Ed,
After skimming through a good part of the book I refered to, which is
entitled CHOPIN'S LETTERS (Dover Publications), I have not found a reference to
Hipkins, as I described below. . It is possible that my memory is inaccurate as
I read this years ago, although I still have the impression that somewhere in the
book Chopin, in conjunction with some commentary about Broadwood, takes note of
the passing of Hipkins as I indicated. However, what I have found this weekend,
and which I may, at some point in the past, have confused with Hipkins, when the
tuner's name was actually Ennike, was the quote following which is taken from
page 367......"even Ennike, our best tuner, has drowned himself. So now I have
not left in the world even a pianoforte tuned as I am used to having it.".
This is in a letter to Juljan Fontana written from Scotland in the summer of
1848. Fontana was in New York but I am not sure if the reference to Ennike is to
a tuner that was available there in Scotland with Chopin or whether Chopin, while
reminiscing of their old times together in Poland ( they were from, I think, the
same place and were close friends from childhood), referred to the tuner(Ennike)
as being from area of the two friends' childhoods.
The letter itself is highly morose, perhaps understandable as the man was
conscious of his own impending death, and lamented the general falling away of the
familiar figures of youth and early adulthood - both those that had passed during
the course of the previous years, and those, as was the case with himself,
verging on death also. It is also a general commentary on the debilitations of
aging.
I am still under the impression, erroneous or not, that there was the other
reference as I indicated, but will have to continue to look for it as time
allows. The book is about 420 pages of mundane commentary about the practical
matters of life, his reception as a pianist and composer during his various
travels, traveling details, etc.etc, with not a word, as I can recall, given over
to the subject of key color, or possiblities of temperament.
Another reference to a piano tuner can be found on page 57: "Beginning with
Kapellmeister Lachner and ending with the pianoforte-tuner, they are surprised at
the beauty of the composition." This in regards to the reception he received at a
concert in Vienna.
On an incidental note he comments with amazement how, it had become possible
to travel on a train from Washington to Baltimore - a distance, I think that was
counted as forty miles, in merely an hour. This, or course, in regards to the
development of railroads.
Another incidental but interesting comment (p. 154): "I have met Rossini,
Cherubini, Baillot, etc - also Kalkbrenner. You would not believe how curious I
was about Herz, Liszt, Hiller, etc. - They are all zero beside Kalkbrenner. I
confess that I have played like Herz, but would wish to play like Kalkbrenner. If
Paganini is perfection, Kalkbrenner is his equal, but in quite another style. It
is hard to describe to you his calm, his enchanting touch, his incomparable
eveness, and the mastery that is displayed in every note; he is a giant, walking
over Herz and Czerny and all, - and over me. ...... But you should have heard it
when he(Kalkbrenner) started again; I had not dreamed of anything like it.
..... he is superior to everything I have heard." This, of course, is not how
history views Lizst viz a viz. Kalkbrenner or, even, Chopin, and is, I think,
noteworthy, although this may smack of being off-topic and I may incur the wrath
of the OT police.
A440A@aol.com wrote:
> Robin writes:
>
> << 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. <<
>
> This is news to me. I wasn't aware that Chopin had named the tuner of
> his choice, only that there was one.
>
> >>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. <<
>
> Hmm, this is certainly a different perspective from my own. I consider
> the detuning of the ET intervals to be its major distinguishing
> characteristic, as it gives the thirds a rather stimulative effect,
> everywhere. This is the quality that is usually held by Eb or A in a
> Well-Temperament.
> The "flaw", if there is one, is the poverty of harmonic resources, ie,
> that there is nothing really consonant, nothing really strident and piercing,
> and no contrast to call attention to either.
>
This is, indeed, a different perspective, as you say. I don't think, though, that
there is a real poverty of harmonic resources in ET, particularly as the
dissonant-consonant experience at any moment is a function of the harmonic
conditioning of the present moment by preceeding material which can make even
dissonant(at least somewhat) ET thirds and sixths seem intensely consonant upon
their appearance, or the converse. .
>
> >>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.<<
>
> Agreed, but they do not create the same subliminal, physiological effects
> on the emotional level as the variety of interval widths found in WT's. To
> the listener that is insensitive to the musical qualities of various widths
> of thirds or sixths, there are no effects. That doesn't mean that they aren't
> there.
> There is a line of communication that is not dependant on the
> intellectual aspects of music. This vocabulary is employed by the violinist
> that sharpens leading tones,etc. to create effects of expectation and
> resolution. That effect has to be suggested when the intonation is fixed. It
> can be physically produced when the intonation is flexible. The keyboard,
> with fixed pitches, can only offer this by modulation when there is a WT in
> place.
>
> >> 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". <<
>
> "Better" implies a value judgement,which is not necessarily an evil
> thing. However, I do think it can be misleading. I would submit that
> consonance is not the be all and end all of music. As Braid-White quotes
> Plutarch, "Music, to create harmony, must investigate discord". He is not
> saying "Musicians" must investigate discord, but rather, that music itself
> requires it if we are to appreciate harmony. I take this quote to mean that
> without contrast, the perception of beauty suffers. Thus, I view "sameness"
> as a threat to the appreciation of harmony.
>
I certainly do agree, for the most part, with what you say here but note that the
harmonic resources available on the keyboard tuned in ET, as the notes, chords, or
whatever, are chosen may be intensely dissonant in the contrasting manner you
imply and it does not require, although as I say I have no objection to,
contrasting thirds ala the variations in temperament to be able to experience such
a consonant-dissonant continuum. Of course, consonance is not the end all and be
all of music as you say. My reference to improving the quality of thirds and
sixths, is, simply, to suggest that what happens to them in ensemble playing, that
is being tuned very frequently to more harmonic values, is, in fact, a virtue also
possessed by Historical Temperaments and that, absent the limiting effects of
excessively dissonant thirds and sixths in remote keys, the perception of this
improvement by people accustomed to the ordinary size of the thirds and sixths of
the ET comes very much as a pleasant, moving, experience which accounts, in part,
and I am sure I don't know to what degree, for the very favorable reactions you
have so well described here on previous occasions.
>
> >>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. <<
>
> Perhaps, but once again, I hold that contrast is more affecting than
> consonance by itself. I have seen performers get their hands on a meantone
> tuning for the first time, and they are not quite as affected as when they
> are introduced to something like a Werckmeister. 1/4 Comma MT has no more
> contrast than ET, until you hit the diesis,at which point the distance
> between harmony and dissonance is so great that it ceases to be a comparison
> of effect and turns into a distinction between usable and non.
>
Again, I would disagree with the apparent predicate of your argument, if I
understand it correctly, that, absent the effects of "temperament key-color" there
is inadequate contrast. This contrast is, no doubt, improved by variable thirds
and sixths but the fundamental fact, as I see it, is that this contrast is
determined by combinations and sequences of tones rather than the degree and
extent of mistuning of certain intervals. My point is that the improvement I
alluded to above is found in the improved quality of some of the thirds and sixths
relative to those of equal temperament.
>
> >>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 <snip> 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.<<
>
> Then how are we to explain the overwhelming preference for keys with
> fewer accidentals in keyboard music written between 1600 and 1900? This
> preference seems to be directly linked to the evolution of temperament, by era
> . The use of the "wolf" keys found in the traditional MT is virtually
Why would not this preference be just as likely to accounted for by what I claim
above, that is a preference for keys which are, overall, less dissonant. Does'nt
this make my point? Could not one say that as the dissonance of the remote keys
was rendered less, over time, by various systems of temperament, that is, as the
remote keys were improved, they were then considered useful by the musicians and
composers who had previously avoided them, using instead the better sounding keys
much more frequently and that this accounts for the imbalance of key use you refer
to. Additionally, it could be argued that there appears to be a better fit in a
kind of statistical sense, between the slow, progressive, development of ET and
the concommitant, increasingly frequent use of the previously avoided keys.
Furthermore, the tuning of string instruments primarily, and, secondarily, that of
the brass, must in a developmental sense, account for a substantial amount of this
preference, as may well simple habituation of pedagogy. To my mind there are
numerous reasons which such preference can be accounted for and to lay all, or
even a great part, of it at the feet of temperament does seem, at least to me, to
disregard many other pertinent, and, perhaps, more compelling factors. Just look
at books on piano pedagogy today - they almost always are highly concentrated in
the less remote keys even though, as you say, acoustically, there is no relevant
difference harmonically, which is true.
Another point to make: it seems to me arguable that the substantial absence of HT
and the extreme prevalence of ET in tuning other fixed pitch instruments but
which play only single notes, for example, the flute, the oboe, the clarinet, etc.
suggests that, in fact, the virtues of various forms of HT which may be realized
on a keyboard that is designed for repeated, non-factory retuning , as is the
case for the piano or harpsichord, is of insufficient import to tune such
instuments in a pertinent ET as this must be done at the factory and is, either,
not reversible and can be reversed only much great difficulty, in contrast to
keyboard tuning. That is, the benefits of HT is sufficiently insignificant as to
not be worth the trouble. It would seem that there should be some effect on the
tuning of these kinds of instruments were such virtues as you suggest exist were
in fact significant. This may seem to be going a far piece in argument, and I
think it is, but, still, it seems just one more part of the puzzle.
>
> non-existant before 1700. (Vicentino and his ilk were venturing into non-12
> intonation, but aside from these short-lived forays beyond the Halberstadt
> model, the world of composition appears to have been hemmed in by the wolf).
> How are we to explain the near total abstinence from F# in the keyboard
> compostions of the 1700"s, as well as the correlation between key-signature
> and choice? Especially in sonata form, we see a directly inverse linkage
> between the number of accidentals in the key and the number of compositions
> that use it. This preference for keys is near universal,(Bach, Haydn,
> Mozart, Beethoven etal).
> How are we to explain the increasing use of the remote keys as the
> contrasts of tempering became more and more mitigated throughout the 1800's?
> Or the virtual democracy of key selection after the 20th century began, (a
> point at which I believe ET had leveled the 12 keys to pitch choice and no
> more).
> Taken as a whole, the evolution of keyboard composition appears to march in
> lockstep with the evolution of temperament, from the eight keys favored in
> the MT era to the pan-tonal characteristic of the equally tempered 20th
> century. I don't think this is by chance or coincidence.
>
I agree again that the evolution of keyboard composition appears to march in
lockstep with the evolution of equal temperament, as you say, but argue, again,
that this may well demonstrate that the "key color" of the remote keys was so
"colorful" as to be unusable, and that the evolution in the direction of ET cured
this excessive, unusual "colorfulness". Admittedly it did so by taking from the
good , rendering them less good, and adding this to the bad, rending them more
good. (Pardon the language here).
>
> >> 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). <<
>
> Given the coherance of direction, (listed above), I don't see how
> "arbitrary" can be used to describe the form of inequality found in the
> history of temperament. There is a definite organization in place that is
> found in all of the proposals. Whereas WT's differ, it is not in their form,
> but rather, their relative strengths of contrast. Even the MT's were
> similar, with the wolf being switched back and forth a few degrees but never
> reversed with the consonant keys.
>
> >>This aspect is the assemblege of various methods used,<snip>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.<<
>
> Once again, there is a profuse variety of temperaments, but essentially
> only one form.
>
> >>Indeed, the whole concept of temperament is a non
> sequitur with regard to ensemble tuning.<<
>
> Agreed.
>
With this agreement do you dismiss the argument in favor of some, essential,
natural unity of musical expression existing in an overarching fashion between its
appearance in freely tunable instruments, that is ensemble work in general, and
that of fixed-pitch keyboard instruments? Where generalized tuning preferences
exist, they do so for reasons that are, essentially, independant of the fact of
fixity or freedom in tuning. The limiting compromises that are made for
fixed-pitch instruments do not, in my mind, represent a kind of superior tuning
system or even, as I said before, a virtue of any kind, as they require harmonic
values that, in general, are avoided in freely tuned instruments.
I will post some comments to the remainder of your observations a little later in
the week, and, also, to RicM's posting, as at the moment I am running out of time.
Regards, Robin Hufford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC