PipeChat Digest #2489 - Wednesday, November 7, 2001
 
Re: Orchestration for Dummies
  by "colin-hulme@bctalk.net" <colin-hulme@bctalk.net>
Re: PipeChat Digest #2487 - 11/06/01 - Temperament
  by "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net>
Re: Orchestration for Dummies
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Orchestration for Dummies
  by "Margo Dillard" <dillardm@airmail.net>
Re: PipeChat Digest #2487 - 11/06/01 - Temperament
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Update, todays Paper St. Johns Anglican Church
  by "Daniel Hopkins" <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca>
There is a Good pic of the remainder of the pipe organ in the paper
  by "Daniel Hopkins" <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca>
temperaments: NEXT! (grin)
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
RE: New England Church Positions
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
RE: Temperaments
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Re: temperaments: NEXT! (grin)
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: Temperaments
  by "Roy Redman" <rredman@imagin.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Orchestration for Dummies From: "colin-hulme@bctalk.net" <colin-hulme@bctalk.net> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:37:02 +0000   Gordon Jacob wrote a standard textbook on this subject. I think it was called "Orchestration". No idea if it is still in print.   Cheers,   Colin   Bob Richardson wrote: > > > The only non-keyboard instrument I've ever played is the violin. I = don't > want to write something that can't be played on "real" instruments, so I > need to learn the general features and limitations of all the orchestral > instruments. I'm looking for a book that basically covers things like = the > range of pitches for each instrument, basics involved in phrasing, = common > notation symbols and quirks, how long your average orchestral flautist = can > hold a note without turning blue, etc. Information about choral singing > would be great, too (what are the accepted ranges for tenor, soprano, > etc.) > > Does such a book exist?  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #2487 - 11/06/01 - Temperament From: "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 06:34:15 -0500     --------------8149758C15AA81F483560DEE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Hello Peter, I too, am no expert at understanding and describing the differences = between temperaments, however, I have been guided to a website that I will pass = along to you, that describes different temperaments, and even allows you to = experiment with them, and plays wav files as examples. I hope it helps you as much as = it did me. Cheers Mike   http://pages.globetrotter.net/roule/accord.htm   PHarri5833@aol.com wrote:   > On reflection, my expression of the frequency multipliers for equal > temperament (about 1.0594632) is of course more elegantly expressed as = each > semitone interval providing a note with a frequency of 2 to the power = 1/12th > times that of the previous one. > > I hope someone can let me know how the formula for "well temperament" > differs. > > Thanks > > Peter M Harrison > Emmanuel Church, Holcombe > Ramsbottom, Lancashire > & P H Music > tel: +44 (0)1204 853310 > fax: +44 (0)1204 853445 > web www.phmusic.co.uk >   --------------8149758C15AA81F483560DEE Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hello Peter, <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I too, am no expert at understanding and describing the differences between temperaments, however, I have been guided to a website that I will pass along to you, that describes different = temperaments, and even allows you to experiment with them, and plays wav files as = examples. I hope it helps you as much as it did me. <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cheers <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mike <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A = HREF=3D"http://pages.globetrotter.net/roule/accord.htm">http://pages.globet= rotter.net/roule/accord.htm</A> <p>PHarri5833@aol.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=3DCITE>On reflection, my expression of the frequency = multipliers for equal <br>temperament (about 1.0594632) is of course more elegantly expressed as each <br>semitone interval providing a note with a frequency of 2 to the power 1/12th <br>times that of the previous one. <p>I hope someone can let me know how the formula for "well temperament" <br>differs. <p>Thanks <p>Peter M Harrison <br>Emmanuel Church, Holcombe <br>Ramsbottom, Lancashire <br>&amp; P H Music <br>tel: +44 (0)1204 853310 <br>fax: +44 (0)1204 853445 <br>web www.phmusic.co.uk <br><a href=3D"mailto:requests@pipechat.org"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote> </html>   --------------8149758C15AA81F483560DEE--    
(back) Subject: Re: Orchestration for Dummies From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 05:05:27 -0800   I prefer Widor's orchestration book ... it's VERY old-fashioned, but the = end result is that by using the limitations of instruments in his day ("b= ad" keys, "bad" notes), you end up writing stuff that's EASIER to play, and amateurs (in particular) will thank you. I'm s= ure it's long out of print, but you could probably pick it up on ebay or = one of the rare book sites. It also gives insight into why earlier composers did what they did.   Singing ... look at things by people who write for VOICES (Willan, Staine= r, basically ANY of the good Anglican choral composers), rather than peop= le who write for voices as if they were string quartets (Brahms, Beethoven). Beethoven must have been jilted by a sopran= o while he was writing the Missa Solemnis ... he wrote that search-and-de= stroy soprano part to KILL *all* sopranos (grin).   Basic good church choir ranges (female sopranos and altos):   Soprano - Eb above middle c to high B flat - they can SING lower, but the= y don't LIKE it Mine like to hang around c above middle c; anything above a high G re= quires a certain amount of coddling Alto - Ab below middle c to E flat an octave and a third above middle c Mine like to hang around Eb flat or F above middle c; they'll SING c = above middle c, but they'll complain Tenor - c below middle c to f or g above middle c You're on your own ... "tenor" is a mental condition (grin) ... don't= ask 'em to sing MANY Gs Bass - low f (e if you're lucky) to d above middle c Church choir basses usually have a COMFORTABLE range of about a FIFTH= ... c below middle c to g below middle c (grin), and don't write 'em too= many DIFFERENT notes, or too many FAST notes (chuckle)   Look at Mozart's small Masses ... bearing in mind that his cambiata altos= could only sing about two or three notes either side of g above middle c= ... the rest of the vocal parts are PERFECT.   If you write with Sibelius or Finale, the PROGRAM will tell you when thin= gs are out of range, both for instruments AND for voices.   Have fun!   Cheers,   Bud     steve@ststephenscanterbury.freeserve.co.uk wrote:   > Orchestration by Walter Piston was a standard book when I was at univer= sity a few years ago... I imagine that this book is available in the USA.= It contains all the things you need to get going! > > Steve > Canterbury UK > > > > > From: Bob Richardson <bob@peak.org> > > Date: Wed 07/Nov/2001 06:53 CET > > To: pipechat@pipechat.org > > Subject: Orchestration for Dummies > > > > Greetings. > > > > I will soon be acquiring an Ahlborn Archive organ MIDI module for my = MIDI > > setup, so that I can sequence and compose for organ. (I am also > > retrofitting a generously donated Schoenstein console for MIDI, but t= hat > > is a long-term project)... > > > > I would like to start messing around with compositions for organ and > > orchestra (or organ vs. orchestra if you prefer), just on my MIDI set= up at > > first, and maybe transcribe it for real if the results turn out well = (less > > than likely...) BUT... > > > > The only non-keyboard instrument I've ever played is the violin. I d= on't > > want to write something that can't be played on "real" instruments, s= o I > > need to learn the general features and limitations of all the orchest= ral > > instruments. I'm looking for a book that basically covers things lik= e the > > range of pitches for each instrument, basics involved in phrasing, co= mmon > > notation symbols and quirks, how long your average orchestral flautis= t can > > hold a note without turning blue, etc. Information about choral sing= ing > > would be great, too (what are the accepted ranges for tenor, soprano, > > etc.) > > > > Does such a book exist? Can a hobbyist truly expect to shortcut year= s of > > experience and education in orchestration, composition, and arranging= ? > > > > If the results are atrocious, I promise not to publish. :-) > > > > Thanks and best wishes, > > > > Bob Richardson > > Corvallis, OR > > > > bob@peak.org > > > > > > > > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topic= s > > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Never pay another Internet phone bill! > Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night,= only =A312.99 per month. > Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: Orchestration for Dummies From: "Margo Dillard" <dillardm@airmail.net> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 08:27:09 -0600     --------------6A8FC412ABA790E7E69A3658 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Any orchestration textbook will contain the info you need on ranges, = clefs, and transpositions. You will also need to have an "ear" for the characteristic sound of the different instruments in their ranges. Can = you orchestrate with no more knowledge than that? Who knows. You will = probably write parts that will aggravate some players because you won't know the awkward fingerings, breaks, notes that are hard to tune, etc. for = different instruments - but then professional orchestrators do that too sometimes. = I think most of the trick of orchestrating is being able to "hear" the sound = of the instruments in their various registers alone and in combination in = your mind - and not the MIDI sound - the real sound.   Margo   Bob Richardson wrote:   > I'm looking for a book that basically covers things like the > range of pitches for each instrument, basics involved in phrasing, = common > notation symbols and quirks, how long your average orchestral flautist = can > hold a note without turning blue, etc. Information about choral singing > would be great, too (what are the accepted ranges for tenor, soprano, > etc.) > > Does such a book exist? Can a hobbyist truly expect to shortcut years = of > experience and education in orchestration, composition, and arranging? > >   --------------6A8FC412ABA790E7E69A3658 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Any orchestration textbook will contain the info you need on ranges, = clefs, and transpositions.&nbsp; You will also need to have an "ear" for the = characteristic sound of the different instruments in their ranges.&nbsp; Can you = orchestrate with no more knowledge than that?&nbsp; Who knows.&nbsp; You will probably write parts that will aggravate some players because you won't know the awkward fingerings, breaks, notes that are hard to tune, etc. for = different instruments - but then professional orchestrators do that too = sometimes.&nbsp; I think most of the trick of orchestrating is being able to "hear" the sound of the instruments in their various registers alone and in = combination in your mind - and not the MIDI sound - the real sound. <p>Margo <p>Bob Richardson wrote: <blockquote TYPE=3DCITE>&nbsp;I'm looking for a book that basically covers things like the <br>range of pitches for each instrument, basics involved in phrasing, common <br>notation symbols and quirks, how long your average orchestral flautist can <br>hold a note without turning blue, etc.&nbsp; Information about choral singing <br>would be great, too (what are the accepted ranges for tenor, soprano, <br>etc.) <p>Does such a book exist?&nbsp; Can a hobbyist truly expect to shortcut years of <br>experience and education in orchestration, composition, and arranging? <br>&nbsp; <br><a href=3D"mailto:requests@pipechat.org"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote> </html>   --------------6A8FC412ABA790E7E69A3658--    
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #2487 - 11/06/01 - Temperament From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:08:30 EST     --part1_7f.1ccb0d6b.291aa86e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 11/7/01 3:21:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, PHarri5833@aol.com writes:     > Can one of the experts give a similar definition of "well" temperament. = e.g. > first semitone is a factor or x, second is y, third is z etc. >   Can't do that, but if you change a word in the following sentence I think = it will reflect what Bach was after. Having played organs with unequal temperament and enjoying music played in the "more perfect" keys, I can't imagine that Bach would want to give up that perfection, while at the = same I can understand that he would want more key freedom.   you wrote: The Well Tempered Clavier being created to demonstrate the = merit of a tuning that worked equally in all keys.   Changing one word I think explains it: The Well Tempered Clavier being created to demonstrate the merit of a tuning that worked WELL in all keys.   Otherwise it might have been The Equally Tempered Clavier! ;-)   Please visit Howling Acres at http://members.tripod.com/Brucon502/ and wander through the Mall Without Walls Bruce Cornely ~ Cremona502@cs.com with the Baskerbeagles in the Beagle's Nest ~ ""Haruffaroo, Bohawow!" Duncan, Miles, Molly, and Dewi     --part1_7f.1ccb0d6b.291aa86e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a message dated = 11/7/01 3:21:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, PHarri5833@aol.com writes: <BR> <BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Can one of the = experts give a similar definition of "well" temperament. e.g. first = semitone is a factor or x, second is y, third is z etc. <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> <BR>Can't do that, but if you change a word in the following sentence I = think it will reflect what Bach was after. &nbsp;&nbsp;Having played = organs with unequal temperament and enjoying music played in the "more = perfect" keys, I can't imagine that Bach would want to give &nbsp;up that = perfection, while at the same I can understand that he would want more key = freedom. <BR> <BR>you wrote: &nbsp;&nbsp;The Well Tempered Clavier being created to = demonstrate the merit of a tuning that worked equally in all keys. <BR> <BR>Changing one word I think explains it: &nbsp;The Well Tempered Clavier = being created to demonstrate the merit of a tuning that worked WELL in all = keys. <BR> <BR>Otherwise it might have been The Equally Tempered Clavier! <BR>;-) <BR> <BR> <BR>Please visit Howling Acres at = &nbsp;&nbsp;http://members.tripod.com/Brucon502/ <BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;and wander through the Mall Without Walls <BR>Bruce Cornely &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;~ &nbsp;Cremona502@cs.com &nbsp; <BR>with the Baskerbeagles in the Beagle's Nest ~ ""Haruffaroo, Bohawow!" <BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Duncan, Miles, Molly, and Dewi <BR></FONT></HTML>   --part1_7f.1ccb0d6b.291aa86e_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Update, todays Paper St. Johns Anglican Church From: "Daniel Hopkins" <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 11:40:40 -0400   http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2001/11/07/f151.raw.html this is another article which appeasred front page of our Provincial = paper Hope you all visit it Thanks Daniel    
(back) Subject: There is a Good pic of the remainder of the pipe organ in the paper From: "Daniel Hopkins" <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 11:44:14 -0400   http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displayphoto?2001/11/07+151.raw+1035+N= ovaScotia Pipe Organ pic thsi is the Great Organ you may notice the intact chest strewn with scortched pipes    
(back) Subject: temperaments: NEXT! (grin) From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 07:54:41 -0800   Equal temperament isn't ideal; it works reasonably well; there are trade-offs.   I prefer A=3D435, in whatever temperament. So what? I can't HAVE it, if I ever want to use modern orchestral instruments with our organ.   Yes, the Bach F Major Toccata sounds like the heavens OPENING on an organ with an historical tuning when you come off that remote Neapolitan chord and back into F Major ... I had the privilege of playing it on the Brombaugh in Ashland Ave. Baptist in Toledo, OH ... but I WONDER how the resident ORGANIST'S library sounded (looked to be mostly Langlais, Peeters, Manz, etc.) or "Whispering Hope" in D Flat Major ... which WAS in their hymnal in that key.   We seem to forget that the 20th century was the first one (for the most part) to perform music of ALL periods, old and new. Universities are free to have organs with different temperaments ... I think Oberlin's Flentrop, Brombaugh and Fisk are ALL different ... but for a CHURCH instrument, unless the church is a STRICT Lutheran one playing and singing NOTHING after 1750, one has to settle upon what will WORK for the MAJORITY of the music to be played and accompanied.   You can't turn the clock back ... Anglican churches (my own discipline) ARE going to sing and play Stanford, Stainer, Howells, Oldroyd, Leighton, Britten, Sowerby, Titcomb, Noble, Willan, Williams, Hancock, Near, etc. ... and unlike one correspondent on one of these lists (was it pipeARGUE?), I don't dismiss those composers as marginal ... whatever secular university organists who turn their noses up at church jobs in general may think of them, they are the CORE of OUR repertoire, and we HAVE to be able to play them.   I'm always puzzled/amused when I see an organ with an historical tuning go into an Anglican church ... I wonder what they DO with it (grin). And I think it's even ODDER that a LOT of Anglican organists who champion the above repertoire ALSO champion historical tunings. Curious ...   OK, I'm done. Our new organ will be tuned to A=3D440 in equal temperament. *I* don't have any CHOICE (chuckle).   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: RE: New England Church Positions From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:01:53 -0500   why is it all these churches put 1/4 time on their job descriptions and then still want you to give blood??? Protestant work ethic.    
(back) Subject: RE: Temperaments From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:21:03 -0500   >If people would give up on the crazy idea that all keys are necessary, we could have better sounding instruments. My point! All keys are equally out of tune intervallically, and the results are still less than stellar. This after 300 years of argument, you still have a broken system.   I should have remembered to add that, according to what experts have explained to me, even the so-called equal temperament is not really that, = if implemented by a master tuner with a good ear. There will be very slight modifications to the theoretical equality, perhaps instinctive, such as = will impart to the keys, however vestigially, the characters and personalities that we commonly associate with them. If an instrument were tuned equally to mathematical exactitude, it would strike listeners as dull and = colorless.   Paul    
(back) Subject: Re: temperaments: NEXT! (grin) From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:42:18 EST     --part1_44.15e159b1.291abe6a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 11/7/01 10:53:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, quilisma@socal.rr.com writes:     > I'm always puzzled/amused when I see an organ with an historical tuning > go into an Anglican church ... I wonder what they DO with it (grin). And > I think it's even ODDER that a LOT of Anglican organists who champion > the above repertoire ALSO champion historical tunings. Curious ... >   A gently un-equal historic tuning, such as Valotti, works perfectly with Stanford and the rest of the gang. If the big romantic pieces don't = work well on a small organ, they why not have the small organ with a tuning = system that makes it unique? It's a disservice to Anglican worship to lock it = into the "celeste and subcoupler" genre. I love worship in places like Church = of the Advent - Boston. But I don't expect that kind of worship in a small parish, and would much rather hear an exceptional and unique pipe organ = than an organ that's futilly trying to be Skinner-esque but failing miserably. = There is more than one way to skin a pontificat!   Please visit Howling Acres at http://members.tripod.com/Brucon502/ and wander through the Mall Without Walls Bruce Cornely ~ Cremona502@cs.com with the Baskerbeagles in the Beagle's Nest ~ ""Haruffaroo, Bohawow!" Duncan, Miles, Molly, and Dewi     --part1_44.15e159b1.291abe6a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a message dated = 11/7/01 10:53:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, quilisma@socal.rr.com writes: <BR> <BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I'm always = puzzled/amused when I see an organ with an historical tuning <BR>go into an Anglican church ... I wonder what they DO with it (grin). = And <BR>I think it's even ODDER that a LOT of Anglican organists who champion <BR>the above repertoire ALSO champion historical tunings. Curious ... <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> <BR>A gently un-equal historic tuning, such as Valotti, works perfectly = with Stanford and the rest of the gang. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the big = romantic pieces don't work well on a small organ, they why not have the = small organ with a tuning system that makes it unique? &nbsp;It's a = disservice to Anglican worship to lock it into the "celeste and = subcoupler" genre. &nbsp;&nbsp;I love worship in places like Church of the = Advent - Boston. &nbsp;&nbsp;But I don't expect that kind of worship in a = small parish, and would much rather hear an exceptional and unique pipe = organ than an organ that's futilly trying to be Skinner-esque but failing = miserably. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;There is more than one way to skin a = pontificat! <BR> <BR>Please visit Howling Acres at = &nbsp;&nbsp;http://members.tripod.com/Brucon502/ <BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;and wander through the Mall Without Walls <BR>Bruce Cornely &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;~ &nbsp;Cremona502@cs.com &nbsp; <BR>with the Baskerbeagles in the Beagle's Nest ~ ""Haruffaroo, Bohawow!" <BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Duncan, Miles, Molly, and Dewi <BR></FONT></HTML>   --part1_44.15e159b1.291abe6a_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Temperaments From: "Roy Redman" <rredman@imagin.net> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:43:27 -0600   Good Grief!! Brass and woodwind instruments are tuned with the finest = strobe tuners we have available. Piano tuners and organ tuners are judged with = the same tuners. It is precisely because some tuners have worked with = inferior aural tuners, or entirely by ear with faulty ideas, that equal temperament = has many times failed to satisfy. I have heard "ear" temperaments called = "equal" that were unbelievably bad! Lets be sure we get it right before we call = it Equal Temperament. Roy Redman.   "Emmons, Paul" wrote:   > >If people would give up on the crazy idea that all keys are > necessary, we could have better sounding instruments. My point! > All keys are equally out of tune intervallically, and the results are > still less than stellar. This after 300 years of argument, you still = have > a broken system. > > I should have remembered to add that, according to what experts have > explained to me, even the so-called equal temperament is not really = that, if > implemented by a master tuner with a good ear. There will be very = slight > modifications to the theoretical equality, perhaps instinctive, such as = will > impart to the keys, however vestigially, the characters and = personalities > that we commonly associate with them. If an instrument were tuned = equally > to mathematical exactitude, it would strike listeners as dull and = colorless. > > Paul > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org