(careful, it is about temperaments)

[A440A@aol.com]

Greetings, 
 
Dave P. writes: 
 
>From my observations that's probably true.  I listened to Franz Mohr tell a
class that if an artist asks for a non-ET temperament to just tune ET and
don't go there.  Now that was a few years ago but his view of the subject
indicated that this idea was probably not subject to change. >>
 
        Hmm,  from the way I read this, Franz Mohr was saying that the 
pianist's desires don't matter, that the technician should tune the piano as he 
thinks it should be tuned. Perhaps he was intending to say that the technician 
knows best, regardless of what the artist thinks.  
      I don't think Franz was  speaking of musical aesthetics, he was 
speaking from the factory philosophy of standardization.  This is rather indicative 
of the Steinway position, which is a bit of a curious thing, itself.  On the 
one hand, they tout themselves as the "standard" piano of the world, while at 
the same time, describing their erratic construction and very individual pianos 
as being the result of being hand made, (which is anything BUT standard).  
     I was told by one STeinway tech that there was no way to consider 
different temperaments on their New York C&A pianos because they never knew which 
one was to be used for what performance.  This is non-sense, as the moving of a 
piano out of the basement, into the venues, requires a fresh tuning each time, 
and there is no problem with moving a third of a piano's strings up 3 or 4 
cents, a third of them down the same amount, and leaving a third of them almost 
unchanged.  I still don't see any instability when moving a piano from ET to 
WT.  The change of temperament makes virtually no difference to the cumulative 
tension on the plate.  
      I also believe that the rise of piano manufacturing was a prime reason 
for the adoption of a "standard" tuning (ET).  I don't believe it had much to 
do with what was best for the music so much as what was best for the industry. 
 We all got used to it, it was easy to measure, and didn't offend the vast 
majority.  Today, we have alternatives, and their use is slowly growing.  
      As far as using the lack of composer's support for WT in the past, I 
don't think that means a thing.  I have never heard any composer discuss 
temperament( well, Lou Harrison did write one piece specifically for the Kirnberger 
II, I believe).  I don't think anyone will find anything written by Bach, 
Beethoven, Ravel, Debussy, Rachmaninoff or John Cage that refers to temperament.  
Picasso didn't write much about paint brushes, either.  
    Even in the upper echelons of the performing pianists,  there is rampant 
ignorance of temperament.  It wasn't taught in schools, and a whole generation 
matured without even considering it.  It isn't hard to understand that they 
don't want to admit ignorance, but that is what it is for the majority of them. 
  
    I have even tuned for one well known and respected performer/teacher, 
(Julliard and Curtis) that didn't even realize he was playing a piano in a Young 
temperament while giving a master class, side by side with an ET piano.  The 
same passages were played alternately on both, yet he didn't notice that there 
was a profound difference in the tuning.  This is the sign of a an artist not 
really listening to what they were doing.  Sad, but true.  
Regards, 

Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html