e.t. comment for your response

[David ilvedson]

> Date:          Thu, 04 Dec 1997 14:14:31 -0800
> To:            pianotech@ptg.org
> From:          Horace Greeley <hgreeley@leland.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject:       Re: e.t. comment for your response
> Reply-to:      pianotech@ptg.org

I would think the "musical quality" of a tuning would be just as 
futile as the "mathematical accuracy" of a tuning.  

I have never tuned anything but ET but I am becoming interested 
in historical tunings.  My question is do we have more room 
for errors or fudging on an historical tuning than ET?   

David ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA



> 
> Frank, et al,
> 
> Once again, Owen strikes home.
> 
> In writing the following two sentences, he 
> deconstructs the current myth (myth in the
> sense of something which has an essence of truth
> which may have been forgotten/changed over time)
> of the importance of mathematical accuracy:
> 
> > 19th century tuning by ear was a highly developed
> >art based on aesthetic judgments for every tone, and test chords were
> >used more than test intervals.  By contrast, 20th century tuning is a
> >mathematical skill."
> 
> Let me hasten to add that a reasonable understanding
> of the mathematical tools applied in tuning is important.
> What I continue to question is valuation of mathematical
> accuracy (appropriately pointed out as a futile pursuit) above
> musical quality.  Like so much else in art, this latter presumes
> a "best one can reasonably possibly do under the given
> circumstances" level of technical performance, but makes
> allowances for the infinite variety of (human) experience
> and ability.
> 
> The purpose of technique in art is to develop one's 
> technique to the level that technical limitations do not
> dictate one's artistic performance.  This is just as true
> for tuning in the 20th Cent. as it was for Michelangelo,
> VerMeer, or any other artist/art form one cares to think
> of.  
> 
> Germane to this discussion is the comparison of two
> works on tuning: Owen's "Tuning the Historical
> Temperaments by Ear"; and the much earlier
> work by J. Murray Barbour "Historical Temperaments"
> (with a subtitle that does not spring to mind.  As
> ground breaking as Murray's work was, it was dry
> as old shoe leather.  Owen's, on the other hand, never
> loses sight of music as being as much a listener's art
> as anything else.  The one area in which I disagree
> with Owen is that he takes the position that, prior
> to (roughly) the 20th Cent., people could not hear
> beats.  I find this to be inconsistent with the aurally
> based tuning systems which he then presents.  No
> doubt, a minority view.
> 
> Other thoughts?
> 
> Best.
> 
> Horace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 03:04 PM 12/4/1997 -0500, you wrote:
> >Stephen Birkett wrote:
> >> 
> >> In an on-going discussion on hpschd-l the following comments appeared:
> >> ....
> >> >> A.Streicher specifically states that the fifths beat equally. Your
> >> >> statement makes the "naive" think than modern tuning  was in use in
> >> >> 1800.
> >> >Please define "modern tuning."  What I'm trying to say with this
> >> >thread is that equal temperament or something very close to it was
> >> >used in late 18th- early 19th-century music.  I don't know of any
> >> >piano tuners who tune *perfect* ET on modern pianos.  Does this mean
> >> >that modern pianos are tuned to circulating temperaments?
> >> 
> >> (neither of these is from me)
> >> 
> >> Any comments from you piano tuner guys and gals? Don't you all tune
> >> perfect ET?
> >> 
> >> Stephen
> >> 
> >
> >If I ever saw flame bait, this is it!  But, I'm a sucker for tuning
> >arguments so here goes:
> >
> >It's highly unlikely anyone ever tuned "perfect" ET.  Close maybe, but
> >not perfect.  Even machine calculated tunings can't be perfect because
> >of the physical limitations of the instrument and the person translating
> >the perfectly calculated theoretical tuning to a real tuning. 
> >Furthermore,  if by chance, someone did happen set a perfect ET, it
> >would last only as long as the first keystrokes.  We try to set
> >"perfect" ET, and we get close, but attaining mathematical perfection is
> >almost impossible.
> >
> >The definitive expert on the question has to be Jorgensen.  Here is SOME
> >of what he has to say on the subject.
> >
> >"__ we must conclude that equal temperament as we know is was not tuned
> >on pianos during the 19th century.  A study of the instructions for
> >tuning given in the present book (by A. J. Ellis who invented the cent
> >measurement)  for the years through 1885 verifies that essential
> >acoustical information for tuning equal temperament was lacking.  This
> >was one reason for the 19th century tuners' inability to tune equal
> >temperament by ear.  Other deviation was due to the basic concepts of
> >tuning then in vogue.  19th century tuning by ear was a highly developed
> >art based on aesthetic judgments for every tone, and test chords were
> >used more than test intervals.  By contrast, 20th century tuning is a
> >mathematical skill."
> >
> >
> >Frank Weston
> >
> >
> Horace Greeley
> 
> Systems Analyst/Engineer
> Controller's Office
> Stanford University
> 
> email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
> voice mail: 650.725.9062
> fax: 650.725.8014
> 
>