If the explanation adds in commas that the Tempered Instrument is a "Piano ( Equal spaced semitones )" does that clarify the idea or confuse you ?
Should the word Tempered be used on it`s own in this context . If a Music Professor explained in this way ( in a magazine ) would you approve or not ? Does it almost imply that the person explaining is not conscious of the different types of Tuning Temperaments ? Should Equal or Unequal be specified for clarity ?
They would be the people that claim Bach invented ET?
So why would a teacher reject the Bach Keyboard "invention " to play a Cello piece by Bach?
If it works in any key it should work for a cello too .
Do tuners feel as if they are the Conscience of music that preserves a vital heritage ? Is the idea that Bach invented ET taught in Tuner Training Centres. Do you know if Music Colleges anf Universities teach that Bach invented ET? Are these questions that have been asked thousands of times before ?
Ditto, Gill. However, part of our Ancient Temperaments module involved tuning the college spinet in Meantone (our choice of flavour) and one other temperament of our choiceGill the Piano wrote:No, we are taught that JSB wrote the 48 to prove that ET worked, as the common view at the time was that it couldn't possibly work in every key. We were taught that other temperaments existed, but that they were so rarely used as to be pointless to learn and practise. We had to learn the principles behind the other temperaments - well, the more popular of them - but were not required - thank God - to actually tune a piano in them. Perhaps the bods on the harpsichord course were taught to tune old temperaments, I'm not sure. It's likely.
I've never been asked to tune an alternative or historic temperament - although I have only been tuning professionally for 12 years so I supppose there is still timeGill the Piano wrote:How do you mean? In 30 years of tuning I have been asked ONCE to use an alternative temperament. To my mind that doesn't warrant spending a large chunk of tuning tuition on esoteric temperaments on the offchance that 28 years hence someone will want it! To learn about them and know the intervals was enough for me to have made a fair fist of it - at least, the customer was pleased! Feg, have you ever been asked for an alternative temperament professionally?
Not that I've got room for one anyway, and I have to confess that the kind I really like are the ones which I think I read somewhere never really existed when it was in common use: the gynormous Wanda Landowska-type instruments with a tone to rival that of a grand piano.
I'd probably break it, though with the force that I know I'd put on that low F# in the middle of the 3rd bar every time that tune comes back (played it on the piano, just not the same!)
And of COURSE, it needs tuning...!
For me the idea of keys actually sounding more strident - I'm not sure about that - it might be a throwback to pre-ET days (sorry, nothing to do with John Williams) but it's psychological as much as anything else. Why would a piano composer choose to write in seven flats rather than five sharps? There's a song by Poulenc called just C, in which every line ends with the syllable that sounds like "say" (I don't think I can do é here, can I? Can you see that one? [edit: well, I could in the preview, but some screens just show these things as question marks]), and it is THE most tragic song I know, all about the devastation of France. It's in seven flats. Not entirely clear whether the tonality is major or minor, it's shifting, and definitely doesn't end on a tonic chord of either; for a while I thought "ah, that's symbolic, isn't it, title is C and the major with this key-signature is Cb but of course, it's not because Poulenc would have called C "do". But how can you set such a heart-rending song in a key of five sharps? Five sharps, to me, is wide-eyed mania - but the pitches on the piano are exactly the same.
I found that some Yamahas have a slightly shorter octave (see Yamaha --Key width and Octave distance) i.e 15.9cms which is just less than their full size 16.4 cms.
Then I checked my own Hohner (real ) piano octave which is 16,4cms.
I began the violin at 10 years of age and my stretched right hand is one inch narrower than my left . A very late penny then dropped ,which might be useful for some players .
I realised that the difference is mainly because the left fourth finger has always been used for stretching to the highest notes .I had been blaming the thumb stretch . So my current project is to see if exercising those right hand small finger muscles will produce a wider handspan and a comfortable octave .
The small finger stretch uses the chunky muscle on the outer edge of the palm and also foearm muscles that reach down to the elbow (outer edge ). That stretching will be done by those muscles alone without cheating and damaging the hand . I think that last sentence is important for anyone else reading this .
Even Jascha Heifetz had a regular habit of stretching his hands and fingers away from the instrument .
But I also looked up the Janko keyboard to remind myself of a most peculiar invention .