> What I would
>like to know is how much of the renaissance is traceable to Jorgensen's
>influence.
  Greetings,
    From the trenches here,  I would have to say it looks like 50%.
  Most  pertinent information was made available by J. Murry Barbour  by 1951,
but if you ever try to read his work, you may not wonder why it didn't seize
the public's fascination.
   What Jorgensen did was to place a more musical context around the required
information and put it in the hands of the tuners.  The other 50% of the
essential reason for HT's growing acceptance is Dr. Al Sanderson. (I'll
explain below) With these two men and their combination of their achievements,
the changes in present intonation, as it so often has in the past, is being
powered by technology
 
    As a professional tuner, I saw Barbour's work, but not only did it not
make the temperaments appealing, I was working so much as it was, that
learning all these esoteric procedures, each different, like Latin!  was just
too much.  I simply didn't have the time. He wasn't really into it for the
music, either. (Owen J. told me that Murray, upon describing a Young tuning,
said, "that would just sound out of tune piano!")
    Years later, I have a Sanderson Accu-tuner, a fully programmable tuning
computer, that will, if I tell it to, record a tuning I have just done,
Despite world class training, this made me a better tuner,  ( I am real proud
to have been taught by Bill Garlick).  These machines, and the several of the
same ilk that have followed, have revolutionized tuning.  And rightly so, not
only for pitch changes, for study, and consistancy, but that of temperament
investigation.
    The major contribution of Jorgensen's research, and Dr. Al's amazing
machine is the reintroductions of the historical temperaments.  This follows
from the investigation that requires little enough time so that the average
working tuner can do it. They can come face to face with Mr. Kirnberger, or
perhaps a 1/4 comma on a console somewhere.  They may possibly hear what a
Young does to Beethoven, or a meantone to Mozart.  This is important, because
nothing takes the place of hearing when selling something so subtle as
keycolor. Having the ability out there in the field was a requisite for
broader acceptance.
    All the list's harpsichordists are, I assume,  familiar with key color,
it even sounds natural to me, but the great mass of music that is being mass
marketed is on the piano, so to create the greatest effect, I look to the most
popularly used instrument.  If Bach is to be played on the Steinway, at least
it could be in color!
    This harmonic wasteland is changing because Dr. Al's machines, loaded with
Jorgensen's research, are out there in college professor's studios, country
songwriter's homes, recital halls, and more.  It is going to succeed because
there is real value in having the appropriate temperament.  All that is needed
is some education and exposure.  What is not needed is telling the modern
pianist that they are all wet unless they change the only tuning they have
ever known.  That does not work.
 
 
                It is the little numbers at the end of each of Jorgensen's chapters
and the electrons whirling in Al's hardware that are the lightening sparks
needed for the 21st century's  temperament conflagration.   I've been to the
front line of this fire,  felt the heat, been scorched and singed, and have
been tempered myself, by it.
Regards,
Ed Foote
(slightly burned out, but still smokin')