Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Originally Posted By: zrtf90 What we did before ET, from Pythagoras and ownards (I don't know about any attempts before), was come up with ET!
Tunewerk replied: "This is the typical view in our modern culture about the evolution of temperament. It is incorrect. The understanding of equal temperament was available a long time ago. We aren't so advanced in this realm. Only in the ability in being able to tune it more accurately harmonically."...
The scrupulous reader will be able to check: the idea of proportional tones (scale steps) is very ancient indeed, though the first theoretical/mathematical models are dated end of 16th century.
..."The many varieties of unequal temperament weren't composed simply out of ignorant confusion, as if they just couldn't quite understand 12-TET but were going to give it another try regardless."...
Hmmm..., even if they could understand 12-TET (12 root of two)... could they tune pure octaves?
..."They (UTs) were composed out of desire for the variety and search for very artful compromises for specific expressions on the instrument."...
Artful compromises, for sure..., but which specific expressions? Can you expand?
..."Musicians and instrument builders were very cognizant of the lack introduced by keyboard instruments."...
I'd rather talk about the "lack introduced by" having to manage the wolf, both in theory and practice. And whether you sing in a choir or play in an orchestra, or brass or wind band... you'd still have to manage complex chords, correct?
..."They even added extra keys in some keyboard designs to achieve finer division of the commas."...
True. They believed that "pure" equals "in tune".
..."This is the root of the variety of temperament composition: to create many different tonal varieties of temperament to enrich the capabilities of keyboard instruments - based on the instrument inharmonicity and the pieces being played."...
I take that as one of your own believes. But let me say, what an uphill task... having to guess tonal varieties for single pieces being played.
..."So, no, all roads don't lead here to where we are. We are ignorant in our sense of cultural superiority, and if anything, artfully dead and unaware."...
But piano industries have developed more solid pianos, in favor of more steady tunings. Perhaps tuning stability has helped more than any sense of superiority.
..."12-TET is simply the solution we are using now."...
Perhaps you meant "the solution we are" addressed to.
..."It has become the acceptable understanding of what 'in-tune' is, it works with our higher inharmonicity instruments, and it works with adding uniformity to more atonal music, which co-evolved with it."...
Yes, it seems to work.
..."It also comes to mind that equal temperament serves as a standard in an era of instruments that are not easily tuned by the musician (like the harpsichord). The purpose of unequal temperaments was to provide those extra keys in many different combinations - presupposing that the instrument could be quickly re-tuned."...
Do you tune harpsichord? I would like to see and check what you call a quick re-tuning.
..."Most keyboard players don't think about the 9 commas between wholetones. They don't think about all that they are unable to play."...
What about violin players or singers, when they practice... do they?
..."Unequal temperament variety allows an instrument to be tuned in numerous ways to observe these commas and 'provide extra notes' that wouldn't be available otherwise.. notes which fit the repertoire being played.. notes which stringed instrument players would play automatically, not confined to a fixed-tone keyboard.".
Yes, "automatically", in my view basing on their sense of "in tune", like any "ear" equipped musician is able to do.
I suppose in the end, most everyone has a self-belief to defend, so the capability of open learning through consensus is slim.
I really think these things are too deep to 'argue'. I'm sure if we were all in the same room together, we'd just appreciate the different perspectives to add to the picture of the whole.
Originally Posted by Alfredo
Hmmm..., even if they could understand 12-TET (12 root of two)... could they tune pure octaves?
I'm not sure what you mean here; yes, of course they must have been able to tune pure intervals, including octaves.
Originally Posted by Alfredo
Artful compromises, for sure..., but which specific expressions? Can you expand?
I was referring to principles here; it's difficult to talk about what artful compromises are. There has been enough arguing about it in this thread to see no one sees it the same! Generally, the purer intervals in the home keys, or thirds being favored in the case of meantone.
Originally Posted by Alfredo
I'd rather talk about the "lack introduced by" having to manage the wolf, both in theory and practice. And whether you sing in a choir or play in an orchestra, or brass or wind band... you'd still have to manage complex chords, correct?
Actually, you just rephrased exactly what I said. The wolf results from the keyboard compromise.
In a choir, you do not have to manage this. This is a critically important technicality.
Voices auto-adjust to find pure intervals or complex chords adjusted within themselves for optimum consonance. It is the fixed scale that forces the wolf compromise.
A choir is the same thing as an auto-adjusting keyboard would be: each string moving slightly to accommodate the new chord for the desired effect or consonance.
Which brings me directly to another point..
Originally Posted by Alfredo
What about violin players or singers, when they practice... do they?
Yes, they do. But they do not typically know it. The advanced players do know this and understand. They auto-adjust to 9 commas or more to get correct intonation on specific intervals and scales. This is what makes a great violinist.
Originally Posted by Alfredo
I take that as one of your own believes. But let me say, what an uphill task... having to guess tonal varieties for single pieces being played.
They simply co-evolved to the best of my understanding.
Originally Posted by Alfredo
Do you tune harpsichord? I would like to see and check what you call a quick re-tuning.
Yes, I do. In my experience, they are much easier to tune. Smaller scales (unless you are talking about a harpsichord with multiple stops, and having to tune all of them each time), the tension and inharmonicity are lower, making the physical tuning easier, as well as setting the pin and aligning the frequencies.
For me personally, much easier on the body, and the ear.
I could easily imagine Bach retuning in the middle of a composing session to experiment with sounds.
All the best to everyone. Much to learn from sharing insight.
I think this sort of thing can be studied without personal preferences being involved. What if the question was about meantone? Couldn't we look at the keys that pieces were written in and at the intervals that were avoided and propose that a certain piece was not written for meantone, or a certain composer did write for meantone? I think we could. And I think the same sort of thing can be done for Bach and the WTC. I am not so sure that we can do it, though.
As far as my predisposition to ET, yes, it was learned by tuning pianos. And I am proud of my efforts in tuning a strict ET. But I am not the one saying that we can decide that WTC was written for ET by listening to it. Others are saying that we, and in particular me, can decide that WTC was written for WT by listening to it! Don't blame me for the direction this has headed.
So if anyone cares to compare the C major and E major preludes in terms of whether these indicate the temperament they were written for we might still make a step forward - together.
But let's say I found a WT that I could handle. And I fell off the "ET wagon" in a drunken orgy of colorful temperaments. Would that change anything? Would it answer the same questions that the next fellow might have? No, it wouldn't.
I really do think this can be looked at objectively regardless of a person's inclination to certain temperaments. It may be beyond us, but we won't know unless we try. If you doubt that I am earnest (trolling) consider that I am posting on a weekend, which I rarely do.
Jeff Deutschle Part-Time Tuner Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
Thanks for the offer. I do not have an ETD. When I get to it I will give this thing a shot on my own. I learn best that way. I do have to wait for a time when my mind is set in an open way. Right now I feel I am being "force-fed" and I doubt I could give it a fair chance. I will start a new Topic when the time comes and I have given it a try. Please don't think I am being unappreciative. This has been pretty frustrating for me. Like driving on a narrow, icy road with a load of firewood and the back wheels keep jumping in and out of the ditches on each side of the road. Damhik. It's hard to keep on track, and a light hand on the wheel won't do the trick.
Jeff Deutschle Part-Time Tuner Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
I think this sort of thing can be studied without personal preferences being involved. What if the question was about meantone? Couldn't we look at the keys that pieces were written in and at the intervals that were avoided and propose that a certain piece was not written for meantone, or a certain composer did write for meantone? I think we could. And I think the same sort of thing can be done for Bach and the WTC. I am not so sure that we can do it, though.
The exhilaration of the chase may be reason enough for pursuing the point but isn't it a big red herring?
A few years ago an academic went to some lengths to prove Shakespeare had not written one of his plays. He had done a textual comparison with the others. Another analyst then used exactly the same method to prove the academic had not written his paper on Shakespeare.
Why not just accept Bach well tempered his instruments, Mozart expected a tuning that was playable in all the keys, and Beethoven's pianos had an unequal temperament? Then have a look at Czerny.
Back to Bach and worthier aims, Jeff. Brendel rather supports you. In an interview with Terry Snow he said the remarkable A Minor Fanatasy (Bach Gesellschaft XXXVI/138 ?) seems to have been written for an instrument of the future. He thought some historical performances and twentieth century music have led us to a new structural understanding of Bach's works, contrary to interpretations which indulge in values of colour and atmosphere for their own sake.
... or, one might add in the spirit of this thread, the lack of those values.
Last edited by Withindale; 03/17/1208:28 AM. Reason: typo
Ian Russell Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 140cm Ibach, 1905 F-IV, 235cm
In your desire to stay "objective", you may be missing the point.
Like your food analogy, I could say we could have a pie bake off, but we wouldn't ever take into effect what it tastes like. Just study the ingredients and the process and what people have written about pie to decide if one pie is better than the other. Kindof a dead-end discussion.
I'll see what is brought up at the presentation this weekend, but I fear that my theory, keyboard skills and musicology may not be strong enough to just take that tack.
Tunelab is pretty easy to get set up - it's really a great research tool as well! (Even though I don't use it for tuning)
I think the frustration for many of us has been that since you really haven't liked any non ET tuning(no problem - personal preference) the discussion is being framed as an attack the value of any non-ET tuning. THAT's the rub. Most of us wouldn't care a bit if you just said I like the WTC in ET. No, you've jumped to the conclusion that since you don't like it any other way, Bach must've written it for ET. (I still haven't seen any credible evidence that ET existed on any keyboards in any real numbers before the mid 1900s anyway.)
You wrote:..."I suppose in the end, most everyone has a self-belief to defend, so the capability of open learning through consensus is slim."...
Yes, open learning gets difficult when self-believes are defended per se, perhaps in order to defend consensus (and self-consensus).
.."I really think these things are too deep to 'argue'. I'm sure if we were all in the same room together, we'd just appreciate the different perspectives to add to the picture of the whole."...
Originally Posted By: Alfredo Hmmm..., even if they could understand 12-TET (12 root of two)... could they tune pure octaves?
..."I'm not sure what you mean here; yes, of course they must have been able to tune pure intervals, including octaves."...
Sorry, I meant to ask: could they put 12th root of two ET into practice? I do not think so. Perhaps, as you say, they (how many?) could "understand" ET but I do not think they could make any practical use of their understanding. More than tonal variety then, they (I guess) will have been still looking for a whole, multiple-octaves range, sound (harmonious) and proportional-beat (tension-colored) geometry, able to rule chords hierarchy. Would "variety" reasonably be their priority? Wouldn't they already get variety from their daily tunings? Don't we already get variety out of our "true ET" daily attempts? Sure, we cannot say what period composers had in their mind, yet they pointed out the route towards a precise chord hierarchy within harmony, no matter which key.
Originally Posted By: Alfredo Artful compromises, for sure..., but which specific expressions? Can you expand?
..."I was referring to principles here; it's difficult to talk about what artful compromises are. There has been enough arguing about it in this thread to see no one sees it the same! Generally, the purer intervals in the home keys, or thirds being favored in the case of meantone."...
I see, so you think that, having other valid options (like 12 root of two ET), they would research on other UTs in favor of specific expressions. Well, I do not think so, in my view their efforts were more reasonably addressed to two problems: the very ancient one, namely the combination of prime numbers in a scale (remember when the harmonic series was elaborated?); secondly, expansion of the 12 tones temperament into a perfect "whole", still to be understood in our days.
Perhaps so far we have been on Topic, I'll complete my reply in another thread.
I invite all of you to go through my posts in this Topic and point out where I said that the reason I think WTC was written for ET is because I like ET. While your at it look for the many times I have given the fact that I prefer ET full disclosure so that my intent would not be misunderstood.
I could point out many instances where I am encouraged to listen to WTC in WT to convince me that it was written for WT. I have even been given tutorials and offered custom temperaments so that I might be persuaded in this way.
Ron makes a point about the taste test analogy. Do you have to taste scrapple to know that it has pork in it? No, the label tells you so. Or, if in doubt (labels can be misleading...) it can be analyzed to find out. Many that are not familiar with scrapple would be surprised that it has pork at all if it is only tasted.
I believe that if Bach wrote WTC for WT there would be a “smoking gun.†The “smoking gun†that I find indicates that it was written for ET. Others believe that there can be no “smoking gun.†Only perception can be the judge. And this is fine as it stands. But when they speak of this as being evidence. I call it “smoke and mirrors.â€
Jeff Deutschle Part-Time Tuner Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
I am going to throw several things into the stew pot here, and hope that someone (anyone) will comment to make sense of it, or help make sense of it. Warning: the following are three non-sequiturs...
1) Taste and sensibility. Big concepts in the 18th Century. Taking a tropic leap of time and subject matter, consider the way some people respond to the flavor of cliantro:
These results indicate that our genes have something to do with our taste for cilantro. But they’re just a first step toward determining whether there’s a particular reason for a genetic aversion to the herb.
Wysocki suspects that one of two things is happening because of the active or inactive state of a particular olfactory gene: 1. Cilantro haters can detect something unpleasant in cilantro that others can’t taste. 2. Cilantro haters can’t detect something pleasant in cilantro that others can taste.
Might be a better analogy than the pie baking contest, given Jeff's idea about color blindness. Works for licorice, too, if I remember right.
2) Comparative analysis I. These two examples are from Bach's Klavier Partiten. It is the Allemande from No. 4. It is in the key of D maj. They are played on harpsichord. The harpsichords are 1/2 step different in pitch. The melody starts on an F#. I'm pretty sure neither of these examples is F# at A440. And what a world of difference that 1/2 step makes. In my opinion, this is one of the most heart-rending, sadness evoking pieces I know in D maj. It overcomes sadness, finally, but getting there is a trip through the Valley of the Shadow.
Can anyone shed light on what is going on with the way the tuning effects the expression of these two examples? Is there something salient besides pitch at play here? I have my own opinion about which pitch evokes the spirit of the piece the best, which I will keep to myself for now...
3) Comparative Analysis II. Again, from Partita No. 4 in D maj., but this time the Ouverture, and this on the piano. Pay attention to the consonance/dissonance at mm. 34 through 39. I hope I am using these terms correctly! Consonance at m. 34, dissonance at m. 35, consonance at m. 38, dissonance at m. 39.
Does anyone else hear a difference in the energy of the dissonance between these two renditions? Tatiana's piano sounds tighter to me, like a spring ready to let loose. Perahia's piano sounds blah by comparison.
If anyone would care to chime in about any of this and please let me know if I am out of my gourd or not, I would appreciate it.
I believe that if Bach wrote WTC for WT there would be a “smoking gun.†The “smoking gun†that I find indicates that it was written for ET.
And I'm still waiting for some "smoking gun" to show that ET even existed in any meaningful way on keyboard instruments - not only in Bach's time, but all the way up until a generation or so ago... So you are saying that he was writing for a theoretical idea - completely removed from the tunings of the day?
I believe that if Bach wrote WTC for WT there would be a “smoking gun.†The “smoking gun†that I find indicates that it was written for ET.
And I'm still waiting for some "smoking gun" to show that ET even existed in any meaningful way on keyboard instruments - not only in Bach's time, but all the way up until a generation or so ago... So you are saying that he was writing for a theoretical idea - completely removed from the tunings of the day?
Ron Koval
So the cunning old divl was writing for an instrument of the future!! His sons (they called him the old wig) probably said," yeah, right, dad, and a man will go to the moon."
I could run with that one.
Last edited by rxd; 03/17/1201:05 PM.
Amanda Reckonwith Concert & Recording tuner-tech, London, England. "in theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not." - Lawrence P. 'Yogi' Berra.
Why would tuners of any time NOT be able to tune ET? Just spread out the comma evenly. If they purposely spread it out unevenly, they knew what it was and how to manipulate it. And what better way to test or show off ET than with a set of 24 pieces in all the keys, disregarding the usual allowances for MT?
Maybe you could ask the presenter tomorrow if he could give an analysis of a few passages from WTC1 that shows how Bach wrote for WT and not ET.
Jeff Deutschle Part-Time Tuner Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
What we DO have in the historical record waaaay after Bach is this type of tuning being the ET of the day.... Apparently showing that ET has meant different things through time.
No, Ron, I do not have any such records as you well know. I also have no records of how Bach tuned.
Of course this is inference. That is what a smoking gun is all about.
I do wonder about Broadwood best. Was it deliberate? Was it truly believed to be ET? I don't see how. And as you say, that was waaaay after Bach's time. I don't know if we have ever "caught up" to Bach's time.
Listen, I'll be back on Monday. Have a good time tomorrow.
Jeff Deutschle Part-Time Tuner Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
Andy, I personally could not stand listening to the second (higher pitch) version of the Allamande. It seemed to clang. The first version sounded calming. The Partitas are harder to compare because the Perahia version is poorly recorded, and I got bored of the sound. The Nicolayeva sounds just right to me and had me riveted. What does this comparison have to do with the topic?
Ron, I don't understand how anybody can determine how Broadwood's best actually tuned during the late 19th century. Is there a documented method from the period that exists from which one can recreate the tuning?
If anyone would care to chime in about any of this and please let me know if I am out of my gourd or not, I would appreciate it.
Andy
After listening to the clips of your harpsichords and Perahia, Nikolayeva, Yudina, Richter, Richter (not a typo), Sokolov, Gould, Argerich, Gieseking, Gulda, Horszowski, and Edwin Fischer ... it's the way you play them that matters!
PS Chris, I agree with you. The recordings show Bach is pretty much as at home in ET today as he was in WT three hundred years ago. He had two smoking guns.
Last edited by Withindale; 03/17/1205:03 PM. Reason: not a typo
Ian Russell Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 140cm Ibach, 1905 F-IV, 235cm
Consonance at m. 34, dissonance at m. 35, consonance at m. 38, dissonance at m. 39.![[Linked Image]](http://www.rollingball.com/images/BroadwoodsBest.gif)