[LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc
I find it, as a side bar, interesting that the one thing we think of as being so perfect and without flaw is mathematics. If mathematics was so flawless why is one of the most basic of concepts, that of pie, in itself an imperfect number having no resolution this side of infinity? So it is no wonder (in my opinion) that in an effort to justify tonality, an imperfect relationship in practice, with yet another imperfect concept should yield an imperfect result? - Original Message - From: "William Brohinsky" To: "Lute List" Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:43 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc It has long been my opinion that temperament is only necessary and workable on fixed-pitch instruments of limited resources. Specifically, it is a great work-around for a specific problem. For the rest of us, it is not a temperament that will be important to us (except where a specific composer adhered to a specific temperament, rather than some other system.) On instruments, like and especially the lute, where the performer's fingers are on the strings and corrections can be made on-the-fly, nothing that fits the definition of temperament is really necessary. Instead, there are adjustments that need to be made for the specific requirements of the instrument. In the case of the lute, the requirements involve things like different string mass/diameter/tension, and nut-grooves vs. saddle triangle shape (i.e., the height of the string and distance from the saddle as determined by the triangle-shaped bit where the string part through the saddle meets the string part over the saddle.) Organs respond well to temperaments, within each rank, and require some kind of resolution between different ranks, which may have pitches perceived differently because of harmonic content. Harpsichords do well, since the density difference between lowest and highest notes is not greatly different and string lengths even of the highest notes and tensions lead to string-behavior throughout the compass. Pianos respond badly to any kind of one-octave temperament-fits-all because the densities and tensions and string lengths cause the upper strings to act more and more like bars than strings. This is affected even more by the length of the piano's harp (most stark between spinets and 12-foot concert grands.) And it is influenced more subtly, but no less significantly, by the piano's scale-design and implementation. So there's no surprise that the purely mathematical solution (immediately available to anyone who has risen in technical acumen to understand the 12th root of 2) to ET12 is not applicable in the real world. The surprise may be that it can be made to work at all, even if the "it" that is being made to work is but a shadow of the mathematical solution! I find the most satisfying surprise in the discussion of tunings and temperaments is how Dowland's tuning, which is described in his nephew's book of lessons, makes his music sound better than any other system I've tried, even under these poorly-trained (and aging) fingers. Holborne doesn't sound so good to me in Dowland's tuning. Unlike Mr. Turovsky, I don't believe in the aphorism that good music doesn't rely on a specific tuning system or temperament. I believe that good composers take into account their available materials without conscious effort and produce music which uses them all to best advantage. After all, much of late 19th C and early 20th C analysis of renaissance music concluded that it was drab, purposeless and aimless, which seems to me to have been predicated on their using the temperament-of-the-day instead of any kind of just intonation. Compare a cylinder recording of an orchestra like Toscannini's, which can be corrected to reproduce all of the sound that was there at the recording, and compare that to the same piece played by one of today's symphonies: the difference in the sound and attractiveness of the music is incredible. I'm saying, here, that temperament/tuning doesn't make bad music interesting, but it can make "GOOD" music more interesting, when properly applied. Which I think says what Roman wanted to say about Harrison. Anyway, from a performance->listener point of view, the ability of untrained folk to not hear bad intonation should be well-known by now. And the ability of critical people to be, or claim to be, highly sensitive to "out of tune" is also well-known. What isn't well-known is a universal rule for how accurate a tuning (or temperament) has to be in order to please everyone. So it is unlikely that math alone is going to be a solution-source for musicians. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4459 (2009
[LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc
It has long been my opinion that temperament is only necessary and workable on fixed-pitch instruments of limited resources. Specifically, it is a great work-around for a specific problem. For the rest of us, it is not a temperament that will be important to us (except where a specific composer adhered to a specific temperament, rather than some other system.) On instruments, like and especially the lute, where the performer's fingers are on the strings and corrections can be made on-the-fly, nothing that fits the definition of temperament is really necessary. Instead, there are adjustments that need to be made for the specific requirements of the instrument. In the case of the lute, the requirements involve things like different string mass/diameter/tension, and nut-grooves vs. saddle triangle shape (i.e., the height of the string and distance from the saddle as determined by the triangle-shaped bit where the string part through the saddle meets the string part over the saddle.) Organs respond well to temperaments, within each rank, and require some kind of resolution between different ranks, which may have pitches perceived differently because of harmonic content. Harpsichords do well, since the density difference between lowest and highest notes is not greatly different and string lengths even of the highest notes and tensions lead to string-behavior throughout the compass. Pianos respond badly to any kind of one-octave temperament-fits-all because the densities and tensions and string lengths cause the upper strings to act more and more like bars than strings. This is affected even more by the length of the piano's harp (most stark between spinets and 12-foot concert grands.) And it is influenced more subtly, but no less significantly, by the piano's scale-design and implementation. So there's no surprise that the purely mathematical solution (immediately available to anyone who has risen in technical acumen to understand the 12th root of 2) to ET12 is not applicable in the real world. The surprise may be that it can be made to work at all, even if the "it" that is being made to work is but a shadow of the mathematical solution! I find the most satisfying surprise in the discussion of tunings and temperaments is how Dowland's tuning, which is described in his nephew's book of lessons, makes his music sound better than any other system I've tried, even under these poorly-trained (and aging) fingers. Holborne doesn't sound so good to me in Dowland's tuning. Unlike Mr. Turovsky, I don't believe in the aphorism that good music doesn't rely on a specific tuning system or temperament. I believe that good composers take into account their available materials without conscious effort and produce music which uses them all to best advantage. After all, much of late 19th C and early 20th C analysis of renaissance music concluded that it was drab, purposeless and aimless, which seems to me to have been predicated on their using the temperament-of-the-day instead of any kind of just intonation. Compare a cylinder recording of an orchestra like Toscannini's, which can be corrected to reproduce all of the sound that was there at the recording, and compare that to the same piece played by one of today's symphonies: the difference in the sound and attractiveness of the music is incredible. I'm saying, here, that temperament/tuning doesn't make bad music interesting, but it can make "GOOD" music more interesting, when properly applied. Which I think says what Roman wanted to say about Harrison. Anyway, from a performance->listener point of view, the ability of untrained folk to not hear bad intonation should be well-known by now. And the ability of critical people to be, or claim to be, highly sensitive to "out of tune" is also well-known. What isn't well-known is a universal rule for how accurate a tuning (or temperament) has to be in order to please everyone. So it is unlikely that math alone is going to be a solution-source for musicians. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc
Ray, --- On Sat, 9/26/09, William Brohinsky wrote: > > On instruments, like and especially the lute, where the > performer's > fingers are on the strings and corrections can be made > on-the-fly, > nothing that fits the definition of temperament is really > necessary. > Instead, there are adjustments that need to be made for the > specific > requirements of the instrument. In fact, modern players of orchestral instruments do this all the time. Modern bowed string players tune their open strings to perfect (i.e. not equal) 5ths. They do their darnedest to play any fingered fourth or fifth as a perfect fifth as well, but this doesn't mean that they play in Pythagorean system. Wind instruments can also raise or lower pitches depending on the context. Harpists, too, will adjust some strings if needed. Only the pianists are stuck with what they get from the tuners. But even most professional tuners have their own idiosyncratic version of ET. This doesn't invalidate the idea, though. Chris To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc
From: In fact, modern players of orchestral instruments do this all the time. Modern >bowed string players tune their open strings to perfect (i.e. not equal) 5ths. They >do their darnedest to play any fingered fourth or fifth as a perfect fifth as well, >but this doesn't mean that they play in Pythagorean system. Wind instruments >can also raise or lower pitches depending on the context. Harpists, too, will >adjust some strings if needed. Only the pianists are stuck with what they get >from the tuners. But even most professional tuners have their own idiosyncratic >version of ET. This doesn't invalidate the idea, though. Exactly. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Roman Turovsky wrote: > > Exactly. > RT > Exactly what? I'm afraid I'm not getting Chris's point, nor seeing it as a change from what I said. By the way: when have professional string players ever not tuned in perfect fifths? In the 60's, we were taught to tune in perfect fifths and play in ET12, avoiding the open strings at all costs. A decade later, when playing in tune came back into style (with incredible results: vide Chicago Symphony in the 70's and after) we still tuned in perfect fifths, and played open strings when they were appropriate for the current intonation and the tonal quality was appropriate. So I'm missing a few points here. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: lute music, ET, etc
> Only the pianists are stuck with what they get from the tuners. ah, but what you didnt notice was the half-our conversation between the artist and the tuner where they hammered out what the artist expected. In many cases the artist is familiar with the rental instruments available at each venue he plays at and can specify a preference based on feel as well as a prefered tuner. Nothing prevents a player from carying a set of tuning tools for touchup. Harpsichord players are generally expected to do their own tuning. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
