<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Moore</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BLOCKQUOTE>What I said about fifths was wrong, a bit backwards. They weren= 't trying for pure fifths; they were trying to temper the fifths and save th= e thirds. Those tuners who tuned as I guessed below wound up tuning reverse = well. Apologies for continuing the confusion, especially because I am dedica= ted to clearing it up. Gotta run to my day job. </BLOCKQUOTE> .......... .  jason kanter . jkanter@rollingball.com= . jason.kanter@wamu.net .  manager . learning & performance development .  consumer loan servicing . washington mutual bank .  office 206 490 6708 . cell 425 830 1561 .  home (bellevue): 425 562 4127 . fax 425 562 4132 .  14847 ne 14th st . bellevue wa 98007 .  (orcas): 360 376 2799 . 136 perch tree lane . eastsound wa 98245<BR= > ............................... <BLOCKQUOTE>From: Jason Kanter <jkanter@rollingball.com> Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:40:20 -0700 To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Subject: Moore </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE>Here's what appears to me as the background of the = "Moore," "Broadwood's Usual" and "Broadwood's Best&= quot; tunings. Alexander John Ellis diligently studied various methods of tuning and came = up with his own recommendations. He was very much interested in the question= of whether equal temperament was possible or practical. As part of his work= , in 1885 he published "Specimens of Tuning in Equal Temperament",= in which he commissioned seven tunings and analyzed each one using a comple= x set of tuning forks that gave him accurate readings of actual cycles per s= econd. Of these seven tunings, four were done on pianos and three on an organ or h= armonium, on which the tuner can play the interval for a long time without d= ecay, enabling the organ tuner to count slow-beating fifths accurately. At least two of the piano tunings were done by different tuners from the Br= oadwood Piano Factory. One of these was Ellis's usual tuner, and the tuning = which this guy did is now identified in the literature (including my charts = on rollingball.com) as the Broadwood Usual. The other, now known as "Br= oadwood's Best", was done by a top student of Hipkins, who was "th= e famous piano technician who introduced the philosophy of equal temperament= to the Broadwood Piano Factory in 1846." Hipkins himself certified thi= s particular tuning as excellent. Hipkins was Chopin's personal favorite pia= no tuner. So both the Broadwood tunings are attempts at achieving equal temperament w= ithout using the beat rates of thirds and sixths (which had not yet been &qu= ot;discovered" as tuning tools). The "Moore" was tuned on a harmonium by a tuner from Messrs. Moor= e and Moore. As mentioned above, these guys counted the beat rates of fifths= , because they did not have to wrestle with decay and were able to sustain f= or many seconds while they counted. They did not count beat rates of thirds = or sixths. Here's my personal opinion of these temperaments. These were the best tuner= s of the mid 1800s. They were trying to make the fifths come out as right as= they could. In the process they were naturally favoring the fifths that are= most in use in composed music, while making the less used fifths still as t= olerable as they could. Because he could hear the fifths better, the harmoni= um tuner from Moore & Moore was able to come closer to "equal"= than the Broadwood piano tuners. That's why we experience it as so "mi= ld." If they could have tuned exactly equal temperament, I bet they would have d= one so simply because they were starting to believe that the mathematical pu= rity of equal temperament was the perfect ideal. They did not dream that by = abandoning the pure fifth they were losing a musical experience that we have= now almost forgotten. To hear classical music played with CG, FC, and GD fi= fths pure and the CE, FA, GB thirds almost just is an experience quite surpr= isingly different, but that is what the composers of the time were creating.= Source: Jorgensen, pages 534-535, with my imagination thrown in for local c= olor. </BLOCKQUOTE> || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| jason kanter * piano tuning * piano teaching bellevue, wa * 425 562 4127 * cell 425 831 1561 orcas island * 360 376 2799 || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| <BLOCKQUOTE>From: "SUSAN P SWEARINGEN" <ssclabr8@flash.= net> Organization: Prodigy Internet Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:02:13 -0500 To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Subject: Re: historical tunings - in particular the Moore </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>I believe the Moore temperame= nt is also known as the Victorian temperament but I could be wrong.  I = just tuned this style on my own Yamaha U1 and I found it to be very rich and= colorful (there, hows that for subjective?), especially in the upper tenor = and treble.  It's a very mild deviation from Equal and would be a good = candidate for use as a primary temperament when tuning for clients. Corte Swearingen <BLOCKQUOTE>----- Original Message ----- From: Billbrpt@AOL.COM To: pianotech@ptg.org Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: historical tunings - in particular the Moore In a message dated 6/27/02 2:20:24 PM Central Daylight Time,= cadunn@vt2000.com (Clair Dunn) writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>I very casually checked some of the numbe= rs against the ET and found very small differences. However, I did definitely hear a difference. I would like to know more about the Moore temperament specifically if anyone has information about it. I did read the info again on your site Bill (I had read it before). Why is it called the Moore temperament and what is the general consensus about the audible differences? What struck *my* ears was a brighter tenor/treble section. Noticably "crisper" and cleaner -- I know these are terribly subjective wor= ds, but it's the best I can do. Am I hearing right?? So, I want to extend my thanks to Bill Bremmer and the rest of you folks for making me curious. I actually tuned a customer's piano with the Moore yesterday. They have two pianos--the daughter plays the fairly decent Lesage Console and the husband plays the big old Ellington upright (1911). It was the Ellington I tuned with the Moore. (--after I talked to my customer about it. She deals in Victoriana and I thought she might be interested--she was. But she's not going to tell her husband, to see if he notices any differnce.) These are regular customers of mine and the piano is in good shape and holds a tune well. Anyway, thanks again </BLOCKQUOTE>. I very much appreciate your interest.  I'm quite busy at the moment an= d will be leaving for Chicago tomorrow for 3 days of performances downtown. =  You hit on a number of issues.  I have never tried the Moore temp= erament but assume it is named after the person who designed it.  I nev= er use the method which is admittedly the most popular, to apply "corre= ction figures" to an ETD program.  I tune only by ear but often en= ter my tunings into my SAT as a custom program. I unfortunately cannot comment on the Moore temperament because I have neve= r heard it but can tell by the numerical information that it is similar to w= hat I do with the EBVT except that I have 4 pure 5ths unlike any other Victo= rian temperament.  It is possible that the Moore has some of the same E= qual Beating effects as the EBVT but those are built into the EBVT by design= and are specific, not accidental. You noticed that the differences between the Moore and ET are slight but th= at's where the magic and usefulness of it lie:  in the very slight diff= erence.  Too much difference and it's sure to become unacceptable to so= me people.  On the other hand, not enough contrast renders a Victorian = temperament inadequate for earlier music.  What the EBVT does that is d= ifferent is to employ the Equal Beating effect to create the illusion of a m= uch stronger temperament yet avoid any harshness.  This makes it useful= for all types of music. When playing chromatic 3rds the way one would test for evenness in ET, the = first impression one would get when playing the EBVT is a "sloppy"= ET, much the same as the remark made by Don Mannino.  However, this is= really not a valid way of listening to any HT or Cycle of 5ths based temper= ament.  I still take this into consideration though, because I know peo= ple will do that because it is generally their only frame of reference. &nbs= p;I try to keep my temperament within the bounds of what I know to be accept= able and tolerable to the contemporary ear. The real proof of whether it works is its net effect on the music.  Yo= ur customer is not likely to notice the difference without prompting.  = But that is a good thing, not a bad one.  If there were to be a large e= nough effect to be clearly noticeable, it would inevitably end up being reje= cted.  Virtually no one ever picks up on the fact that a piano which I = have tuned in my EBVT has a "sloppy" temperament or any other such= negative comment, they only remark about how good the piano sounds and that= 's the way it should be. Many people have expressed similar comments to yours about how a Victorian = temperament makes a piano sound "cleaner, crisper and clearer". &n= bsp;This is no illusion.  It is the desired outcome. Thanks again for your kind remarks.  Let us know of further good resul= ts but also of any negative repercussions, should there be any. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =- <http://www.billb= remmer.com/>   </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>