what's with the new temperaments?(x post)

[A440A@aol.com]

Ric  writes:

<< And you say they chose the Broadwood.  Isn't that ET?  Are you

referring to  specimens of Broadwood's best tuners as measured by

Ellis ca 1880  and presented in his appendices of his translation

of Helmholtz's  "Sensation of Tone" ? (p. 485)---or what Jorgensen

presented in Big Red?<<

I, in no way, consider the Broadwood's as listed by Jorgensen to be ET!  With 
C, F and G 5 cents sharper, the A# up 4 cents, D and D# up 3 cents, E down 2 
cents,etc.  This isn't anywhere near equal.  the C-E is only 7 cents away 
from Just, there are three thirds that are 18 cents wide, etc.  No, this is 
profoundly different from ET. 
  

 >>Hipkins wrote numerous articles about the piano including the

entry in Encyclopedia Britannica at the turn of the century.   He

claims to have introduced ET to the Broadwood firm in the 1840's

even though James Broadwood had published an article on ET in

1811.<< 

    J. Broadwood did say that all his pianos were tuned in ET, in 1811,(so I 
have read),  but Hipkins, 40 years later, states that "they are tuning 
nowhere near ET".  It is interesting that the "errors" in the tunings that 
Ellis documented are all such that the temperaments are still shaped just 
like the classical well-temperaments, only to a lesser degree.  This,imho, 
rules out the chance that the errors were random, but rather, that they were 
intentional shapings of the completely equal tuning directly along the lines 
of historical practise. 


>>So it seems what you are suggesting is that when  "99.9% have

chosen the Broadwood.",  they have chosen ET or more correctly an

Early ET. << 

    Umm, no.  I think the vast majority of techs who have heard my class 
comparisons between ET and Broadwood or Coleman tuning,(they are very close 
to each other, inspite of their totally different methods of origin), 
distinctly hear them as different sounding tunings.  The voice teachers 
didnt' have the comparisons, but when I tuned their pianos in a Moore and Co. 
 they all reacted the same way, "Oh, this sounds so much warmer!"  
 
>>And I am wondering if you are asking them to choose

this early ET over a machine ET.    We cannot ignore the

possibility the 99.9% may simply  be turned off by the "cold

sterility" of a machine ET   and prefer a "warmer humanized"

version. << 

 My ET's in these experiments are produced by recording my aural tunings. ( 
I, early on, recorded my aural tunings on all the sizes of Steinway grands, 
continued to refine them through use,  and those are what I used for these 
comparisons).  However, the differences between the FAC and aural on large 
pianos with good scales is so small I have doubts of anyone finding the 
differences.  Bill Garlick taught me to tune,(North Bennett in 1975) and at 
the time, I didn't realize much difference in that he liked a slightly 
narrower octave than most.  David Betts, who was also teaching, seemed to 
prefer a little wider octave, and our learning took place under the influence 
of both of these philosophies.  
 

>> Now Ed is talking about people hearing the

difference between a Broadwood ET and a modern ET. (machine

ET I assume).

Maybe we have to look into how the early attempts at ET sound, in

other words tune by their instructions or methods.<<

I will say it again,  Technically, there is only one ET, but in practical 
use, ET is the temperament in which no differences can be perceived between 
keys, (we can't leave perception out of this).  I believe that for virtually 
everyone, 1 cent varience in the widths of thirds will go undetected in 
musical use, (R. Brekne disputes that, but I will have to hear someone 
demonstrate that ability that to believe it).  So,  a horribly bent tuning 
can sound like ET to one that cannot hear differences, but that, imo, doesn't 
make it "ET".   In Dallas, we will be comparing a non-ET to Dave Anderson's 
aural ET. (In Canada last year, at the CAPT convention, we compared a 
Victorian style of tuning to an aural tuning; same reactions.....)
  

>>But when you say 99.9% like the Broadwood you are saying they like

ET which in concept has nothing to do with WT.  

   Once again, the Broadwood tuning is not ET by any modern definition, nor 
my own, nor the Guilds expectations. 

>>On top of that, there is little or no evidence to suggest WT had any 
influence in

music history.<< 


 In terms of influence, it might be of interest that the use of keys by 
Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and others for their keyboard works exactly 
mimics the widths of the thirds.  ie, the widest third in most WT's is the F# 
or C#.  These were the least used keys in those composers' work.  The most 
consonant key was C or F or G.  These were the keys used most often.  The 
keys inbetween are used in increasingly lesser amounts as they approach F#.  
In other words, if you graph the composes use of the keys by the same order 
as the circle of fifths, you find that the graphs are almost exact copies of 
the graphs I have used to show the widths of the tonic thirds,(liner notes of 
the "Six Degrees" CD).   
   Beethoven did favor Eb over everything else,but with that exception, you 
will see that his desire to use a key is inversely proportion to the WT 
levels of dissonance.  The same correlation is seen with most of the other 
composers between 1700 and 1900.  Chopin is also interesting.  His key usage 
(aside from an obvious love of Ab), also produces a diamond shaped graph, but 
it is totally backwards to the others!  So, even though it is a "mirror 
image", his preference for keys still correlates to the amount of tempering 
in a WT.  
    As the use of ET became more established, we see a gradual leveling of 
key use occurring between 1880 and the present.  Is this coincidence?  I 
think not.  I believe it demonstrates that composers chose the keys for a 
muscial reason.    Doesn't it seem that if all keys were tuned alike in 1810, 
 there would be a more democratic use of them at the time? 
   Enid Katahn suggests that the remote keys were difficult to use for sonata 
form because it was impossible to "go somewhere" harmonically and then return 
to home without creating an unresolved feeling.  This falls inline with the 
effects of dissonance.  It is not relaxing to leave a more consonant key for 
a more tempered one, and then stop.  
   I am sorry that Ric can't hear the differences in the temperaments, but a 
growing number of professional pianists and musicians are certainly hearing a 
difference.  I think the progressive tech can make use of this, but those 
that naysay the direction will certainly not. To them, I can be of no use or 
help.  
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT 
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html