R. Moody writes: >>who was Columbus's navigator? I said: > Americus Vespucci. Our country is named for him. >> Unless the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, Vespucci was not on board in 1492, he did not meet Columbus until the 3rd voyage. Actually, my elem. school teachers were wrong first so I was taught otherwise, but Vespucci wasn't with Columbus. He sailed 5 years later,(and many history books have argued whether he did that or not!) Moody again: >>but where, when and how was "well-temperament" taught and by whom? Hipkins makes no mention of it, nor does Ellis, or Montal, or Mersenne. Where actually in the historical record are these "wells" mentioned? Thomas Young presented his to the Royal Society in 1799, Werckmeister's writings have been referred to for centuries, and Kirnberger waged a pretty solid war with his. Jorgensen lists a lot of this. What is more important, to me, is that ET was discussed, at length, prior to 1850, and it mostly seems like it was absent. According to Jorgensen (Tuning, pg. 455) George Grahame wrote in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1842 that "The unequal temperament is that usually adopted". Joseph Loehr, writing in 1836, says" "There never was a man capable of tuning by ear a pianoforte or organ so as not to leave some inequality of temperament". and: " Before Mr. Scheibler's invention(the set of 12 tuning forks), no such means existed by which even a tolerable equality of temperament could be obtained. In theory, and upon paper, the requisites of such a temperament were indeed known long ago: the precise number of vibrations for each semitone had been correctly calculated, and the necessary deviations from the mathematical scale pointed out. But when it came to practice, when a musical instrument had actualy to be tuned, then all the calculations of the theorists proved so much worthless rubbish, because practice knew of no other means or criterion to regulate the pitch of the different sounds and their ratios to each other, than the ear. snip<> "The perfection of intonation(ET) is such as cannot be obtained by the finest musical ear". Jorgensen also quotes Ellis writing in 1864 "On the pianoforte the Hemitonic system is universally adopted in intention. It is, however, so difficult to realize by the ordinary methods of tuning that "equal temperament" has probably never been attained in this country, with any approach to mathematical precision." Fast forward to 1876 and we have Robert Bosanquet, a fellow of St. John's College in Oxford,(can we accept that he knew of what he spoke??) saying, "There are few tuners that can produce a tolerable equal temperament". In 1880 we have A.J. Ellis writing that "Equal temperament is that which is usually aimed at, though seldom really obtained". So, what was in use in the mid 1800's? We have some documentation here that says ET wasn't. If not that, then what? AT best, it seems that ET was a theoretical ideal that was being pursued by tuners, but according to some very learned observers of the century, was not being actually produced. If this is so, then the musicians of the time were not writing under the influence of equality, but rather, the historical bias that had existed on keyboards since their invention. It is not coincidence that virtually all of the deviations found in the Broadwood survey shared similar directions. That is certainly evidence of the well-tempered bias. The nomenclature of the time is not ours today. According to Jorgensen, "Well-Temperament" was not a term used while these tunings were in vogue. The same goes for "Meantone", a term that arose long after the tuning to which it referred was out of fashion. It is not illogical that what we call a well-temperament today was viewed as "equal" in contrast to the "keyboard tuning"(meantone) that proceeded it. In light of the number of authors of the time specifically stating that ET wasn't being produced, it seems illogical to claim it was widespread because it was simply known of, or that some theorists proposed it. The concept of a perfect circle is simple, does that make it possible for a person to draw one freehand? I don't think so, a tool must be used. The concept of ET is simple, but can you tune one without the techniques published in the the mid to late 1800's? I don't think so. It is for that reason that I cannot accept that composers in 1800 had the pan-tonal nature of ET in mind when they chose the keys that they did.(and once again, the choice of keys used during this period in keyboard music certainly seems to indicate that not all keys were the same.....) Now, to today....... > >>Consider how it {well-temperament} is proposed to be > tuned-------by machine. Actually, Owen J. led the charge into the earlier tunings with his booklet, "How to tune the historical temperaments by ear". (Barbour hadn't really made it very accessible). It had little effect on the trade, but in 1993, with his publication of "Tuning" with its offsets, coinciding with Al Sanderson's programmable SAT, we begin to see a rapid rise in interest. Today, as always, tuners are making use of the latest technology to progress beyond the normal procedures. It is slow,yes, but not nearly as slowly as it appears instrument builders and musicians of the 18th and 19th century were to move away from a tonally based temperament. >> When you say "the aural tradition has taken the biggest hit in the history of tuning.." are you are gloating or lamenting? Neither, an observation need not carry a value judgement. The influence of the machines on the general quality of tuning today is obvious. Perhaps a very small percentage of tuners can match or surpass the machines results,but on full sized pianos with good scales, it is very rare. >>Is there no interest in how tuners such as Bill Garlich or Franz Mohr, or the tuners in London, New York, Berlin Moscow, Paris or where ever tuning is done by ear, is there no interest in how they were trained, how they tune and how they are regarded by among musicians as tuners?<< On the whole, no, there is virtually no interest in these men among musicians. Bounce their names off of 100 musicians and I will be amazed if more than two recognize any of them. This may be due to the fact that there is no way to accurately determine "how" these others tuned. As I understand it, Franz Mohr steadfastly refused to allow his tunings to be measured, so we have don't really know what he is doing. Having been taught by Bill Garlick, I know exactly how and why he tunes as he does. I have also had Bill critique my tuning,(a strictly aural temperament at the Steinway factory), and he assured me that there was not a single note in my tempering that he would change, so I think I can be on the same wavelength as Bill if I desire. I have more knowledge of Bill's skill than the average tuner, and certainly more than the musical world at large. Even so, using the SAT still made me a better tuner. >>Should the aural tradition languish because those who want to tune in the next twelve years need only the machine? << I don't know if it should or not, nor do I care. The aural tuner of today has to compete with the machine tunings of today. If one believes that they can produce better results aurally than another tuner that uses both machine and ears, they should do that, and suffer/enjoy the consequences for themselves. But, when there is only 90 minutes before the performance, and a 10 cent pitch raise must be done while the chairs are being set up, and and you know that there will be musicians showing up in 45, the aural tradition is going to do little to improve the situation over a SAT or equivalent machine. Ed Foote RPT www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/ www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC