[CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD

Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu
Mon Apr 19 20:51:21 MDT 2010


On Apr 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Laurence Libin wrote:

> Thank you for your patience in responding. I've been editing  
> Patrizio Barbieri's work for Grove, so when we have time I'll ask  
> him about all this.
> Laurence


I'm delighted Barbieri is writing for Groves. He'll be a great asset.  
I hope some of his writing for you is on tuning subjects.
	I'm going to expound a bit on the reason for considering England so  
much separate from the continent in matters of temperament, to clarify  
what is, on the surface, rather surprising. It has a great deal of  
bearing on why there is so much confusion and misinformation  
concerning 19th century temperament history among piano technicians  
and others in the US (and to a lesser extent in other parts of the  
world).
	Jorgensen did considerable digging in England, unearthing documents  
and analyzing them, in his attempt to get at what tuners were really  
doing during that period, as opposed to what theoreticians might have  
been saying. He assumed that England would be representative of what  
was going on in the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, he was badly  
mistaken in this assumption.
	To understand this, we have to look at the 18th century in  
continental Europe and in England. In Germany, circular temperaments  
were overwhelmingly predominant from the very beginning of the  
century, with mean tone very much on the fringes (Silbermann was the  
only important advocate of MT, for 1/6 comma, and he was pretty  
exceptional in this regard). Equal temperament was one of the  
circulating temperaments, also from the very beginning of the century,  
instigated by Werckmeister, with successive champions in Neidhardt,  
Sorge and Marpurg during the first half of the century. Germans knew  
very well what equal temperament was, and they knew it in comparison  
with circulating temperaments that were relatively mild.
	In France, modified mean tone of the "French Ordinaire" pattern was  
dominant throughout the century, again a circulating temperament,  
though not as mild as the German ones. Mean tone was very much in the  
background, though not so absent as in Germany. And equal temperament  
was known about and talked about due to Rameau's advocacy (from 1837  
on), though not much put to use. The French also had a very good  
notion of what equal temperament was, in contrast to their particular  
style of circulating temperament.
	In England, the story was completely different. There was nearly no  
mention of any circulating temperament at all during the 18th century,  
and the dominant tuning method was mean tone, mostly of the 1/6 - 1/5  
comma variety. What  controversy there was centered on whether 1/4  
comma (or various other fractional commas) might be better.
	So when we come to 1800 (as a nice round boundary date), and the  
English are hearing more and more about equal temperament, and hearing  
for themselves that mean tone doesn't work well with the new music  
being imported from Germany, they really don't know what the term ET  
means. Their notion is that it is simply any tuning in which all keys  
can be used. As a result, we have Broadwood announcing proudly to the  
world in 1811 (I believe, or thereabouts) that his firm had adopted  
the modern tuning method preferred by the best composers, including  
Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven: equal temperament. He was mistaken.  
Whether he was mistaken about the preferences of the composers is a  
separate issue, but he was certainly mistaken in his claim that his  
firm had adopted ET. In fact, he probably didn't know what ET was, and  
assumed it simply meant a tuning that could be used in all keys, a  
circular temperament. The consensus seems to be that the tuning used  
at Broadwood during this time was a "semi-mean tone" - a tuning where  
the naturals are tuned in mean tone, and the accidentals are tuned so  
as to be midway between them. That is the intent, anyway, though there  
is no convenient way to accomplish this aurally (there are monochords  
for the purpose, but no aural instructions seem to have survived).  
Probably it was done "seat of the pants," with "varied results."
	Other circulating temperaments made their way to England as time  
passed. Kirnberger II came to the attention of the Earl of Stanhope  
about 30 years after it was first published. French Ordinaire was  
espoused by Jean Jousse in the 1830s. And when 1840 came, Broadwood  
hired A. J. Hipkins to teach their tuners to do ET. Apparently that  
was necessary: I would assume that Broadwood, being, like Steinway  
today, a firm in touch with touring virtuosi, had complaints about the  
tuning quality and took measures. It seems likely that this was the  
first serious attempt to teach English tuners how to accomplish ET,  
and it would obviously take some time for this to percolate around the  
city of London, let alone the whole country.
	Emblematic of the attitude of the English to ET, and their continued  
attachment to MT, is the proliferation of enharmonic instruments,  
particularly harmoniums capable of extending MT or just intonation.  
Some had 51 or 53 notes per octave. This is something that did not  
take root elsewhere on the continent, another indication of how  
different England was. The "craze" in this regard took place in the  
second half of the 19th century (though there were extended mean tone  
inventions for harpsichord and for acoustic grand piano, as well as  
split key square pianos, during the first half of the century).
	So Jorgensen found that the evidence showed the English were tuning  
any number of ways differently from ET during the time when main  
stream scholars claimed ET was dominant. He found no evidence of  
reliable ET instructions until late in the century. And he assumed  
that he had discovered that the truth was that ET actually wasn't  
practiced during the 19th century. All this because his research  
centered on England, and because he assumed England was representative.
	Sorry to have gone on so long, but it takes a bit of telling to make  
this clear. This is the reason so many people believe what they  
believe, in contrast to what I, for one, take to be the facts. My  
opinions are in line with those of most serious scholars, including  
Barbieri. Jorgensen's work needs to be seen in the light of what I  
have set out briefly above. There will be further details forthcoming  
in the series of articles I have written, which will run starting in  
May in the PT Journal.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm at unm.edu
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Twain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100419/19fd8cde/attachment.htm>


More information about the CAUT mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC