Greetings,
For those that are just tuning in, there is a post from a concert pianist
concerning temperament in our archives. It was posted on 12/9/01, and deals
specifically how temperament affects the music.
David writes:
>>I find these two points to be at odds and reflective of a tendency, in these
treatises, toward a sort of pianocentrism in explaining the choice of keys.
Of the 32 piano sonatas of Beethoven only 2 are in the key of C and most
fall in the 2, 3 and 4 sharps and flats category. <<
I am not clear on "pianocentrism in explaining the choice of keys."
When we are talking about pianos and the music composed for them, the choice of
key is certainly indicative of something, and one thing common to composers of
the Classical period is their reliance on the keys in approx. the same ratios.
If we combine the works in the major keys of Mozart (21 sonatas, 17
variation, 26 solo keyboard works), Beethoven (24 sonatas, 199 variations, 32
other assorted keyboard works), and Schubert (12 sonatas, 3 waltzes), we come up
with 343 separate compositions between 1760 and 1835. If we look at the keys
used in these pieces, we see the following:
CMaj. = 122
F ==== 44
Bb==== 24
Eb==== 33
Ab === 3
C# === 1
F# === 2
B ==== O
E ==== 3
A === 37
D=== 50
G == 24
There is a very clear pattern here, no? And it is the same pattern we
see when we chart the tempering of the WT form. Is this a coincidence? I
submit it is not. Not only is there a pattern to the cumulative total, that
same pattern is evidenced in Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert individually!
Inre Beethoven, David continues:
>>Only one piece is in 6 sharps and none are in either 5 flats or 5 sharps.
You would think that if
temperament were dictating choice of keys that there would be a greater
dispersion. <<
I see the opposite. The numbers indicate that temperament was a
compositional influence. Equal dispersion in the use of keys didn't happen until
the late 1800's, when I believe ET became widespread. (several
"Temperament-heads" that I know argue for the use of WT well into the 20th century, but I
dunno. After listening to "Rhapsody in Blue" on a Young temperament, I am a firm
believer in ET for that piece).
The comparison above clearly shows that the pattern of usage mimics the
pattern of tempering in a WT. LVB certainly favored Eb over all other keys,
and if there is any logic for this other than a subjective favoritism on his
part, it is that a 'home' key of Eb offered the greatest flexibility in
modulation. This key has broad room to modulate up the dissonant ladder as well as
down into consonance. Compare it to the key of F# and it is easy to "come
back" to the tonic without suffering an increase in the level of tension. F#
and B are hard keys to resolve, (is that why virtually no one used them? I am
told that Bmaj. is an easy key for the hands, so there had to be some reason it
was avoided by so many major composers).
>>Interestingly, the width of the tonic major third in the keys
with 2, 3 and 4 sharps or flats (where most of the pieces are written) falls
very close to the width of the third in ET. <<
I respectfully disagree. The vast majority of the compositions are
composed in 3 accidentals or less. If we examine the Young temperament, we see 2
accidentals (keys G or F) creates a 8 cent tonic 3rd, and 3 sharps or flats is
the same as ET. When we reach 4 sharps, we are dealing with 18 cents in the
third. This is hardly ET size.
And while we are on the subject of Young, it is hard to imagine that
such a mathematical genius would have presented a WT to the Royal Society if he
had found favor in ET. Why would he have chosen the idealized WT as his
vehicle in 1799 if ET was in common use? If anybody could have solved the problems
in tuning an ET, at least enough to propose a method of tuning it, it would
have been Thomas Young, and he did't.
>>The assumption is also that it was the nature of the sound of the "piano" or
like tempered instrument that guided compositional key choices. <<
I can think of no other guiding force that would have created the results
of the compilation already displayed above. I would be interested in any
other explanation for the pattern among these three major composers, individually
and communally.
>>Beethoven seems to have thought of his piano music
in orchestral terms where the tempered scale again has little meaning. Much
of Schubert's music was written without the benefit of a piano because he
couldn't afford one and are similarly orchestral in structure. <<
Interestingly, in orchestral music, the various keys were regarded as
having distinctly different "characters." Nobody composed serene, calm music
in F#, B, or E, nor tense, dreary passages in the simpler keys. The Classical
era was built upon the Baroque, and following the "Doctrine of Affections,"
composers beyond the Baroque sought to create an emotional response in the
listener. That is easier to do when you have some keys that are sedative and
others that are stimulative. During the Baroque, (meantone era), this couldn't
have been done with tempering, unless you consider the occasional wolf that
comes snarling in the front door a suitable stimulus for excitement.
>>It's quite easy to construct an after the fact interpretation of key
selection based on subjective viewpoints about contrasting sounds. I just
don't think the evidence really supports the claims. <<
This is where we differ, I cannot find more than scant evidence that ET
was considered, and most of that is the written accounts of theorists that
objected to it. However, there is copious documentation that WT was in popular
use. I also doubt that anything like ET can be produced by anyone other than
professionals that do it a lot. I have seen part-timers try, but they don't
come close. Montal's instructions of 1832 will give a very close approximation
of ET, but you better be really good to succeed, (how many of us can tune four
contiguous equally tempered m3rds in the octave and get it right?)
What are the odds that the tradition-bound musical workers of the
1700's would have taken the trouble to be avant-garde when the status quo of the
time was modified MT and well publicized WT? Look at how intransigent we, as a
profession, are today? Our Guild has no teeth today, but 200 years ago, it
was very different.
>>The selection of key, I would suggest, was a response to WT's only in the
sense that the self
limiting choices of keys with relatively few sharps and flats were an
attempt, consciously or not, to not drift too far from what ET eventually
offered. <<
I don't see "self-limiting" in these choices. In fact, the WT offers
far more musical resources, in terms of harmonic qualities, that ET. The choice
of the most consonant keys for the majority of the music argues against ET
being in use, and the sonata form, with its usual foray into the remote keys for
"expression," seems to make great use of the contrasts. The wild modulations
usually found in the second movement, (see
http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/jperry/virtual_textbook/sonata.htm), go to the extreme keys. This harmonic
exploration is hollow if all keys possess the same harmonic quality.
>>And if we are going to use empirical evidence, while there are a few concert
level musicians who argue for the use of WT's for a musical and historically
accurate interpretation of 18th and 19th music, there are many more, if not
nearly all, who, not inclined to sacrifice musicality or historical
faithfulness, choose to play the music in ET.<<
The vast majority of concert level musicians I have had dealings with are
totally ignorant of temperament history,(beyond the difference between
meantone and Et). The several well known performers I have tuned for didn't notice
that the tuning was different until I told them. The general consensus has
been that the piano was in a very resonant state of tune. Several of them have
told me that during performances, they are too busy to pay attention to the
tuning at all, and while on the road, feel fortunate enough to have a competent
tuner that can render stable unisons. Seeking a non-standard temperament is
beyond them. That is changing, though.
>>When I talk with musicians who possess
perfect pitch, they all describe different keys as having different
characters, moods, feelings, colors whatever you choose to call it. Many of
these musicians are not pianists and probably have no experience, or
possibly even knowledge, of various kinds of temperaments. <<
Yes, and if you tune a piano 1/2 step flat in ET, they will ALL ascribe
those characteristics to a key 1/2 lower than what you are really playing on.
The "feelings" are pitch dependant. I believe that the attribution of certain
"feelings" or moods to a given key are the result of the historical record of
how those keys were traditionally used. If Ab had been used mainly for
"expressive" passages, it makes sense that modern performers would have integrated
that "use" with their recognition of the key. ( you will never hear a piece
of calm, serenity in the key of B or F#).
>>Many of the more famous composers of the 18th and 19th century, in fact,
had perfect pitch.
I would suggest that key selection had more to do with certain innate key
characteristics than temperament.>>
And what would those "certain innate key characteristics" be? If you
have 88 exactly equal steps, there is no change in relationships from one key to
the next, and there are no differences between keys except pitch. Those that
have pitch recognition have no trouble ascribing familiar conventions to
those keys.
I have repeatedly said that any tech familiar with a varity of tunings
can make a inarguable value judgement, since taste is subjective and
unassailable. I personally don't think there is such a thing as a superior temperament.
Every temperament has its strengths and weaknesses, and none of them work
perfectly for everything. ET is very valuable for its flexibility. It is the
simple way for us to make money, but is a terrible compromise for music
composed before its widespread use. For the uncompromising, it is simply too
coarse of a solution to appeal to the epicurean sensibility.
With the ease of recreating the earlier temperaments today,(SAT, VT, RCT,
Tunelab, etc.), there is no reason for the modern tech to rely on one and
only one way to tune. Having a familiarity with several WT's is the same as
having more tools in our kit. That cannot be a bad thing.
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC