Rachmaninoff in ET???

[Billbrpt@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/28/98 8:36:29 PM Central Standard Time,
skline@proaxis.com writes:

<< Bill, you still seem to be laboring under a deep confusion. You do not
 admit that ET can still work acceptably as ET when it is _near_
 rather than totally _exact_ with an unreasonable perfection imperceptible
 in music to any human ear. That is, once again you totally refuse to admit 
 that there is a tolerance. As I said, way back last January,
 
 > When you say that temperament either is _exactly_ equal, or it isn't equal
 > at all, you are confusing a scientific and a musical definition. There is
 > always a tolerance, even with the ETD.>>

I never said there was no tolerance, I have always recognized that there is.
However, by the criterion that you give above, "near", you have in fact and by
literal definition, "Quasi-Equal Temperament" (QET).  The most well-known of
these is the Marpurg I and it is often substituted for ET.  You can have a QET
by changing only one note (as I also said back in January).
 
 <<Also, you are forgetting (or refusing to admit) that individual notes can 
 be wrong in any way except a mistake in temperament.  A single note can be
 out of tune with the same notes in other octaves. A note can have a bad
 unison. A treble note can have an octave stretch that a performer doesn't
 like. >>

If the note in question falls in the mid or temperament range, it's position
affects the temperament whether intentionally or by error.  Les did not speak
of a "bad unison" or overly stretched octave, etc., he said, "The final judge
as to whether or
not the note was in tune was not Bill, it was Rachmaninoff ".

Everyone assumes that this technician was tuning ET but no one has any proof
of it.  By the late 19 Century (and earlier) definition of ET,  just about
anything he might have done would have been considered ET.  The Equal-Beating
Victorian Temperament that I typically tune and presented at the Convention in
Providence would certainly have been considered ET. 

 If tolerances to ET are allowed with no specifications, then all of Gina and
Jim's accusations of "violations of common law" and "unethical, if not illegal
behavior" are moot points.  They amount to nothing more than one person's
opinion over the other.  These opinions, expressed loudly, rudely and
emphatically have severely degraded the morale of the List and have prevented
any sensible and sane discussion of temperament techniques.  What set of
tolerances do you go by or believe in?

Franz Mohr was a student of the technician that Les spoke of.  Everyone
assumes that Franz Mohr *always* tunes in ET.  Yet I and several others
remember hearing the tuning he did for a New Age style artist for the
Convention in St. Louis.  It was certifiably *not* ET.  It may have even been
remote enough not to meet the tolerances for ET stipulated in the PTG RPT
Tuning Exam.  Yet it functioned and functioned quite well.  No one dared to
publicly question it.  Franz Mohr had no comment about it.

It ends up being a case of "The Emperor Has No Clothes".   Everyone is afraid
to admit that which should be readily obvious.  It challenges their entire
system of beliefs even though it shouldn't really be an issue at all.

Could it possibly be, just possibly, that Rachmaninoff deliberately altered
the temperament to achieve an effect such as getting more energy out of a
certain combination of notes?  The fact is that neither you nor anyone else
really knows.

How much did Rachmaninoff know about tuning theory and practice?  Was he even
aware that different temperament styles existed or could be used?  Did he
simply accept whatever the Steinway technician served up without question?
After all, how could he manipulate or criticize the instrument manufacturer or
its technician when he might not have had any knowledgeable basis from which
to dictate or even suggest anything at all?

Who is to say that Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, Rubenstein or anyone else might not
have better preferred something slightly different from what the Steinway
technician imposed without consultation?  How do we know that some of these
little finger pointing corrections were not, in fact, alterations from pure ET
to the slight imperfections of ET that can make music have the true color that
the composer intended?  Franz Mohr often spoke of Horowitz demanding that
"something different" be done because in spite of Franz' best efforts at doing
what he knew how to do from the way he was taught, to Horowitz, it was still
"out of tune".
 
<< But this confusion pales before your real problem, which is that you seem
 to think you can win an argument by attacking your opponent rather than by
 demonstrating why your opinion is right.>>

Take a good long look at yourself in the mirror, Susan.


 <<"Pecking order" is foul enough,
 but calling people "peckers" is obscene.>>

Only in your mind, Susan.  My allusion is, of course, to the instinctive
behavior in a henhouse of one animal attempting to dominate another by
belligerent force.

<<You do not win arguments by destroying them. It only reflects back on you,
and makes it unlikely that people will accept anything you say, even when you
are right. >>

Again, Susan, look at yourself in the mirror and heed your own advice.
 
 <<This will not do any good. (snip).  
 
 Susan>>

I don't expect that what you have written will, Susan, but that does not mean
that I will simply forget about the things that I know from my own studies
just so they will conform to your view of reality, let alone all of the others
who feel threatened by the very mention of the words, "Historical
Temperament".

Steadfastly,
Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin