Historical temperamentals (longer)

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Greetings, 
I wrote:
><<"DeMorgan was a mathematical genius, yet in the 1800's <snip>
>is a person that was very familiar with math, the ratios would not threaten
>him, *yet he proposes an unequal tuning.*">> 

and Jim asks:
> Do you base his "proposes an unequal tuning" from this passage or from
>some  other quote? I don't see him "proposing" anything in this passage.
   Ach!,  I was referring to the temperament Jorgensen ascribes to him on pg 
458 of "Tuning".  

>
>  I don't equate a disonant chord juxtaposed with
>a much less disonant chord as being "power", rather a contrast, perhaps this
>is  what you are also saying and it is from this contrast that the perceived

   Yes. The "power" thing comes, imho, from context.  The power I am speaking 
of is not measured in decibels, but rather in the degree to which a listener 
can be emotionally moved around.  Music that brings an audience to tears is 
powerful music.  
    All this business of temperaments is ultimately aimed at creating heavier 
emotional reactions in the recital halls and more pleasing response for the 
person playing for their own pleasure.  I believe that this is the power that 
will increase the popularity of our instrument.  
     What was the tuning really like when the piano made its rise to 
dominance?  1800-1910?  It is looking more and more like it was not an exact 
rendering of ET, but something more musically organized for key use.  I know 
that using Jim Coleman's Victorian inspired temperaments have delighted every 
 customer I have pitched them to, except one.   
     This is a question I have asked myself, so now I will ask the list to 
consider it. Could key color, no matter how slight, be an important missing 
ingredient and its absence partially responsible for the piano's long slide 
from dominion?  I wonder if a retune is a necessity to get out in front 
again. 
Regards, 
Ed Foote