<HTML>In a message dated 2/21/02 9:15:55 PM Central Standard Time, piano@charlesneuman.net (Charles Neuman) writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I suspect (but can't prove) that there's a problem with terminology (surprise surprise). When some people say "ET", they might mean any temperament where you can play in all keys. Or they might label any attempt an a equal type of temperament as ET. Jorgensen is strict: he says that people couldn't tune in ET before around 1900 even if they tried. And Bill Bremmer pretty much says the same thing about most people today (no offense intended, and correct me if I'm misreading it). But I wouldn't be surprised if there's evidence that showed that people attempted to tune in ET over a century ago and did it to the best of their abilities for their time period, even if it wouldn't pass the RPT exams. So they call it ET, but today we might not. That might be some of the source of the controversy.</BLOCKQUOTE> You're quite right, Charles.  When there is only *one* temperament, that one way becomes whatever version or interpretation the individual is capable of offering.  The habitual patterns used historically greatly influenced the outcome of the temperament just as do those used today.  If there were only a few small, random errors, there would be little effect on ET.  The cumulative effect however, of small but sequential errors can render any temperament which was intended to be equal into a Pandora's Box of differences of substantial musical consequence, yet may still go unrecogzized or even worse, ignored and dismissed as unimportant. There is a clear division among the HT's between *circulating* and *noncirculating* temperaments.  The latter were the strong Meantones where part of the scale was very dissonant and mostly considered unusable (although was used for effect on a limited basis).  In the early years, any temperament usable in all 24 major and minor keys was considered to be "equal".  Therein lies the source of confusion. Braide White spelled out ET in the early 20th Century and deliberately left out any reference to any other possibility except the obviously unusable (in his mind), Meantone.  He could not provide the precise aural systems we know today so any attempt whatsoever was and still is considered to be ET.  I don't accept that definition of ET.   I know about all this because I went through it myself believing at first only in *The* temperament, then learning that it is "Equal" Temperament, then learning to make it "more" equal, then hearing my first HT's as presented by Owen Jorgensen and thinking they all sounded ridiculous and thus dismissing the idea entirely, then believing in ET with pure 5ths, then finally being persuaded by music itself, not what someone claimed through research that HT's and other Cycle of 5ths based temperaments have merit. I have also become aware that the entire notion of ET has been force fed to the public and that any other alternative has largely been denied and ridiculed.  Some may feel that what I have to say means that I think no one really ever gets it *right* but that is not, never has been nor will ever be what I think nor the point I have to make.  All methods and sets of beliefs eventually become obsolete and evolve.   Standards in general are simply much higher today than they were 25, 50 or 100 years ago. The point is that everyone now has more information, better tools and techniques than we did even 25 years ago.  Maintaining that tuning has already reached its epitome or evolutionary end is to say that there could never be anything better.  That notion I will reject until the end of my life.  There is *always* a better way and *always* room for improvement. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> </HTML>