis, and the writings of Montal. ---rm Hmmmm, didn't we just say the same thing? I thought that the tunings of the past might be seriously flawed if they weren't repeatable, and you agree that they were not as fine or close as today....... so how could the implentation of the tuning on the piano not be flawed? I've learned to question pretty much everything, especially if it doesn't make sense to me. Do I know if Ellis, or Montal accurately accomplished what they thought they were researching? Do I know that Jorgensen accurately accomplished what he set out to do? No!, and for me that really doesn't matter, because what I've done is look at the tuning trends of the record. What do most of the tunings appear to change, which keys tend to be smoother, which keys tend to have more dissonence. That's why I've been recommending tunings of THIS century, not the tuning of last century, or two centuries ago... As to whether I'm interested in 19th century ET.... No, and I'm not interested in ET tuned with 12 tuning forks, or ET tuned with the first strobotuner, or ET with the first Korg, or monochord ETs, or........ When I started tuning, (a while ago) I remember thinking that if I could tighten up the margin of error, the tuning for sure would sound better and better. While that may be true of pin technique, and unisons and octaves, I can't say that getting the temperament as close to ET as possible has brought an increase in musical expression. For that, I believe a thoughtful, purposeful deviation from ET can be a helpful journey. Ron Koval _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC