Hello RicM and Ed Foote,
RicM wrote
snip
"If not ET then what was used? If indeed Montal's method of ET
was not used or accepted, that would be of historical interest,
because his writings show a modern understanding of ET and also a
method of achieving modern ET. Modern ET then could have should
have been available to Chopin. It would be interesting to find
out if Chopin did actually hear ET through Pleyel in France early
on, or not until Hipkins in England in 1848(?) ---rm"
In the book of Chopin's letters (I don't recall the title at the
moment but will find it and post this) Chopin takes note of the passing
of Hipkins with the comment that he(Chopin) liked his (Hipkin's) tuning
the best, indicating a preference of some sort. Throughout the
remainder of the book, comprised of hundreds of letters, I don't recall
(at the moment) any other reference to tuning.
Although I personally think that equal temperament has an
intrinisic flaw in the degree of the detuning of the thirds and sixths
that is required to equally divide the octave, I think the accurate,
precise method of division of the octave with attendant smooth
progression of thirds and sixths has indeed a virtue and usefullness
which does indeed relate musically. The ear adapts to dissonance, at
least to a degree, and as it has to adapt to the thirds and sixths which
are quite dissonant in ET is is possible that this virtue is that the
ear, once having mastered as it were, the dissonance of ET can then more
readily sense past this to perceive these intervals for what they really
are if they are all equally out of tune. The tempered intervals are,
as I have argued here before, the emblems so to speak, of the just
intervals.
This is a very complicated subject which I lack time to take up
effectively but to make another point: As I think that ET has a
handicap, so to speak, in its inherent dissonance, then I can see that
the improved harmonic value of HT, in some keys, will offer a much
better sound which is simply the result of some thirds and sixths being
"less out of tune". This, I think, is the virtue of most, if not all,
HT's, particularly well-temperament. When experienced by people that
have become "jaded", as it were, by the dissonance of equal
temperament, less tempered thirds and sixths can come as a bombshell of
expressivity and musicalness which can markedly affect some people. I
think Ed has quite accurately described some of these moments which he
has witnessed.
Were the cycle of key-color, though, and the contrast of thirds,
particularly, of very much importance then one should expect to see
this subject taken up, at least, here and there as a subject dear to
their hearts, by composers, theorists, musicologists and those
defective, deranged, viscious musician wannabees - the critics and the
like both in formal treatments and in informal ones as well, for
example, their private correspondence, yet any commentary on this
subject from this group is exceedingly scarce. As far as I am aware,
only slight, incidental, apparently indifferent commentary on the
subject can be found scattered here and there through the centuries
although there is the occasional prominent theorist and his book,
usually then advocating one system of temperament or the other. Still,
in general, there appears to be a substantial disconnect between the
number of the actual users, as a body, of these systems, that is, the
very large number of musicians of various kinds over the centuries, and
the writers of any substance on the subject, when, to my mind, if this
was more than an incidental subject, one would expect full engagement
from those most immediately affected by the "affects" of the tuning
systems.
This leads me to think that the claim that cyclic key color is of
much importance exaggerates what is, in essence, an arbitrary, almost
capricious artifact of tuning (although this seems too blunt an
expression). This aspect is the assemblege of various methods used,
prior to the advent of professional tuners, by the musician-tuners of
the time from, say 1400 until the arrival of the professional tuners in
the early 19th century, to divide the octave, leaving a wolf here or
there, or perhaps not, or smoother or less smooth thirds, a level of
dissonance here and there, etc, and, in other words, a reflection of
the skill or lack thereof of the musicians as tuners. This then
elaborated into a kind of incidental, habituated artifact of the tuning
system and we have, voila, a profuse variety of historical temperaments.
Furthermore, the entire question of tuning fixed pitch instruments
versus the tuning arrived at in ensemble work using tunable
instruments, must, at least in my opinion, tend to support the view
that tempering intervals substantially, is, in fact, a kind of mistuning
enforced upon the musician using fixed-pitch instruments, as a necessary
evil, to preserve the octave. In ensemble work of tunable instrumets,
that is as we all know, instruments that can be tuned on the fly, the
treatment of the thirds or sixths, or the leading tone for example, and
other values, are substantially different from the values developed in
most temperaments, leading again, at least to my mind, to the
observation that none of these temperaments, equal or otherwise, can in
fact replicate what is ordinary, harmonic practice where tunability is
not constrained. Indeed, the whole concept of temperament is a non
sequitur with regard to ensemble tuning.
Finally, the simple ratios of the just values themselves represent
a kind of limiting value in the sequence of perceptibility which
intervals tempered or mistuned to one degree or the other masquerade
themselves for and, as such, due to practical matters inherent in design
and human performance of the instruments, are seldom are arrived at with
a great degree of precision in freely tunable instruments. The illusion
of "in tuneness" is, though, greatly facilited in ensemble work where
differing tone color allows a level of what would appear to a highly
skilled piano tuner as unacceptable sloppiness, to slip below the radar
screen and become acceptable.
I have not found my copy of the Schubert impromptus and can't
verify the opus number but I must say, Ed, that your recommendation of
the G flat impromptu as an example of key color and contrasting tension
of thirds seems to be off the mark, as this impromptu, which I have
performed, (and probably the other as well), is, in fact, a very calm,
placid, lyrical piece, entirely unrepresentative of the use of those
tense aspects of key color which, I think, should be inherent in the
use of such a remote key, at least to my understanding, as I have
gleaned from reading your postings here. It begins in the position of
the third, that is with the third in the melody, and there is nothing
in the music, as far as I can tell, that should suggest a degree of
tension that is any more than that found in a much less remote key. In
fact, it appears to be the contrary. I could make similar comments
about either of the A flat impromptus.
Another, perhaps very telling indicator is that the recapitulations
of themes in sonata form, or the tonal expositions of themes in fugues,
at least as far as I can tell, do not make allowances should the key
scheme require it, for the so-called affects found in various keys, that
is, the transpositions do not induce a kind of vague, perhaps diffuse,
alteration correlating to the change in key color, instead, the themes
or fragments are usually stated in a nearly identical, verbatim fashion,
appearing to totally disregarding any aspect or implication of the
present key color. One would expect, were such key color that
important, that the use of transposed themes would, at least, over the
centuries, show otherwise. We should readily find some indicators that
the composers placed much importance on, or even noticed in this
context, these so-called affects and used them, but it appears not to
be the case, as far as I can tell.
I don't oppose at all the so-called "temperament revival" and see a
substantial good that is coming from it, particularly as it can
increase people's awarenss of the dissonant aspect of ET. Similarly, I
agree with the author who posted here whose name escapes me at the
moment, that ET is "just another HT" and that both have a use. I do
think, however, that the very precise ET, at least in the piano and
harpsichord used in this day and age, is a by-product of the increasing
skillset accumulating now for close to ten generations among
professional piano tuners and correlates substantially with their(our)
early development.
It is not likely that early musicians, of however great a
capability, would be able to develop the skills to precisely divide the
octave in the modern fashion or even aim at it. The development of the
cadre of professional tuners was required to comprehend fully the
possibilities and effectively acquire the skills to deliver such a
precise division. In fact, I think musicians were happy merely to have
arrived at well temperamants or any temperament which offered the option
of playing in all twenty-four keys without suffering a wolf and found
the differing harmonic characters of the keys an unreliable,
unavoidable, inconsistent adjunct of such freedom and that this
explains their relative indifference and silence on such a matter.
Where I think the modern tuner goes astray, perhaps, is in the
belief that the intervals required for such a skill are anything more
than what they are and that is an enforced choice in order to make the
best of a bad situation. This situation is the incompatibility of the
octave with the just intervals contained in it and the coercion and
degree of mistuning of these contained intervals to preserve the
octave.
Regards, Robin Hufford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC