Who says E.T. is the best way to solve octave divisions?

[Dean May]

Okay, Jon Page, Ed Foote and others routinely tune in WT without being asked
to or telling their customers that is what they are doing. If they can, I
guess I can as well, though it definitely moves me out of my comfort zone.
I've experimented enough to satisfy myself that I like the sound. Good music
is about tension and release. The WT scales seem to accentuate the
tension/release adding very nice color to the music.

 

Frankly, being out of the concert circuit, 99+% of my customers will have no
notice of the difference. One thing that concerns me is other tuners coming
behind my work and being critical of the temperament I set, judging it
against an ET standard, not realizing I have deliberately set a WT. Recently
a very well respected older tech came behind one of my ET tunings of a
Steinway L and was very complimentary to the owner. That was important to
me. If I had set a WT however I doubt that he would have been so kind.
Anybody have any ideas on how to head this off? I've thought of putting in a
sticker with some kind of disclaimer stating that it is a WT scale inside
the piano. I've also considered notifying all the area techs that this is
what I am currently doing so they'll know. Does anyone else worry about
this?

 

Colman 11 has been recommended by many as a good middle of the road WT.
Broadwoods Best is another. Below is a list of all the historical
temperaments offered on my PRCT and Coleman 10 or 11 do not seem to be
represented. There is a couple of different Broadwood Best and one Broadwood
usual.  What I have been using is the W24 1885 Ellis tuner #4 Broadwood
Best. There are so many on this list I really don't have time to go through
and try them all and compare them. That would take forever. In the meantime
I have a family to feed. 

 

What I am hoping is that some of the more experienced WT tuners can tell me
(and others) what would be good tunings from the list to use, maybe ranking
them on a scale from mild to more radical and also tell me what ones would
be best to avoid altogether. Or maybe you can steer me to another resource
so I can decipher what they are. 

 

I'm also curious as to what the different letter/number combinations mean.
The W's perhaps are Well Tempered, the M's maybe meantone? 

 

 

W01 1700 Early 18th Century

W02 1731 Peter Prelleur

W03 1746 William Trans'ur

W04 1768 Theoretical J.-J. Rousseau

W05 1768 Equal Beating J.-J. Rousseau

W06 1700 George Frederick Handel

W07 1781 Francesco Antonio Vallotti

W08 1752 Jean-Le Rond D'Alembert

W09 1785 Equal-beating John Preston

W10 1785 Theoretical John Preston

W11 1799 Vallotti-Young

W12 1799 Representative 18th Century

W13 1771 Johann Philipp Kimberger

W14 1806 Theoretical Charles Stanhope

W15 1806 Equal-beating Chas. Stanhope

W16 1808 Theoretical Prinz

W17 1808 Equal-beating Prinz

W18 1832 Jean Jousse

W19 1840 Tuner's Guide #1

W20 1840 Tuner's Guide #2

W21 1840 Tuner's Guide #3

W22 1885 Representative Victorian Moon

W23 1885 Ellis tuner #2 Broadwood Usual

W24 1885 Ellis tuner #4 Broadwood Best

R01 1523 Pietro Aaron (1/4 syntonic)

R02 1707 Gottfried Keller 1/5 ditonic

R04 1749 Robert Smith (50 tones)

R05 1770 John Holden 1/5 syntonic 1&2

R06 1809 John Marsh (4/15 syntonic)

R07 1808 William Hawkes (1/6 Mercator)

R08 1558 Gioseffo Zarlino 2/7 syntonic

M09 1600 17th Century

M10 1752 Jean-Le Rond D'Alembert

M11 1797 1797 1/5 syntonic comma

M12 1798 William Hawkes

M13 1807 Improved William Hawkes

M14 1818 Alexander Metcalf Fisher

Q01 1887 Mark Wicks

Q02 1811 A. Merrick

Q03 1819 Johann C. G. Graupner

Q04 1829 Viennese (Hummel)

Q05 1832 Jean Jousse

Q06 1840 Tuner's Guide (Marsh Plan)

Q07 1840 Tuner's Guide (Becket Plan)

Q08 1840 Factory Tuners of 1840

Q09 1875 Alexander John Ellis in 1875

Q10 1885 Ellis tuner #5 Broadwood Best

Q11 1885 Alexander John Ellis in 1885

Q12 1906 Howard Willet Pyle

P01 1373 14th Century

P02 1518 Hernricus Grammateus

P03 1808 Anton Bemetzrieder

P04 1843 Augustus De Morgan

P05 1732 Johann George Neidhardt

P06 1858 Neidhardy-Marpurg-De Morgan

P07 1895 Charles E. Moscow

W25 2003 Keller

M15 1998 MayHawk

 

Many thanks,

 

Dean

Dean May             cell 812.239.3359 

PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272 

Terre Haute IN  47802

  _____  

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Jon Page
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:44 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Who says E.T. is the best way to solve octave divisions?

 

Although there is much to be said for playing "period" music on "period"
instruments, tuned to "period" temperaments, one can legitimately tune a
modern instrument to an early temperament, and recapture much of the
composers original intent for his music.

 

I've been tuning well temperaments for years, using Coleman 11 as a default

unless specifically requested. One piano teacher (Julliard grad.) says that
she

doesn't have to try to inject expression into the music because it was
written in.

 

At a concert yesterday the pianist didn't notice non-ET only that the piano
sounded great,

plus it had drifted up to 443 from 441 in August (evenly I might add).


Regards,

Jon Page

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20071030/242b3113/attachment-0001.html