Equal Temperament, Oh really, what else is news?

[Stephen Airy]

Interesting discussion....

My current "temperament", if you can call it that,
consists of almost pure 5ths, except for an occasional
one that beats like 3 times per second, slightly
faster 4ths (than the 5ths), a somewhat unequal
progression of 3rds (some very slow ones in the lower
temperament), some upper-note-flat octaves in the
killer octave area, and other stuff that needs
polishing....

--- Billbrpt@AOL.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 2/21/02 9:15:55 PM Central
> Standard Time, 
> piano@charlesneuman.net (Charles Neuman) writes:
> 
> 
> > I suspect (but can't prove) that there's a problem
> with terminology
> > (surprise surprise). When some people say "ET",
> they might mean any
> > temperament where you can play in all keys. Or
> they might label any
> > attempt an a equal type of temperament as ET.
> Jorgensen is strict: he says
> > that people couldn't tune in ET before around 1900
> even if they tried. And
> > Bill Bremmer pretty much says the same thing about
> most people today (no
> > offense intended, and correct me if I'm misreading
> it). But I wouldn't be
> > surprised if there's evidence that showed that
> people attempted to tune in
> > ET over a century ago and did it to the best of
> their abilities for their
> > time period, even if it wouldn't pass the RPT
> exams. So they call it ET,
> > but today we might not. That might be some of the
> source of the
> > controversy.
> 
> You're quite right, Charles.  When there is only
> *one* temperament, that one 
> way becomes whatever version or interpretation the
> individual is capable of 
> offering.  The habitual patterns used historically
> greatly influenced the 
> outcome of the temperament just as do those used
> today.  If there were only a 
> few small, random errors, there would be little
> effect on ET.  The cumulative 
> effect however, of small but sequential errors can
> render any temperament 
> which was intended to be equal into a Pandora's Box
> of differences of 
> substantial musical consequence, yet may still go
> unrecogzized or even worse, 
> ignored and dismissed as unimportant.
> 
> There is a clear division among the HT's between
> *circulating* and 
> *noncirculating* temperaments.  The latter were the
> strong Meantones where 
> part of the scale was very dissonant and mostly
> considered unusable (although 
> was used for effect on a limited basis).  In the
> early years, any temperament 
> usable in all 24 major and minor keys was considered
> to be "equal".  Therein 
> lies the source of confusion.
> 
> Braide White spelled out ET in the early 20th
> Century and deliberately left 
> out any reference to any other possibility except
> the obviously unusable (in 
> his mind), Meantone.  He could not provide the
> precise aural systems we know 
> today so any attempt whatsoever was and still is
> considered to be ET.  I 
> don't accept that definition of ET.  
> 
> I know about all this because I went through it
> myself believing at first 
> only in *The* temperament, then learning that it is
> "Equal" Temperament, then 
> learning to make it "more" equal, then hearing my
> first HT's as presented by 
> Owen Jorgensen and thinking they all sounded
> ridiculous and thus dismissing 
> the idea entirely, then believing in ET with pure
> 5ths, then finally being 
> persuaded by music itself, not what someone claimed
> through research that 
> HT's and other Cycle of 5ths based temperaments have
> merit.
> 
> I have also become aware that the entire notion of
> ET has been force fed to 
> the public and that any other alternative has
> largely been denied and 
> ridiculed.  Some may feel that what I have to say
> means that I think no one 
> really ever gets it *right* but that is not, never
> has been nor will ever be 
> what I think nor the point I have to make.  All
> methods and sets of beliefs 
> eventually become obsolete and evolve.   Standards
> in general are simply much 
> higher today than they were 25, 50 or 100 years ago.
> 
> The point is that everyone now has more information,
> better tools and 
> techniques than we did even 25 years ago. 
> Maintaining that tuning has 
> already reached its epitome or evolutionary end is
> to say that there could 
> never be anything better.  That notion I will reject
> until the end of my 
> life.  There is *always* a better way and *always*
> room for improvement.
> 
> Bill Bremmer RPT
> Madison, Wisconsin
>  <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here:
> -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com