Explain a little further. A monochord with the ET divisions marked below. You touched a spot on the string to produce a tone in ET...in theory David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com> To: caut at ptg.org Received: 4/20/2010 12:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] ET vs UET >Laurence- >You may recall our correspondence about Bootman's Piano-Forte Tuning Scale, a >monochord sold in New York in the 1860's. It is scaled in ET, as is Roller and >Blanchet's device (Paris, 1820's). Whether or not these gadgets worked, they are >scaled in ET, not some other temperament. They speak unambiguously of their >makers' intentions. >My copy of Bootman's advertising flier states "....All tuners try to obtain an equal >temperament, but only a few, who have constant practice and a perfect ear >succeed, while with this scale all can obtain it more perfectly than can be done by >the ear alone...." It is endorsed by William Mason, Gottschalk and Steinway and >Sons. Steinway calls it "the best of its kind," so one wonders what other tuning >devices were available in the mid-19th century. >They are listed as sold by eight music merchants in New York, Buffalo and Chicago. >I have two of these devices, one in working condition, both purchased on eBay in >recent years, so I don't suppose they were rarities. >Ed Sutton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Laurence Libin > To: caut at ptg.org > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:32 AM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] ET vs UET > I didn't know England still had split key square pianos in the first half of the 19th >century; were they produced commercially or only for demonstration? Does one >survive? I'm aware only of Zumpe's from 1766 or thereabouts. Incidentally It >appears that David Tannenberg, following Sorge, introduced ET to America in the >1760s, but his 1761 clavichord was apparently scaled differently. Anyway, is it safe >to assume that when Mozart and Haydn and Mendelssohn played in London, their >pianos were not in ET? And that Continental piano music distributed in Britain before, >say, 1830, was normally played there in temperaments other than what the >composers anticipated? If so, what did Clementi, Dussek, Moscheles, John Field and >the rest of the prolific London piano school think about this, if anything? Regardless >of composers' preferences (I doubt most cared), it would seem that a lot of piano >music played in Britain before about 1840 wasn't heard in ET. And I'd bet, though it >can't be proven or disproven, that the same was true on the Continent, no matter >what tuning instructors and theorists advised. As for Steinway, it would be fun to >test the temperament of the extant Steinway reed organ for whatever light it might >shine on the question. > Laurence > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Fred Sturm > To: caut at ptg.org > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:51 PM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] ET vs UET was RE: using as ETD > 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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC