[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Fred Sturm]

On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Ed Sutton wrote:

> Fred-
>
> Since it is first of all the performer we tune for, may I ask:
>
> Did you find your performance of Villa-Lobos in any way changed by  
> Moore or ET temperaments?
>
No. I have my own personal piano tuned to Moore, and it has been that  
way for a few years (it was the piano I tuned first as an experiment  
before my music department experiment). I don't notice. I don't  
remember on any particular day that that is how it is tuned (at the  
moment, I notice that the voicing is becoming shrill - temperament is  
way, way in the background). On a couple occasions I started to tune  
it to ET, wondered why it was a bit "haywire," and remembered that I  
had it in Moore.
	As a performer, I am far more sensitive to regulation, voicing, and  
unisons. Then comes something I might call "overall resonance of the  
instrument" which may possibly be affected by overall tuning pattern  
(stretch): as a tuner, I like to think so. And pitch of the outer  
notes in a raw sense (heard as pitch, not as a octave or double octave  
or whatever) in the context of the rest of the piano, often the other  
end of the piano (low bass, high treble). And I think temperament  
comes after all those things in significance, at least the subtle  
shadings we tend to talk about.
> Do you think Villa-Lobos's music was influenced by a sensitivity on  
> his part to various temperaments?
	No. I think he lived in a time during which tuning was much the same  
as was documented by Alexander Ellis in the appendix to Helmholtz's  
Sensation of Tone (I forget the precise title at the moment). This  
documentation was used by Jorgenson to come up with "recipes" for such  
temperaments as "Broadwood's Best" and Moore. These tunings were  
considered to be ET at the time. Or you might put it that this range  
of tuning was considered to be ET.
	So to be precise, I would say that Villa-Lobos would find a Moore  
tuning quite familiar, in keeping with tuning styles of the time.  
Whether or not he would distinguish or prefer one flavor over another  
(say, that he would distinguish it from an ET done to current  
standards)? Let's say that I would be skeptical. Not to go into a  
dissertation on tuning, but we have to remember that the musical world  
is not focused entirely on the piano. Tuning of non-fixed pitch  
instruments is an entirely different world, and is the predominant  
musical tuning world (pitch is constantly being "bent" to fit context,  
or for musical effect). I don't think many composers think musically  
one way for the piano, another for all other instrumentation.
	Unless they are really fixed on the piano, like a Bill Evans,  
listening carefully to complex voicings and blendings. I would be very  
curious to know how sensitive someone like him would be to temperament  
variance. I have a customer who plays "a la Bill Evans." I did a  
stealth Moore on his piano. He didn't say anything. He certainly does  
say something if a single unison is slightly sour, and it is clear to  
me that he listens very carefully and acutely, and is not at all shy  
about communicating with me. Not by any means conclusive, and I really  
should also do a "non-stealth" experiment - but there we get into  
human suggestibility, which seems to trump everything else in many  
cases.
>
>
> Do you think the style of Villa-Lobos's music is one that displays  
> subtle differences in tempering?
I guess one might say that it has that possibility: it is tonal, but  
uses a lot of coloristic harmony. If one is sensitive enough to hear  
those differences, they may be there. I don't hear them, myself, in a  
musical context.
>
>
> My concern is not  the vote of the audience, or even the approval of  
> a tuning expert, but to get some clarity about the circumstances in  
> which differing temperaments might make a difference for particular  
> performers.  I would like to discern whether the difference is a  
> genuine response to the change of temperament, and not just a hyped  
> response to a tuner's sales pitch.
That is precisely what I am trying to get at. I read all sorts of  
posts raving about how much some non-ET tuning enhanced a performance  
or pleased a customer/artist. I am open to this being true. OTOH, my  
own experience is leading me to think there is a continuum between  
"perfect ET" (more precisely, an emulation of ET in which beat rates  
conform as well as possible to a theoretical pattern) and various  
flavors of "WT." At some point, WT becomes noticeable, and maybe it  
enhances, maybe it detracts (depending on taste and context). I don't  
think we can define a precise point, but at the moment I would place  
Moore as being closer to ET on the spectrum, unnoticeable to most in  
musical context (though obvious if we play a few intervals in  
isolation).
>
>
> If/when a change of temperament can really help or hinder a  
> performer, we should know what to offer.
>
> Ed Sutton


I wish I had some answers. It is difficult to distinguish "real data"  
from "hype" (partly due to the human suggestibility factor). I guess  
that at this point I am feeling more and more that temperament shape  
is not nearly as significant as we believe and want to believe. But I  
am still exploring. When you get to WTs with real noticeable character  
(on the order of Valotti), it becomes more significant and definitely  
noticeable. But in that realm, I think I would say there are  
"families" of WT and meantone, and that what family the tuning belongs  
to is more important than the very precise tuning instructions or  
cents offsets.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu