Ed Foote schreef:
> >> [...] Dale also writes:
> >> >>What he
> >> wrote, if I'm not misconstruing or distorting, is that if we assume
>
> >> that
> >> piano strings are detuned in proportion to the frequency w/ which
> >> they're struck, the resultant detuning will approach Young's
> >> temperament, at least in the middle 8ve of the keyboard. <<
>
> I responded,
> >> Not exactly, IMHO.
> >
> >I'd be interested to read what you thought was inexact in what I
> wrote.
>
> Greetings,
> (Hoping not to get into a semantic knot here),
> I felt that saying strings were detuned is not quite clear,
> since it is
> really the interval that is being detuned, (from Just). And detuning
> one
> string of an interval is usually bringing another interval into closer
> tune,
> (as the widening of one third will narrow a contiguous one). Also,
> the
> location of the octave has little to do with temperament, since an
> accurate
> expansion of the temperament octave will carry the relative widths of
> the
> intervals out to the ends of the keyboards.
> Thus, I was trying to make the distinction between detuning
> strings,(notes) and detuning intervals. Sorry for the
> misunderstanding.
> Regards,
> Ed Foote
Thanx for the clarification! I really should look up that article
again....
I realize now that I forgot to write that Barbour was assuming that the
strings had been tuned in ET, and that the striking of the hammers was
responsibile for the detuning. Then the most frequently struck strings
would get the most punishment and end up farthest from their original
frequency. This would lead to the 'easy' notes' being the most detuned,
and thus the 'easy' keys as well. Of course, the least frequently used
notes would stay better in tune - if Barbour's right and I'm
paraphrasing him accurately - and their keys [I mean tonalities here] as
well. All this would lead to a sort of Young, but then transposed to
f#.
Hasn't *anybody* but me *ever* read this article? Hard to believe, w/
so many tuning freax on this list ; - ]
Best,
Dale
|
