Greetings, Bill writes: << I think the point is that the majority of Great Composers did not arrive until the piano tuning industry was well in place. Which was why Bach was such a rarity, almost as rare as his piano. The real flourishing of Great Composers was made possible once composers were freed from the onerous task of tuning their own keyboards. >> I must respectfully disagree. Mozart and Haydn composed well before the piano tuning industry was well in place,(dang, there just has to be a double meaning in there somewhere, but let's not get temperamental, yet). The earliest pianos were so lightly strung that tuning them would have only been marginally more difficult than tuning a harpsichord. I say that from a point of view that is more logical empirical. I have limited experience with fortepianos, but after doing the "5-ply wrestle with the wrest-planks" for so many years, those early models that I have encountered just laid there and allowed me to have my way with impunity. Jorgensen posits that the trade of tuner began to form in the early 1800s, and yes, there was much great composition that took place afterward. However, it is illogical to think that a radical, new style of tuning appeared all at once. Tuners of the time learned from their elders, and trade secrets were closely guarded. There would have to have been one or several generations pass before the trade as a whole discarded the past. I don't see how the task of tuning could have been an impediment to the flourishment of the great composers. All accounts of Beethoven seem to indicate that his own pianos were in disastrous shape. Which brings up the question of temperament, (hah, didn't think we could talk about history, composers,and tuning without it, did ya?). The early keyboards were tuned by their users or musicians. Choir masters, keyboard teachers,etc. There is much info on tuning practises that Jorgensen gleaned from publications that were aimed at the users, ie, tuning instructions included in printed music tracts. Even that early rebel, Claude Montal, published his bearing plan for equal temperament in 1832 in a booklet titled, "How to tune your own piano". So, we may accept that even in 1832 it was expected that piano owners assume the task of tuning. This was five years after the death of Beethoven and four years after the death of F. Schubert! If we give some credence to the idea that keyboards were still tuned by owners, piano teachers, musicians, or other "part-timers" in the early 1800's, then we have some reason to believe that ET was still not being achieved. I say this because ET is the most difficult way to tune a piano, and it is implausible that it could be done by those that doesn't do it all the time. Even today, with all the instruction in the world, plus 100 years of familiarity with the sound of ET, I have never seen a part-timer come very close. Combine the weight of historical precedence with the ease of tuning any of the well-temperaments and it is no stretch to consider that most pianos in the early 1800's were tuned in something other than ET. It "could" have happened, but I don't think it was anywhere near common. Now, to other items on the Chopin Liszt...... Chopin was recorded as being saddened by the death,(by suicide) of his favorite piano tuner. It seems that his tuner was able to achieve a tuning that was particularly valued by Chopin. What does this tell us? I think there are several possibilites we may consider. One is that his tuner was capable of actually producing a very even ET and for this reason he was so highly regarded. If this ability was so special at that time, does it not perhaps indicate that in 1850 the ability to tune ET was still a very special thing? And, by extrapolation, the majority of tuning was still shaped along WT lines? If ET was common at the time, why would a tuner that could produce it be so special to Chopin, afterall ET is ET is ET. The second consideration is that his tuner was able to shape a WT to a very specific palette that appealed to Chopin. Since WT is a genre instead of a specific tuning, and individual tuners of 1840, lacking an RCT or SAT would have had varying results in their work, Chopin could have found the guy with the taste that suited him. I suppose a third consideration is that Chopin was such a neurotic artist that his attachment to this tuner was based on totally unrelated things. I dunno. Hearing the music of Chopin on WT, Reverse WT,(the DeMorgan), and ET, I am unconvinced that there is an optimum tuning for it. It seems to work well in various tunings. Not so Beethoven or Rachmaninoff. To my ear, they both composed music that definitely makes use of the characteristics of the tuning in their eras. Thoughts, anyone? Ed Foote RPT www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/ www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html <A HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html"> MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC