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!
Anything is more musical than this constant inanity about temperament!
Yeah, but the conversation regarding temperament has been going on for at least 2300 years, and the music to which we now listen has been going on for only 1000 years or so.
It's one of the big three - Politics, Religion, and Temperament.
I find reference to emotions from music as being objective, to be short sighted.
The organization of music has arbitrary elements in it.
Just think to yourself how your own reaction to a piece of music changes as you listen to it more and more. Or what about how a piece of music sounds different depending on your mood or something personal that happened to you since the last time you heard it.
This is where the arguements for and against ET fall short. Anyone who pretends to say one is better than the other, is navel gazing and does not realize that each person gets their ideal of beauty from their own experiences.
If I say ET is beautiful to me, who has the right to tell me it is not?
if you want to try a well temperament that has good color but does not shock the senses try broadwood's best tuning.. it is quite 'british' and will fit many kinds of music
the really old tunings need to be used for very specific compositions made especially for those tunings.
"Try as I might I cannot get to grips with "just" and "wolf" tuning. Help!" -Larry Shone
Try this approach:
(First stab at tuning ET)
Bob is the winner of this week's internet.
Thanks, Jim. The OP mentioned "wolf" tuning and it brought me back to my first try at tuning. "What's all the fuss about," I thought - "this is easy." That was until I went back and checked a particular fifth in the temperament. Never heard anything so horrible in my life. (The "wolf" in the video sounds quite melodious by comparison.)
The difference is very delicate. But if you are interested in this matter, it should mean a lot. The difference certainly exists. There are many kinds of Temperament Systems. Pure, Mean-Tone, Kirnberger-1, Kirnberger-3, Werckmeister-3, Silbermann, and others. Now ordinary keyboards are tuned basicaly on the Equal-Temperament System. Over the centuries musicians, mathematicians, theorists, thinkers, experts and amateurs have been suffered from the comma which is the difference between a perfectly tuned octave and the octave resulting from a tuned circle of fifths. Many great people have been trying to create the perfect scale in vain. Mathematics easily proves that perfection is not possible. Any solution does not exist. Musicians, especially pianists, have been accused of using the Equal Temperament for thier pianos because the Equal Temperament is said to be an anti-musical compromise which leaves each key equally damaged and none perfectly in tune. Then how about pianists? I made a test using FFT and the result is; Walcha used an equal-tempered chembalo. S. Richiter used a basically equal-tempered piano tuned a little higher than standard. Gould used an Equal-Tempered Piano. By the way, even nowadays there are many people who claim that the 12 tone-equal temperament is a product of mere compromise. They say that the pure temperament is the only authentic one, and that the 12 tone-equal temperament makes dirty resonances without being expressed as the ratios of whole numbers, which is, they believe, a fundamental music fact. On the contrary, I think that the basic temperament should be the pure temperament and the 12 tone-equal temperament, and that other various temperament systems are nothing but compromise. Moreover the pure temperament, I think, can be only a little modified version of the 12 tone-equal temperament. Musicians specialized in classic music, especially performers of works of Bach and Mozart and professional piano tuners, might have guilty consciences in basically using the 12 tone-equal temperament system for their daily mission because it has been "a priori" imprinted on their mind as the origin of dirty resonances. For all that, those who hate the 12 tone-equal temperament usually use the unit called "cent", which is very convenient, in order for them to discuss about their favorite temperament sysytem. In fact this "cent" is a logarithmic unit itself and is remote from the "harmonious" ratios of whole numbers. And other people want to talk about the beats bewteen two tones to make them consonant. When, in an octave in which A=440Hz is located, two tones with certain beats are within a harmoniously permissible range, one octave higher tones will have double numbers of beats because they are determined by their frequency difference. SEE; http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcpage004.html
Let's think about "Uncertainty Principle for Temperament". Then the uncertainty clouds cover the differentials of pitches which depend on various temperaments. And this uncertainty might be able to break the historic curse over the music. SEE; http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcuncertain.html
Early keyboards showed how important temperament was to musicians of the time by sometimes having two black keys where only one exists today. This was because in one key the black key would have a different frequency than another key.
String players were taught (and still should be taught) to play certain thirds etc. a little flat or sharp depending on the key.
I would say to anyone, including pop songwriters etc. who live in a tonal world, that is remotely interested in getting an inspiring sound from the piano, to get your piano tuned in the Broadwood's best or another Victorian Well-Temperament and live with it for a little while..
There supposedly is no distinction from one key signature to the next in ET (and there really is none) but there are many ET only advocates who still very strongly claim that they actually do hear a distinction! Yet if music is played in a Well Temperament, that distinction is too much! It jars the emotions and make the skin crawl! But an emotional response cannot be proved, so therefore it must not exist.
Hi,
You're welcome!
There are a couple of things to consider about keys that go beyond temperament.
The first is that every key has a different range of frequencies so that for instance an A as a root note is going to sound 'punchier' than a low E in the same way that a sound engineer knows that boosting an equalizer at 110 hz is going to have a different sound and feel than a 150 or 75 Hz
Furthermore you also have the vocal range which is affected by key. The human voice, and each individual's voice, resonate and sing more clearly on certain notes and certain keys.
So, internalizing all of these subjective and objective perceptions of sound and frequencies you begin to hear different keys, in general, as being different.. this is a result of repeated listening and making music in general
If we put aside the theoretical notions that soundboards are perfect 'speakers' or 'transducers' that work without resonances and with impedance which is flat across all frequency ranges, we come to the realization that certain keys are going to resonate differently on one instrument than others.
Old European pianos had a fixed resonance or 'EQ' which gave them a 'vocal' quality and sometimes you see that certain notes 'drop' in tension where the board resonates.. this is a sort of compensating by listening that some more obsessive manufacturers used to do.
Sievers went so far to say that a piano could not sound good unless each section of the soundboard was carefully tuned by shaving the bars under the soundboard and hitting the soundboard with a mallet, until the section of the sounboard concerned corresponded with the pitch of the strings!
So yes there are multiple issues involved and tuning was certainly more of an artform and subject to discussion, local tastes, philosophy etc.
Old European pianos had a fixed resonance or 'EQ' which gave them a 'vocal' quality and sometimes you see that certain notes 'drop' in tension where the board resonates.. this is a sort of compensating by listening that some more obsessive manufacturers used to do.
Acortot, your post is very interesting but would you please explain the sentence I have quoted in more detail?
How much did the increase in tension, due to stronger frames and wires, during the second half of the 19c affect the situation?
Ian Russell Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 140cm Ibach, 1905 F-IV, 235cm
The difference is very delicate. But if you are interested in this matter, it should mean a lot. The difference certainly exists. There are many kinds of Temperament Systems. Pure, Mean-Tone, Kirnberger-1, Kirnberger-3, Werckmeister-3, Silbermann, and others. Now ordinary keyboards are tuned basicaly on the Equal-Temperament System. Over the centuries musicians, mathematicians, theorists, thinkers, experts and amateurs have been suffered from the comma which is the difference between a perfectly tuned octave and the octave resulting from a tuned circle of fifths. Many great people have been trying to create the perfect scale in vain. Mathematics easily proves that perfection is not possible. Any solution does not exist. Musicians, especially pianists, have been accused of using the Equal Temperament for thier pianos because the Equal Temperament is said to be an anti-musical compromise which leaves each key equally damaged and none perfectly in tune. Then how about pianists? I made a test using FFT and the result is; Walcha used an equal-tempered chembalo. S. Richiter used a basically equal-tempered piano tuned a little higher than standard. Gould used an Equal-Tempered Piano. By the way, even nowadays there are many people who claim that the 12 tone-equal temperament is a product of mere compromise. They say that the pure temperament is the only authentic one, and that the 12 tone-equal temperament makes dirty resonances without being expressed as the ratios of whole numbers, which is, they believe, a fundamental music fact. On the contrary, I think that the basic temperament should be the pure temperament and the 12 tone-equal temperament, and that other various temperament systems are nothing but compromise. Moreover the pure temperament, I think, can be only a little modified version of the 12 tone-equal temperament. Musicians specialized in classic music, especially performers of works of Bach and Mozart and professional piano tuners, might have guilty consciences in basically using the 12 tone-equal temperament system for their daily mission because it has been "a priori" imprinted on their mind as the origin of dirty resonances. For all that, those who hate the 12 tone-equal temperament usually use the unit called "cent", which is very convenient, in order for them to discuss about their favorite temperament sysytem. In fact this "cent" is a logarithmic unit itself and is remote from the "harmonious" ratios of whole numbers. And other people want to talk about the beats bewteen two tones to make them consonant. When, in an octave in which A=440Hz is located, two tones with certain beats are within a harmoniously permissible range, one octave higher tones will have double numbers of beats because they are determined by their frequency difference. SEE; http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcpage004.html
Let's think about "Uncertainty Principle for Temperament". Then the uncertainty clouds cover the differentials of pitches which depend on various temperaments. And this uncertainty might be able to break the historic curse over the music. SEE; http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcuncertain.html
Thanks. Very informative. Love the Tower of Babel analogy.
On the contrary, I think that the basic temperament should be the pure temperament and the 12 tone-equal temperament, and that other various temperament systems are nothing but compromise. Moreover the pure temperament, I think, can be only a little modified version of the 12 tone-equal temperament.
Greetings, The 'pure' temperament ? I know that ET is an orderly series of compromises, all others are "nothing but" compromises? I think some definitions are in order for the above to make sense, as it isn't clear what is actually being said.
On the contrary, I think that the basic temperament should be the pure temperament and the 12 tone-equal temperament, and that other various temperament systems are nothing but compromise. Moreover the pure temperament, I think, can be only a little modified version of the 12 tone-equal temperament.
Greetings, The 'pure' temperament ? I know that ET is an orderly series of compromises, all others are "nothing but" compromises? I think some definitions are in order for the above to make sense, as it isn't clear what is actually being said.
Probably means "just intonation" rather than pure temperament.
On the contrary, I think that the basic temperament should be the pure temperament and the 12 tone-equal temperament, and that other various temperament systems are nothing but compromise. Moreover the pure temperament, I think, can be only a little modified version of the 12 tone-equal temperament.
Greetings, The 'pure' temperament ? I know that ET is an orderly series of compromises, all others are "nothing but" compromises? I think some definitions are in order for the above to make sense, as it isn't clear what is actually being said.
Probably means "just intonation" rather than pure temperament.
I suppose, yet, if I plug "just intonation" into the sentence instead of "pure", it still makes no sense, to me, so I await a better explanation. It is also hard to tell if a poster is working from the psycho/acoustic/feedback/stretching-years of tuning, or a student that has read "all" the books. I don't know what path would lead one to propose a basic temperament that was a Just and ET. Wait and see. I suppose I could say "I'm just waiting". regards,
Old European pianos had a fixed resonance or 'EQ' which gave them a 'vocal' quality and sometimes you see that certain notes 'drop' in tension where the board resonates.. this is a sort of compensating by listening that some more obsessive manufacturers used to do.
Acortot, your post is very interesting but would you please explain the sentence I have quoted in more detail?
How much did the increase in tension, due to stronger frames and wires, during the second half of the 19c affect the situation?
In the early 1800's there were dozens of piano builders, who worked independently, in small workshops like guitar-builders do today.
The big names that had proper factories and produced a lot of pianos were fewer. Broadwood was probably the first industrial piano and it relied very much on string tension.
The British pianos I've seen were relatively simple and you could say that they were the forerunner to the modern piano because they had access to the hardest steel wire (British Steel).
But the French pianos in particular had a nasal resonant frequency by comparison to today's pianos and American pianos like Steinway etc.
Many French Pianos often had cutoff and tone bars that tuned the soundboard way into the late 1800's
Perhaps because of the lower tension the soundboard was more free to vibrate and resonate and the builders exploited this.
Today's pianos are perhaps less a product of such fine-tuning and more a product of industrial optimization, I suppose.
String tensions being what they are, have compensated for the rest of the design. Modern Piano-sound is also different than the old sound.
yet, for example, Pleyel pianos, which were already cross-strung and had become similar to Steinway et al still had a bit of the 'vocal' resonance in the 1930's
there were many different styles of soundboard bracing, as constant experimentation was going-on at the time.
Temperament and harmony in general makes more of a difference on the older wood-framed pianos compared to todays, in a way.
One only needs to think about a choir of strings for one note tuned in unison. Since the soundboard 'gives' if two strings are perfectly in tune and the other is only slightly out-of-tune doesn't the third string 'fall into place' anyway because of sympathetic vibration?
If you consider this to be true then think about a perfect chord 'falling into place' because of the vibration of the wooden frame and how that would in some way reinforce some chords and create additional harmonics for other chords?
so, I guess that on the highly-damped soundboards of today the effects obtained with harmony and temperament will be different and just perhaps not as noticeable, but maybe it's still worth trying to see if a non-equal temperament can work with a modern piano.
I'd start with the later temperaments, used in the late 1800's first. After all by 1880 Steinways were already on the scene and tensions were pretty high compared to the early part of the century.
There is some basic misuse of terminology in the post from the gentleman from Tokyo. The word, "pure" does imply and is synonymous with "just intonation" which means beatless intervals. In other words, the intervals are not tempered. So, there can be no such thing as a "pure temperament"! Of course, we have to afford some leniency to someone for whom English is not the first language but I am sorry to say, found the post from the gentleman from Tokyo to be completely incomprehensible.
I also saw a page full of math which I admit is beyond anything I know but anytime I have ever seen someone use that kind of math to make a case for anything at all about tuning esthetics, it always plainly demonstrates a complete lack of any knowledge whatsoever of what those esthetics are. Hence, we get the inventor of the Strobe Tuner and the Lawrence Welk orchestra piano being tuned "straight to the Strobe" with the idea that it must be the one and only correct solution.
Not to be outdone by the mathematical theorist and the "pure temperament", whatever that may be, the technicians who participate on such a topic as this who have no real experience or knowledge about Cycle of 5ths based temperaments are full of how they "wouldn't work, couldn't work and shouldn't be tried".
Temperament has no effect on emotions but that "sour sound" makes one's skin crawl! It is repulsive but that is not an emotional response. If any and all talk about this subject that so many technicians wish would just go away, die and fade into obscurity, this forum would be such a more peaceful and tranquil place but that is not an emotional response to the very idea of an unequal temperament, of course.
And then, the mere mention of the possibility of Reverse Well as a consequence of sheer ignorance about what one is trying to accomplish with temperament and the outcries that it could never happen, it does not exist, no one has ever heard of it or heard it anywhere, accusations of making false statements, denial that what is plainly there, is what it is, etc., none of those are emotional responses either.
Well temperaments don't do what their proponents claim. They have no effect at all except to make the piano sound wrong! Nobody can really hear the distinctions in the milder Well temperaments yet the slightest irregularity in beat speeds of Major thirds is an area of major importance! The more perfectly equal the temperament, the better the music from the piano will sound but there are no appreciable qualities from any Cycle of 5ths based temperament that matter at all, except either the "sour sound" they make or the "dead sound" they make! Therefore, they wouldn't work, couldn't work and shouldn't be tried! None of that is an emotional response.
All of the above being said upon a foundation of no experience or any real knowledge whatsoever! We might as well really believe that Bach invented ET and wrote his two books of music to prove how great it was and it changed music history forever and for the better. Nothing we hear today could have ever existed had it not been for that single turning point in music history!
It's really unfortunate that the above is not really true at all and that no music ever composed during or since Bach's time ever had ET as a requirement or was made possible only because of ET. It is such a convenient explanation that phony books are written which say that and phony TV documentaries are made to make you think that it is what actually happened but it is all a complete fabrication!
The technicians who participate on this topic who continually say that the use of anything but ET is somehow a misguided goal need to consider that for those technicians such as myself who know better than that, we make our living doing what you would never do! We don't have clients who only hear "sour sounds" or "dead sounds".
We have clients who make such comments as, "For the very first time anyone has tuned my piano, it really made music!" We have music directors who tell opera and symphony choruses, "Listen carefully to the piano for your pitch". We have high school music teachers who find a way to have a piano tuned several times a year because they finally have heard true harmony coming from it and recognize how the students respond to it. They find a way to pay for our services at fees far above what others charge and far more frequently than normal school budgeting had ever allowed before.
We have private clients who had tried various technicians and have come back to us because they found a kind of epiphany in the way we have made their pianos sound that other technicians never did. We have other technicians from other parts of the USA and other countries writing to us to say what wonderful revelations have been made to them.
Some of us have been doing what we do for so long that what we see written here that would attempt to say to us that what we do "wouldn't work, couldn't work and shouldn't be tried" seems patently ridiculous! I have no intention of giving it up and I am actively teaching it to technicians who have seen the value in it. To all others, I simply say, "It is your loss, not mine."
But tell me. Who here has been telling you "what we do wouldn't work, couldn't work and shouldn't be tried". That surely seems arrogant.
It is so nice to get all that positive feedback. I would suggest that there may be more to the quality of your work than just the temperament. Your concept of octave tuning surely adds to the brilliance of the tone as well.
I have all kinds of similar responses to my work including "The piano has never sounded so good", "I can't walk by it now without playing it", "It sounds so awesome, I don't want to sell it anymore". But I only tune in ET. Perhaps if I could tune a historical temperament, I would get more like that. What do you think?
Mark, I have been told for 25 years that what I do wouldn't work, couldn't work and shouldn't be tried, so I don't think you should ever try it either.
Seriously though, I can't understand why anyone would say UT wouldn't work.
Well, think of all the composers for whom it didn't work - all of the renaissance composers, all of the baroque composers, all of the rococo composers... Clearly they couldn't write music because the keyboards were all tuned in GTs.
Seriously though, I can't understand why anyone would say UT wouldn't work.
Well, think of all the composers for whom it didn't work - all of the renaissance composers, all of the baroque composers, all of the rococo composers... Clearly they couldn't write music because the keyboards were all tuned in GTs.
Prout - I think that you have misread what Mark has written. The eras you mentioned is when UT was employed and enjoyed as the norm. Mark has agreed that a UT would work.
Marty in Minnesota
It's much easier to bash a Steinway than it is to play one.
