R. Moody writes:
>>who was Columbus's navigator?
I said:
> Americus Vespucci. Our country is named for him.
>> Unless the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, Vespucci was not on board in
1492, he did
not meet Columbus until the 3rd voyage.
Actually, my elem. school teachers were wrong first so I was taught
otherwise, but Vespucci wasn't with Columbus. He sailed 5 years later,(and
many history books have argued whether he did that or not!)
Moody again:
>>but where, when and how was "well-temperament" taught and by
whom? Hipkins makes no mention of it, nor does Ellis, or Montal,
or Mersenne. Where actually in the historical record are these
"wells" mentioned?
Thomas Young presented his to the Royal Society in 1799, Werckmeister's
writings have been referred to for centuries, and Kirnberger waged a pretty
solid war with his. Jorgensen lists a lot of this. What is more important,
to me, is that ET was discussed, at length, prior to 1850, and it mostly
seems like it was absent.
According to Jorgensen (Tuning, pg. 455)
George Grahame wrote in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1842 that "The
unequal temperament is that usually adopted".
Joseph Loehr, writing in 1836, says" "There never was a man capable of
tuning by ear a pianoforte or organ so as not to leave some inequality of
temperament".
and:
" Before Mr. Scheibler's invention(the set of 12 tuning forks), no such
means existed by which even a tolerable equality of temperament could be
obtained. In theory, and upon paper, the requisites of such a temperament
were indeed known long ago: the precise number of vibrations for each
semitone had been correctly calculated, and the necessary deviations from the
mathematical scale pointed out. But when it came to practice, when a musical
instrument had actualy to be tuned, then all the calculations of the
theorists proved so much worthless rubbish, because practice knew of no other
means or criterion to regulate the pitch of the different sounds and their
ratios to each other, than the ear. snip<> "The perfection of intonation(ET)
is such as cannot be obtained by the finest musical ear".
Jorgensen also quotes Ellis writing in 1864
"On the pianoforte the Hemitonic system is universally adopted in
intention. It is, however, so difficult to realize by the ordinary methods
of tuning that "equal temperament" has probably never been attained in this
country, with any approach to mathematical precision."
Fast forward to 1876 and we have Robert Bosanquet, a fellow of St. John's
College in Oxford,(can we accept that he knew of what he spoke??) saying,
"There are few tuners that can produce a tolerable equal temperament".
In 1880 we have A.J. Ellis writing that "Equal temperament is that which
is usually aimed at, though seldom really obtained".
So, what was in use in the mid 1800's? We have some documentation here
that says ET wasn't. If not that, then what? AT best, it seems that ET was
a theoretical ideal that was being pursued by tuners, but according to some
very learned observers of the century, was not being actually produced. If
this is so, then the musicians of the time were not writing under the
influence of equality, but rather, the historical bias that had existed on
keyboards since their invention. It is not coincidence that virtually all of
the deviations found in the Broadwood survey shared similar directions. That
is certainly evidence of the well-tempered bias.
The nomenclature of the time is not ours today. According to Jorgensen,
"Well-Temperament" was not a term used while these tunings were in vogue.
The same goes for "Meantone", a term that arose long after the tuning to
which it referred was out of fashion. It is not illogical that what we call a
well-temperament today was viewed as "equal" in contrast to the "keyboard
tuning"(meantone) that proceeded it.
In light of the number of authors of the time specifically stating that
ET wasn't being produced, it seems illogical to claim it was widespread
because it was simply known of, or that some theorists proposed it. The
concept of a perfect circle is simple, does that make it possible for a
person to draw one freehand? I don't think so, a tool must be used. The
concept of ET is simple, but can you tune one without the techniques
published in the the mid to late 1800's? I don't think so. It is for that
reason that I cannot accept that composers in 1800 had the pan-tonal nature
of ET in mind when they chose the keys that they did.(and once again, the
choice of keys used during this period in keyboard music certainly seems to
indicate that not all keys were the same.....)
Now, to today.......
> >>Consider how it {well-temperament} is proposed to be
> tuned-------by machine.
Actually, Owen J. led the charge into the earlier tunings with his
booklet, "How to tune the historical temperaments by ear". (Barbour hadn't
really made it very accessible). It had little effect on the trade, but in
1993, with his publication of "Tuning" with its offsets, coinciding with Al
Sanderson's programmable SAT, we begin to see a rapid rise in interest.
Today, as always, tuners are making use of the latest technology to progress
beyond the normal procedures. It is slow,yes, but not nearly as slowly as it
appears instrument builders and musicians of the 18th and 19th century were
to move away from a tonally based temperament.
>> When you say "the aural tradition has taken the biggest hit
in the history of tuning.." are you are gloating or lamenting?
Neither, an observation need not carry a value judgement. The influence of
the machines on the general quality of tuning today is obvious. Perhaps a
very small percentage of tuners can match or surpass the machines results,but
on full sized pianos with good scales, it is very rare.
>>Is there no interest in how tuners such as Bill Garlich or Franz Mohr, or
the
tuners in London, New York, Berlin
Moscow, Paris or where ever tuning is done by ear, is there no
interest in how they were trained, how they tune and how they are
regarded by among musicians as tuners?<<
On the whole, no, there is virtually no interest in these men among
musicians. Bounce their names off of 100 musicians and I will be amazed if
more than two recognize any of them.
This may be due to the fact that there is no way to accurately determine
"how" these others tuned. As I understand it, Franz Mohr steadfastly refused
to allow his tunings to be measured, so we have don't really know what he is
doing.
Having been taught by Bill Garlick, I know exactly how and why he tunes
as he does. I have also had Bill critique my tuning,(a strictly aural
temperament at the Steinway factory), and he assured me that there was not a
single note in my tempering that he would change, so I think I can be on the
same wavelength as Bill if I desire. I have more knowledge of Bill's skill
than the average tuner, and certainly more than the musical world at large.
Even so, using the SAT still made me a better tuner.
>>Should the aural tradition languish because those who want to tune
in the next twelve years need only the machine? <<
I don't know if it should or not, nor do I care. The aural tuner of today
has to compete with the machine tunings of today. If one believes that they
can produce better results aurally than another tuner that uses both machine
and ears, they should do that, and suffer/enjoy the consequences for
themselves. But, when there is only 90 minutes before the performance, and a
10 cent pitch raise must be done while the chairs are being set up, and and
you know that there will be musicians showing up in 45, the aural tradition
is going to do little to improve the situation over a SAT or equivalent
machine.
Ed Foote RPT
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC