After his first visit, Americus Vespucci wrote a
pornographic book on the sexual prowess of the native
women here, which was a runaway best seller all over
Europe, greatly inciting interest ( among uncouth men,
at least ) in travelling to the "New World".
And that, dear friends, is the actual reason why
these lands were named in his "honor".
No kidding.
Thump
--- A440A@aol.com wrote:
> 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
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC