The conquistadores were scraped from the rabble of
Spain's streets and barrooms, and the Jamestown lot
were not much better. I have read portions of
Vespuccis letters on the native women here, and they
are hardly a "scientific" treatise! And the article I
read cited them as a major recruitment tool in
gathering adventurers to this continent.
Fortunately, good manners prevent me from
repeating their contents on this list.
If you wish to live in a fantasy wherein
everything American is Godly and noble, I have no
objection. Its still a free country ( well, for the
moment, at least).
Thump
--- tune4u@earthlink.net wrote:
> >From whence do you extrapolate the fact that
> "uncouth men" were incited to
> travel to the New World? Or, that only because his
> observations on the
> native peoples included "sexual" information did
> they use his name for the
> discovered lands? No offense, but methinks you think
> too much, sometimes.
>
> Alan Barnard
> Salem, MO, United States of Vespucci
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
> [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]On
> Behalf Of gordon stelter
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 7:03 AM
> To: Pianotech
> Subject: Americus Vespucci
>
>
> 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.......
> >
> >
>
=== 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