I can't add anything to that, except to suggest: "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony: And Why You Should Care" by Ross Duffin as an interesting and fairly accessible read.
# Publisher: W. W. Norton & Co.; illustrated edition edition (28 Nov 2006) # Language English # ISBN-10: 0393062279 # ISBN-13: 978-0393062274 One thing that surprised me was the reports of unequal temperaments persisting well into the 20th century. I have also discovered that many/most mid-high end electronic pianos will let you set a number of different temperaments. The differences aren't subtle. Some midi software can also be configured to play back pieces in a range of different temperaments. Fun to experiment with. Kit > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:37, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well there's nothing wrong in being reminded of how people used to >> think. >> But what was done for centuries isn't often what is correct - which is >> why >> being objective is the best way to go. >> > > > Real (mathematically) just playing can only be accomplished within a > very narrow frame within a certain key, and even a lot of simple > children songs will step outside this frame momentarily, creating > problems if you want to tune every single interval "right" and still > end up where you left. > > For me we're no better of than they were, and there has been no real > progress in tuning. Just change. (these two concepts seem to get mixed > up a lot) > Tuning in the 18th century evolved together with the music to play in > as much keys as possible and still have as many intervals as possible > really well tuned. An impossible task, and the extensive studies into > ways to accomplish this ended up with some extremely well thought-out, > rich and interesting tuning systems that gave each key a unique sound. > > When composers started to modulate "around the clock" instead of back > and forth*, equal tuning was the way to go. (or is it the other way > round and did equal tuning start the modulation madness? ;) ) > > I'm not sure we're better of, have "advanced" or are doing "what is > correct" in having this system now where every single key has the same > murky brownish-grey color and there is not a single interval really in > tune. It is just _a_ way to solve a bunch of problems and I don't > think you can objectively decide which is the best way. > > Michiel van der Linden > Bruges, Belgium > > > * For the uninitiated: baroque and classical composers would start in > a certain key, lets say C maj., and then move to other keys closely > related, like those with one more flat or sharp, or to the minor > parallel of the main key etc. They would repeat this proces a few > times and would then move back down the ladder they created, back to > C. > > Romantic composers started to make bolder leaps to other keys and > would sometimes continue jumping, until at the end they ended up not > in C but in B sharp. On the piano it's the same key, but if you do the > maths it's a completely different one. > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/c.j.l.wolf%40newcastle.ac.uk > _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
