After his first visit, Americus Vespucci wrote a pornographic book on the sexual prowess of the native women here, which was a runaway best seller all over Europe, greatly inciting interest ( among uncouth men, at least ) in travelling to the "New World". And that, dear friends, is the actual reason why these lands were named in his "honor". No kidding. Thump --- A440A@aol.com wrote: > 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 > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC