----- Original Message -----
From: <A440A@aol.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: aural tradition takes a hit
>..............................
> Moody again:
> >>but where, when and how was "well-temperament" taught and by
> whom
...........................
>Foote Thomas Young presented his to the Royal Society in
1799, [there was] Werckmeister's and Kirnberger.
But what did Young, Werckmeister and Kirnberger
call their temperaments.?
>
> According to Jorgensen (Tuning, pg. 455)
> George Grahame wrote in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1842
that "The unequal temperament is that usually adopted".
The "unequal temperament" the name used for meantone in all the
old articles I have read.
> 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".
It seems J L was talking about "a man
tuning by ear" was trying to tune an equal temperament---he tried
but still there is some inequality. But he did not on purpose
try to attain
" inequality of temperament". Or that he gave ET up and used a
temperament with different size (unequal) 5ths to make it easier.
I had the impression Jorgensen categorized as "well
temperament" those tuning schemes proposed by Young, Kirnberger,
and Werkmeister which used some pure 5ths in combination the
narrow 5ths Meantone to eliminate the wolf and thus allow playing
in all the keys. By using the term "well" he seems to capitalize
on Bach's well known title or infer some relation to it and
ostensibly bolster his contention that Bach intended something
other than ET for WTC.
Of course he can invent the term, define it, and use it to
categorize certain temperaments which I thought he said contained
pure 5ths. But to include the early attempts and use of ET in the
category of WT, he is stepping over his own bounds.
> " 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.
"Tolerable equality of temperament..." Obviously he is
talking about Equal Temperament, not "well temperament". BTW what
page is this quote from? I could not find a date of his invention
but he died in 1837. James Broadwood mention a set of 12 forks
in 1811 and suggests they be used by amateurs if the aural process
was too difficult.
>"The perfection of intonation (ET)
> is such as cannot be obtained by the finest musical ear".
Again you are quoting people talking about the difficulties of
tuning ET not some other temperament called "well". This was
discussed in 1811, and numerous times during the history ET which
we are hearing China knew centuries before the Greeks.
>
> 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."
So they were trying to tune ET in 1864 but they had not achieved
mathematical precision? But how does this prove they were tuning
"well temperament" instead? Ellis ca 1880 measured examples of
tuning from 4 Broadwood tuners and reported, "The figures shew how
very close an approximation is now possible in pianofortes".
These figures are given in a table called "Specimens of Tuning
Equal Temperament" (Helmholtz, p. 485.)
> 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".
YES !! Proof that a few tuners could produce a tolerable equal
temperament in 1876! So where is his reference to those who
could produce a tolerable "well temperament" ?
> In 1880 we have A.J. Ellis writing that "Equal temperament is
that which is usually aimed at, though seldom really obtained".
That seems at odds with his assessment of Broadwood's tuners.
What page is this on?
But again here is evidence ET was practiced in 1880 Are you
saying the failed efforts of ET should be
called "well temperament". But why? If they were trying to
obtain ET why can't it called "attempted ET" or "early ET.
Was there a conscious and systematic attempt to tune a
temperament other than ET which you call a "well" ? If so what was
the system, who tried and who succeeded? You present very good
evidence that ET was described and tried from at least 1811 on,
but where is the evidence that a temperament called "well" was
described and tried at any time?
> So, what was in use in the mid 1800's? We have some
documentation here that says ET wasn't.
All the documentation you presented
above describes attempts at achieving ET.
>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.
This is shaky history. To say "well-temperament was not a term
used while these tunings were in vogue" does not prove that such
tunings were ever in vogue. The sources must be cited. The name
"well..." must be defined, or made explicitly clear
as to what tuning system it is referring to.
The use of "well" to refer to the theory and practice of tuning
ET in the 18th and 19th centuries, seems like quirky notion to
deny the
history of ET, or a singular effort to revise the history of
ET.---rm
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC