On Teaching

Gavin Black is the director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center www.pekc.org. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Intervals, tuning, and temperament, part 3
In the first two columns on tuning I did not refer at all to names of temperaments—neither the rather familiar terms such as “Werckmeister,” “Kirnberger,” or “Vallotti,” nor less familiar ones such as “Fogliano-Aron,” “Ramos,” or “Bendeler.” It can be interesting or useful for a student to learn something about these historical temperaments; however, there is a reason that I have avoided framing my discussion of temperament with these established tunings. It is much more useful for students to grasp the principles that underlie any keyboard tuning. It is then possible for the student to both understand any specific tuning system—historical or hypothetical—and to invent his or her own, and also to understand some of the practical and artistic implications of different tuning approaches.

Underlying tuning principles
1) It is impossible for all twelve perfect fifths on a normal keyboard instrument to be tuned absolutely pure. This arises out of the mathematics of the fundamental definition of intervals, and it is an objective fact. If you start at any note and tune twelve perfect fifths pure, then the note that you come back to—which is supposed to be the same as the starting note—will be significantly sharp compared to the starting note.
2) Therefore, at least one perfect fifth must be tuned narrow. Anywhere from one to all twelve perfect fifths can be tuned narrow, as long as the overall amount of narrowness is correct.
3) The need to narrow one or more fifths is an objective need, and doing so is the practical side of keyboard temperament. The choice of which fifths to narrow and (bearing in mind that the overall narrowness must add up to the right amount) how much to narrow them is subjective and is the esthetic side of keyboard temperament.
From these principles it is possible to understand, or indeed to re-invent, any of the historical temperaments, each of which is of necessity simply a way of approaching and solving the issues described above.

Major historical tunings
1) Pythagorean tuning. This is the simplest practical approach, in which eleven fifths in a row are tuned absolutely pure, and the remaining fifth is allowed to be extremely narrow: so narrow that human ears will not accept it as a fifth and it has to be avoided in playing.
2) Well-tempered tuning. In this approach, the narrowness of fifths is spread out over enough fifths that the narrowed fifths sound acceptable to our ears. Practical experience suggests that this means over at least three fifths. The fifths that are not narrowed are left pure. All intervals and thus all chords and all keys are usable.
3) Meantone tuning. Here the tuning of fifths is configured in such a way as to generate pure or relatively pure major thirds. When this kind of tuning was in very widespread use (primarily the 16th and 17th centuries), this was a widely and strongly held esthetic preference. In order to generate a large number of pure major thirds, it is necessary to tune a large number of unusable intervals, both thirds and fifths—actually more than in Pythagorean tuning.
4) Equal temperament. In this temperament, each of the twelve perfect fifths is narrowed by exactly the same amount. In this tuning, alone among all possible keyboard tunings, each specific instance of each type of interval—perfect fifth, major third, and so on—is identical to all other instances of that interval.

Tuning intervals
When two close pitches are sounding at the same time we hear, alongside those notes, a beating or undulating sound that is the difference between the two pitches that are sounding. If a note at 440hz and a note at 442hz are played at the same time, we hear a beating at the speed of twice per second. If the two notes were 263hz and 267hz the beating would be at four times per second. This kind of beating sounds more or less like a (quiet) siren or alarm. It is so much a part of the background of what we hear when we listen to music that most people initially have trouble distinguishing it or hearing it explicitly. Normally once someone first hears beats of this kind, it is then easy to be able to hear them and distinguish them.
These beats are a real acoustic phenomenon. They are not psychological, or part of the physiology of hearing: they are present in the air. If you set up a recording in which one stereo channel is playing one pitch and the other is playing a close but different pitch, then if you play those two channels through speakers into the air, they will produce beats that can be heard. However, if you play them through headphones, so that the two notes never interact with one another in the air but each go directly to a separate ear of the listener, then no beats will be created and the listener will hear the two different pitches without beats.
Notes that are being produced by pipes or strings have overtones. When two such notes are played together, the pitches that mingle in the air include the fundamental and the overtones. Any of those component sounds that are very close to one another will produce beats if they are not in fact identical. It is by listening to these beats and comparing them to a template or plan (either no beats or beats of some particular speed) that we carry out the act of tuning.
For example, if we are tuning a note that is a fifth away from an already-tuned note, then the first upper partial of the higher note is meant to be the same pitch as the second upper partial of the lower note. (For a discussion of overtones see this column from July 2009.) If these overtones are in fact identical, then they will not produce any beats; if they are not quite identical they will produce beats. If the goal is to produce a pure perfect fifth, then beats should be absent. If the goal is to produce a narrow perfect fifth, then beats should be present—faster the narrower a fifth we want. In tuning a major third, the same principle applies, except that it is the third upper partial of the higher note and the fourth upper partial of the lower note that coincide.
Listening for beats produced by coinciding overtones is the essential technique for tuning any keyboard instrument by ear. Any tuning can be fully described by a list of beat speeds for each interval to be tuned. For example, in Pythagorean tuning the beat speed for each of the eleven fifths that are tuned explicitly is zero. (The twelfth fifth arises automatically.) Any well-tempered tuning can be described as a combination of fifths that have beat speeds of zero and fifths that have various moderate beat speeds. In equal temperament, all the fifths have beat speeds greater than zero, and they all reflect the same ratio, with higher notes having proportionately higher beat speeds. In most meantone systems, major thirds have no beats or very slow beat speeds, while those fifths that are tuned directly have beat speeds that are similar to those of well-tempered fifths.
These beats have a crucial effect on the esthetic impact of different tuning systems. For example, in Pythagorean tuning, while all of the perfect fifths are pure (beatless), all of the major thirds are very wide and beat quite fast. This gives those thirds, and any triads, a noisy and restless feeling. A triad with pure fifths and pure thirds—a beatless triad—is a very different phenomenon for a listener, even though it looks exactly the same in music notation. Other sorts of triads are different still: those with a pure major third and a narrow fifth, for example, or with all of the component intervals departing slightly from pure.

Temperaments throughout history
General tendencies in the beat structure of different temperaments may explain some things about the history of those temperaments, why they were used at different times, or at least how they correlate with other things that were going on musically at the time when they were current.

Pythagorean tuning
For example, Pythagorean tuning was in common use in the late Middle Ages. This was a time when the perfect fifth was still considered a much more consonant or stable interval than the major or minor third. Thus it made sense to use a tuning in which fifths were pure and thirds were wide enough—buzzy enough—to be almost inherently dissonant.
(But it is interesting to speculate about the direction of causality: did Pythagorean organ tuning suggest the avoidance of thirds as consonant intervals, or did a theory-based avoidance of those intervals suggest that a tuning with very wide thirds was acceptable?)

Meantone tuning
The rise of meantone tuning in the late fifteenth century corresponded with the rise of music in which the major third played an increasingly large role as a consonant interval and as a defining interval of both modal and tonal harmony. A major triad with a Pythagorean third does not quite sound like a resting place or point of arrival, but a major triad with a pure third does. During this same period, the harpsichord and virginal also arose, supplementing the clavichord and the organ. These new instruments had a brighter sound with a more explosive attack than earlier instruments. This kind of sound tends to make wide thirds sound very prominent. This may have been a further impetus to the development of new tuning systems in those years.
Meantone tuning, since it includes many unusable intervals, places serious restrictions on composers and players. Modulation within a piece is limited. In general, a given piece can only use one of the two notes represented by a raised (black) key, and must rigorously avoid the other. Many transpositions create impossible tuning problems. Many keys must, as a practical matter, be avoided altogether in order to avoid tremendous amounts of re-tuning.
Some keyboard instruments built during the meantone era had split sharps for certain notes, that is, two separate keys in, for example, the space between d and e, sharing that space front and back, one of them playing the d#, the other playing the e♭. Composers do not seem to have relied on it more than once in a while to write pieces in which they went beyond the harmonic bounds natural to meantone tuning. These split keys were probably intended to reduce or eliminate the need to re-tune between pieces, rather than to expand the harmonic language of the repertoire.
Meantone was no easier to tune than what came before it, or than other tuning systems that were known theoretically at the time but little used, since by limiting transposition it placed significant harmonic limitations on composers and improvisers, and thus made accompaniment more difficult. Yet it remained in use for a very long time. It seems certain that whatever it was accomplishing esthetically must have seemed very important, even crucial. Many listeners even now feel that the sonority of a harpsichord is most beautiful in meantone.

Well temperaments
In the late seventeenth century, composers and theorists began to suggest new temperaments that overcame the harmonic restrictions of meantone. These were the well-tempered tunings, in which every fifth and every third is usable as an harmonic interval. In order to achieve this flexibility, these tunings do away with most or, in some cases, all of the pure major thirds. This change can be seen as a shift from an instrument-centered esthetic—in which the beauty of the sound of the pure thirds was considered more important than perhaps anything else—to a composer-centered esthetic and philosophy, in which limitations on theoretical compositional possibilities were considered less and less acceptable. There were strong defenders of the older tunings well into the eighteenth century. It is interesting that in one well-known dispute about the merits of meantone as opposed to well-tempered tuning, the advocate of the former was an instrument builder (Gottfried Silbermann) and the advocate of the latter was a composer (J. S. Bach).
The crucial esthetic characteristic of well-tempered tunings is that different keys have different harmonic structures. That is, the placement of relatively pure and relatively impure intervals and triads with respect to the functional harmonies of the key (tonic, dominant, etc.) is different from one key to another. (An interesting experiment about this is possible in modern times. If a piece is recorded on a well-tempered instrument in two rather different keys, say C major and then E major, and the recordings are adjusted by computer so as to be at the same pitch level as one another, then they will still sound different and be easily distinguishable from each other.) Their differences are almost certainly the source of ideas about the different inherent characters of different keys. Lists of the supposed emotional or affective characteristics of different keys arose in the very late seventeenth century, at about the same time that well-tempered tuning took hold.

Equal temperament
In equal temperament, which became common in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, every interval with a given name and every triad or other chord of a particular type is the same as every other interval, triad, or chord of that type. Part of the appeal of this tuning in the nineteenth century was, probably, its theoretical consistency and symmetry. Many people have found the concept of equal temperament intellectually satisfying: it does not have what might be thought of as arbitrary differences between things that, theoretically at least, ought to be the same. Equal temperament took hold in the same era of organ history that included logarithmic pipe scalings—another theoretically satisfying, mathematically inspired idea. During this same time, designers of wind instruments were working to make those instruments sound the same—or as close as humanly possible—up and down the compass. This is another manifestation of a taste for avoiding seemingly arbitrary or random difference.
On an equal-tempered keyboard, the computer experiment described above would result in two indistinguishable performances: it is not possible to tell keys apart except by absolute pitch. The rise and dissemination of equal temperament also coincided with a general worldwide increase in travel. In a world in which equal temperament and a particular pitch standard (say a′=440hz) will be found anywhere and everywhere, a flutist, for example, can travel from Europe to America or Japan or anywhere and expect to be able to play with local musicians.
It is also likely that the general acceptance of equal temperament helped lead to twelve-tone and other atonal music by promoting the idea (and the actual listening experience) that all keys and all twelve semitones were the same.
In equal temperament, no interval is pure, and no interval is more than a little bit out of tune. This is a tuning that, just as a matter of taste or habit, appeals strongly to some people and does not appeal to others. I have known musicians with no training (or for that matter interest) in historical temperaments who could not stand to listen to equal temperament because they found equal-tempered thirds grating; I have known others who can accept the intervals of equal temperament as normal but who cannot tolerate the occasional more out of tune intervals of well-tempered tuning.
At the Princeton Early Keyboard Center website there are links to several resources describing and comparing historical temperaments and discussing further some of what I have written about here.

Gavin Black is director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A&gt;.

Intervals, tuning, and temperament, part 1

In this series of columns, I want to share a few ideas about how to introduce aspects of tuning and temperament to students. In so doing I will unavoidably simplify a very complicated subject. My hope is not to oversimplify, but to simplify in a way that completely avoids inaccuracy.
Most organists do not have to do any tuning as such, or at least can do without tuning if they prefer. However, it is very convenient indeed for any organist to be able to touch up a tuning, or to help out with tuning, or to do a bit of tuning of a chamber organ. And of course anyone who plays harpsichord has to expect to do all or most of their own tuning. Beyond that, however, it is very useful and enlightening for any organist to understand the role of tuning, temperament, and the nature of different intervals in the esthetics of organ and harpsichord sound and repertoire, and in the history of that repertoire.

Tuning is one of those areas that many people—including, especially, beginning students—tend to find intimidating. It certainly can be complicated, and can, in particular, involve a lot of math, some of it rather arcane (the 12th root of 2 can be involved, for example, or the ratio between 27 and 1.512). However, the concepts are straightforward, if not exactly simple. I will start from the very basic here—indeed with the question of what a musical sound is, since everything about tuning arises out of that. I myself, who have tuned constantly for over thirty years, still find it useful to revisit the most basic notions about tuning.

What is a musical sound?

Sound travels in waves, and those waves have peaks and valleys spaced at regular intervals. When the peaks and valleys of a sound wave traveling through the air arrive at a solid material they will tend to make it vibrate. Some materials vibrate inefficiently (a block of granite, for example, or a piece of fabric); some, like an eardrum or the diaphragm of a microphone, vibrate very efficiently indeed. In any case, a sound wave will tend to make a solid vibrate at a speed that corresponds to how often—how frequently—the peaks and valleys of that wave arrive at the solid. This is what we call the frequency of the sound: a very common-sense term. The wavelength of a sound wave is the distance between two successive peaks. The longer this is, the less frequently those waves will arrive at a given object (say, an eardrum), the more slowly they will make that object vibrate, and the lower the frequency of that sound will be. The shorter the wavelength is, the more frequently the peaks will arrive, the faster the vibrations will be, and the higher the frequency will be. This assumes that these two waves are traveling at the same speed as each other. It is also true that the peaks of any given sound wave will arrive at a given place more frequently if that wave happens to be traveling more quickly and less frequently if that wave is traveling more slowly. (This is an important point to remember in connection with the practical side of organ tuning, as I will mention later on.)

It is the frequency of a sound that humans interpret as pitch. A sound wave that makes our eardrums vibrate faster we describe as “higher” in pitch than one that makes our eardrums vibrate more slowly. We do not hear wavelength directly: we hear frequency. (This is also an important point for organ tuning.) Frequency, being a measurement of how often a particular thing happens, is described in terms of how often that thing (vibration) happens per second. This is, of course, just a convention: it could have been per minute, or per year, or per millisecond.

Sounds that we tend to experience as “music” have wavelengths and frequencies that are consistent and well organized. Other sounds have frequencies and wavelengths that are in many respects random. This is actually a distinction that—even absent oversimplification—cannot be defined perfectly or in a cut-and-dried manner. It is not just scientific, it is also partly psychological and partly cultural. However, for the (also cultural) purpose of thinking about tuning musical sounds, it is enough to describe those sounds as follows: a musical sound is one made up of sound waves with a frequency that remains constant long enough for a human ear to hear it, which may be joined by other sound waves with frequencies that are multiples of the frequency of that first wave. A conglomeration of sound waves in which the peaks are spaced irregularly will not be heard as music. To put arbitrary numbers to it, a musical sound might have a wave with a frequency of 220 vibrations per second, joined by waves that cause vibrations of 440, 660, 880, 1100, and 1320 per second. (Vibrations per second or cycles per second are abbreviated Hz.) In a musical sound, the lowest (slowest, largest wavelength) part of the sound (220 Hz, above) is called the fundamental, and the other components of the sound (440 Hz, etc.) are called overtones or upper partial tones—upper partials for short. A sound consisting of only one frequency with no overtones will be heard as a musical sound; however, this is very rare in non-computer-generated music. Essentially every device for producing music produces overtones, some (oboes, for example) more than others (flutes). (By convention we usually label or describe or discuss a musical sound by referring only to its fundamental, but that never implies that there are no overtones.)

There is categorically no such thing as an organ pipe or harpsichord string that produces a fundamental with no upper partials. (Though of course the mix and balance of upper partials can vary infinitely.) This fact is crucial in the science and art of tuning, and for the relationship between tuning and esthetic considerations.1

What is an interval?

Any two musical notes form some interval with each other. We are accustomed to identifying intervals by the notes’ linear distance from each other in the scale, and the terminology for common intervals (second, fifth, etc.) comes from that practice. However, in fact intervals arise out of the ratio between the frequencies of the fundamentals of two notes. The number of possible intervals that exist is infinite, since the number of possible frequencies is infinite. However, the common intervals in music are some of those in which the frequency ratios are simple: 1:1, 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, and a few others. And of course these are the intervals that have common names: 1:1 is the unison, 2:1 is the octave, 3:2 is the perfect fifth, 4:3 is the perfect fourth, and so on. To put it another way, if we say that two notes are a perfect fifth apart—as in, say, E above middle C and A below middle C—that means that the frequency of the higher note is in the ratio of 3:2 to the frequency of the lower note, or 1½ times that frequency. (A below middle C is often 220 Hz, so E above middle C should be 330 Hz.) If two notes are an octave apart, then the frequency of the higher one is twice the frequency of the lower one, for example middle C at 256 Hz and C above middle C at 512 Hz. The names—both of the notes and of the intervals—are arbitrary conventions, the existence of notes with these ratios a natural fact.

The question of why those particular intervals have been important enough to so many people that they have formed the basis of a whole system of music—indeed many different systems—is a complicated one that probably cannot be answered in full. It seems self-evident to people brought up listening to music based on fifths and thirds, etc., that those intervals “sound good” and that they should form the basis for harmony—itself in turn the basis for music. Explanations for this have been sought in the structure of the universe, in various mathematical models, and through neurological research. However, for the purpose of thinking about how to tune intervals on keyboard instruments, the interesting and important thing is that the intervals that we use in music and consider consonant are the intervals that are found in the overtone series described above, and in fact found amongst the lower and more easily audible partial tones. The octave (2:1) is the interval between the first upper partial and the fundamental. The perfect fifth (3:2) is the interval between the second and first upper partials. The perfect fourth (4:3) is the interval between the third and second upper partials. The major third (5:4) is the interval between the fourth and third upper partials. This may in fact explain some of the appeal of those harmonies: in a major triad, all of the notes other than the tonic are found in the overtone series of the tonic. (Of course this is only actually true if you accept the notion that notes an octave apart from one another are “the same” note. This appears to be a universal human perception, and has recently been found to be shared by other primates. Possible neurological sources of this perception have also recently been found.) For example, starting with the note C, the first few upper partials give the notes C, G, C again, E, G again. These are the notes of the C major triad.

What does it mean for an interval to be in tune?

If intervals are ratios, then there ought to be a simple definition of what it means for an interval to be in tune: the ratio of frequencies should actually be what the theoretical definition of the interval says it should be. Thus, if a given note has a frequency of (for example) 368.5 Hz, then the note a perfect fifth above it should have a frequency of 552.75 Hz. Or if a note has a frequency of 8.02 Hz then the note a major third above it should have a frequency of 10.025 Hz. Also, since these commonly used intervals are related to the overtone series, it makes sense to believe that their being really in tune this way is important: if they are not exactly in tune, then, presumably, they fail to correspond exactly to the overtones. And it may be this correspondence to overtones that gives those intervals their artistic meaning and power.
The very last statement above, however, is speculative and perhaps subjective—a proposed value judgment about the effect of a kind of sound. It is also quite possible that some interested parties—listeners, composers, performers, instrument builders—might happen to prefer the sound of a given interval in a tuning that is not theoretically correct. It is indeed very common for instruments on which intonation can be shaded in performance (that is, most non-keyboard instruments, including the voice) to be played with a kind of flexible intonation. Notes are moved a little bit up or down to express or intensify something about the melodic shape or the harmony. This is something that keyboard instruments, with limited exceptions on the clavichord, simply cannot do. However, it is an idea that can influence choices that are made in setting a keyboard tuning.

So another definition of what it might mean for an interval to be in tune is this: an interval is in tune if it sounds the way that a listener wants it to sound. Obviously, this is almost a parody of a subjective definition, but it also might be the closest to a true one. If the tuning of an interval does indeed fit some theoretical definition but the musician(s) hearing that interval want it to sound a different way then, as a matter of real musical practice, it probably should be that other way (that is, assuming careful and open-minded listening). This notion, and in general the interaction between certain kinds of theory and certain kinds of esthetic preferences, have also been important in the history of keyboard tuning.

What is the problem with keyboards?

The very premise of the existence of keyboard “tuning and temperament” as a subject is that there are special issues or problems with keyboard instruments from the point of view of tuning. Understanding clearly what these problems are is the prerequisite to understanding keyboard tuning systems themselves, to understanding the role of tuning in the history of keyboard repertoire and, should the occasion arise, to engaging successfully in the act of tuning itself.

The first issue or problem is simply that keyboard instruments must be tuned. That is, prior to playing anything on a keyboard instrument, a set of hard and fast choices must be made about what pitch each note will have. This is perhaps obvious, but still important to notice. Of course the instrument can be tuned differently for another occasion—more readily with a harpsichord or clavichord than with an organ. But at any moment of playing, each note and each interval is going to be whatever it has been set up to be.
The second problem is an extension of the first, and is the crucial issue in keyboard tuning. The number of keys on the keyboard is simply not enough to represent all of the notes that in theory exist. That is, the notion that, for example, c and b# or g# and a♭ are the same as one another is a fiction or, at the very best, an approximation. This is where the math of the so-called “circle of fifths” comes into play. We are all taught that, if you start at any note—say c—and keep moving up by a fifth, you will come back to the note at which you started: c–g–d–a–e–b–f#–c#–g#/a♭–d#/e♭–a#/b♭–f–c. This circle provides a good working description of the way that we use these notes, but it glosses over the fact that if the fifths are pure (theoretically correct) it simply doesn’t work: the circle is actually a spiral. Going one way (“up”) it looks like this:c–g–d–a–e–b–f#–c#–g#–d#–a#–e#–b#–f–c–g, etc. Going the other way (“down”) it looks like this: c–f–b♭–e♭–a♭–d♭–g♭–c♭–f♭–b������–e������–a������–d������–g������, etc. If each fifth is really in the ratio of 3:2—the frequency of the higher note is 1½ times the frequency of the lower note—then none of the enharmonic equivalents work. The b# will simply not be at the same frequency as the c, the g������ will not be the same as the f, and so on.2 This in turn means that it is impossible to tune all of the fifths on a keyboard instrument pure: not just difficult but literally impossible.

The third issue or problem of keyboard tuning also arises out of the first and exists in a kind of balance or conflict with the second. On keyboard instruments the tuning of one class of interval determines the tuning both of other intervals and of the scale as a melodic phenomenon. If you tune a keyboard instrument by fifths, then the thirds, sixths, etc. will be generated by those fifths. If you tune the fifths pure, the thirds will come out one way, if you tune the fifths something other than pure (as you must with at least some of them), the thirds will come out some different way. This is an esthetic matter rather than (like the second issue) a practical one.

These three issues have defined and determined the choices made in the realm of keyboard tuning over several centuries. Next month I will discuss what some of those choices have been and how they have arisen.

Hearing a pipe organ tuned in a sympathetic temperament is
like discovering fine wine after a lifetime of roadhouse coffee. There is
simply no comparison between the delights of pure tuning and the frustration of
cadences that beat unmercifully, no matter what the key or modulation.

When the listener does not hear this woeful tuning,
psychologists call it habituation. In other words, the average person does not
hear the inharmonicity of equal tuning because they know nothing better, and
have come to accept the ragged chords that have echoed in their ears for so
long as normal everyday music. One may take a holiday from equal temperament by
listening to a barbershop quartet for a dose of close harmony. Or take in a
concert on an organ made by an artisan builder who regards tuning as an
integral part of the instrument, reflective of its true baroque heritage. This
journey is worth the expense of rethinking all that we have taken for granted
in years past.

Ironies abound in the world of musical bias and each new
discovery can be delicious. In the late 19th century, we find a reliable bearer
of tempered tuning in that most unassuming of instruments, the reed organ. Free
reeds can hang on to their original tuning at least as well as cone tuned
pipes--in fact, they suffer less from wear and tear. Pump them up, and they
continue to play with the same sweet harmonies that their original tuning gave
them.

There are some aspects of 19th-century tuning that are tantalizing
indeed. Victorian temperaments are nearly equal, which means that in the
tradition of well-tuning, they render harmonious chords in all keys, though not
without individual key color. They are subtle, providing tension and relaxation
behind the scenes, rather than by the blunt contrast of sheep and wolves, as in
baroque temperaments. Their intervals gently progress from calm to agitated,
depending on the complexity and remoteness of each key. Somehow, they walk a
fine line between purity and utility. It seems that their particular strength
is modulation, where the prime keys assert themselves like the sun appearing
through cloud or the calm after a storm.

Of late, Victorian models of tuning have become popular with
both piano technicians and organ builders. The late 19th century was no less
rich in its diversity of temperaments than the 17th and 18th centuries.
Although theorized very early on, equal temperament was a child of the
industrial revolution. Perhaps it was the factory production of musical
instruments that propelled it into nearly universal practice among tuners and
musicians. Studies of ethnomusicology have informed us that the practice of
equal tuning was unique to western civilization and that other cultures
simultaneously developed far more rich and complex modes of intonation.

As we reflect on the revitalization of early music and an
increased regard for performance practice, we take equal tuning less for
granted. The realization that tuning methods have varied tremendously according
to time and place has awakened our ears in such a way that we can now explore
the world of sound and imagination, unfettered by musical prejudice. Take the
challenge: play through the modulations of your favorite 19th-century composer
and see what a "less than equal" temperament does for the music!
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> 

Three practical considerations

If one is going to change an organ from equal to
well-temperament, it should be an operation that is undertaken with
considerable planning. One should consider the nature of an appropriate
temperament and what music will be the primary repertoire. It is important to
look at the objectives of a major change and to evaluate the musical results,
insofar as possible, ahead of time.

The sound of an organ goes a long way to dictate temperament.
Compatibility of organ building style and repertoire are major issues. If equal
temperament is one frustration among many, the organist must decide if a change
to well temperament is going to help change musical values for the better. It
is comforting to know that even a spinet piano can be satisfying when tuned in
a historic temperament. By the same token, there are many organs that will
benefit immensely from the natural harmonicity and increased resonance of a
carefully chosen temperament.

Once the decision is made, one should not use the
"candy store" approach to the selection of a temperament! It is a
good idea to seek out a consultant who has the sounds of various tunings in his
ears. Experience can be most helpful! There are several practical matters that
should be considered when evaluating the pros and cons of various tunings:
balance of thirds, regular or irregular intervals, and shared tuning with equal
temperament.

Balance and width of thirds (in cents)

The reason for tuning in well-temperaments is to achieve key
color. As a composer calls for various keys with a lesser or greater number of
accidentals, the key color is expected to change from pure and restful chords
to vibrating and agitated harmonies. These shifting key colors are relatively
subtle, perhaps even obscure to the layperson, though quite obvious to most
musicians. As one evaluates diverse temperaments, the issues revolve around the
amount of key color desired and the achievement of an even balance that
increases the frequency of beating thirds in accordance with a greater number
of accidentals, both in sharp and flat keys.

Circle of fifths: regular or irregular intervals

This consideration is often overlooked until one makes music
with orchestral and chamber players. Regular intervals ensure the best tuning
of obbligato instruments because the transition from various intervals within
the temperament is predictable and intuitively correct. Some well tunings have
a fine balance of key color, but present such irregular intervals that out of
tune playing by ancillary instruments is unavoidable. It is not a reflection
upon the players--actually, the more experienced and intuitive the players are,
the more likely they are to have difficulty with irregular temperaments. It is
precisely the "anticipatory" nature of "tuning on the fly"
that causes the problem.

Certainly, the best chamber players always tune with the
continuo for each open string or major interval, usually in a circle of fifths.
If that circle of fifths is predictable, things go well. If each successive
fifth is a bit wide or narrow, almost at random, how is an instrumentalist
going to remember the exact tuning? "Regular" temperaments solve this
problem by the use of predictable intervals for the circle of fifths.

Convertible or shared tunings

This is a special consideration where a well temperament
will actually share part of the circle of fifths with equal tuning, usually the
notes A-E-B-F#-C#. These five notes may be tuned exactly the same in both
temperaments! In an equal temperament, the remaining seven notes are tuned in
the same ratio as the first five. However, in a convertible or shared
temperament, the remaining seven notes are altered to the new temperament. The
benefits of a shared tuning are considerable, particularly if the instrument is
to be tuned back and forth between well and equal tuning. This is often the
case with a continuo organ which is featured in various temperaments and often
at various pitches from one concert to another.

Graphs

It is very helpful to see these relationships in a graph, as
well as text and numbers. It has become very common to express numeric
relationships among various temperaments in terms of deviation in cents from
equal temperament. This is not because equal temperament is best or right, but
because each interval is a mathematical division. Thus, a rendering of equal
temperament is not given as a "norm," but as a mathematical point of
reference.

Using an electronic tuning device vs. tuning by ear

It is ironic that tuning in equal temperament became
standard practice about the same time as electronic tuning devices became
commonplace professional tools. At this time, it may be said that most tuning
of musical instruments is done with an electronic reference. That is not to say
that "tuning by ear" is no longer practiced, but aural tuning has a
new perspective, to "test" temperament rather than set it. Before the
reader jumps to any conclusion, it should be emphasized that the "art of
tuning" is still very much intact, and fine piano and organ tuning has not
suffered at all. The very finest tuners still use their ears, and the machines
are just another tool in the box.

Paradoxically, the resurgence of well temperament coincides
with the widespread use of electronic tuning devices and computerized tuning
programs. Virtually every device available offers a synthesis of historic
temperaments that are available at the touch of a button. One might argue that
this enables those without sufficient ear training to "tune" various
instruments--it also enables quick and precise tuning by professional
technicians who have more than enough ear training to do the entire job without
an electronic tuner. It is very advantageous to move from theoretical considerations
to practical application  so easily
and effortlessly. It is a conundrum, but a happy one. Without electronic
assistance, historic tunings would be sufficiently tedious that they might well
be left undone.

Tuning by ear remains indispensable. The name of the game in
tuning is to reduce error--especially cumulative error. "Tests" are
the most important aspect of any tuning. They keep the tuner on the straight
and narrow, and prevent compound or cumulative errors that seriously degrade an
artistic tuning.

Recommended computer programs

Two fine computerized tuning programs are Robert Scott's
TuneLab program, available from Real Time Specialties, 6384 Crane Road,
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 ([email protected]) and Dean Reyburn's CyberTuner,
available from Reyburn Piano Service, 2695 Indian Lakes Road, NE, Cedar
Springs, MI 49319.

These are devices for tuning both historic and equal
temperament. Cost varies from less than $100 to about $900, depending on the
range of software desired. The best feature of these programs is that each
historic temperament file may be edited with a word processor. Other electronic
tuning devices are available, usually with pre-programmed historic
temperaments. The author suggests that they be compared on the basis of
accuracy (up to 1/10 cent) and the ease of programming various temperaments.
After that, there are issues of cost, portability and so forth.

As an aside, one may also consider style of tuning. The
author prefers the use of not one, but two electronic tuning devices--a
portable one to use inside the organ and a fixed unit at the console to monitor
tuning as the job progresses. This keeps the tuner's helper quite busy at both
organ and computer keyboards and reduces cumulative error by a considerable
amount. 

Historic tuning on the Internet

Bicknell, Stephen. A beginner's guide to temperament.

www.users.dircon.co.uk/~oneskull/3.6.04.htm

Bremmer, William. The true meaning of well-tempered tuning.

www.billbremmer.com/WellTemp.html

Foote, Edward. Six degrees of tonality; The well-tempered
piano.

www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_te mpered_piano.html

Gann, Kyle. An introduction to historical tunings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/his tune.html

Greenberg, Bernard S. What does "well-tempered"
mean?

www.bachfaq.org/welltemp.html

Kellner, Herbert Anton. Instructions for tuning a
harpsichord "wohltemperirt." 

ha.kellner.bei.t-online.de/

Palmer, Frederic. Meantone tuning.

home.pacbell.net/jeanannc/mpro/art icles/MeanTone.htm

Rubenstein, Michael. Well vs. equal temperament.

www.ma.utexas.edu/users/miker/tun ing/tuning.html

Taylor, Nigel. Tuning, temperaments and bells; The
ill-tempered piano.

www.kirnberger.fsnet.co.uk/   

The musical character of an historic tuning can be difficult to grasp— and the mathematics involved can be daunting. Modern descriptions of tunings use the mathematical concept of the “cent” because it is independent of a reference frequency.

Cents simply represent the convenient division of the octave into twelve equal intervals of 100 cents each. The use of cents, however, has absolutely no relationship to the natural harmonic series, i.e., cents have no relationship to the consonance or dissonance of the intervals we hear. To make this point clear, the equally tempered third is 400 cents (the pure third is 386 cents) and the equally tempered fifth is 700 cents (the pure fifth is 702 cents), and our ears tell us that the third is very impure. Cents tell us nothing about the purity of the interval. In the middle octave of the compass, the 700-cent fifth sounds like a warm celeste at about one beat per second, whereas the 400-cent third sounds a harsh ten beats per second. The purity and consonance of an interval improves with fewer beats, and the dissonance of an interval increases with more beats. The relationship of a tuning system to the natural harmonic series is represented by its beat rates. It tells you how the tuning will sound.

Pythagoras noted 2,500 years ago that if you tuned G pure to C, D pure to G, A pure to D, and continued this series of pure fifths to arrive again at C, the initial note C and the final note C would be different. These dissonant tones would be in the ratio of 81/80—this is known as the “Pythagorean comma.” In modern equal temperament we divide this error and dissonance equally across all twelve notes in the octave, and no intervals other than the octave are pure without beats.

Classes of tunings

The consonance of harmonic purity is alluring. Early compositions took advantage of tunings that featured both consonant purity and dissonant tension. These are the basic classes of tunings in a nutshell: Pythagorean tuning is the oldest and is based on the purity of fifths; meantone was developed in the Renaissance and is based on the purity of thirds; equal temperament became ubiquitous in the mid-nineteenth century, allows the use of all keys, and is based on an equal impurity in all keys without any pure fifths or thirds.

Meantone was a prevalent tuning for a very long period in the history of the pipe organ. J. S. Bach favored tunings that allowed free usage of all 24 major and minor keys; Bach was known to be at odds with the organbuilder Gottfried Silbermann, who used meantone tuning. Although equal temperament was gaining favor in the late eighteenth century, meantone was known to be in use in English churches well into the nineteenth century. What was its appeal?

There are eight pure major thirds in 1/4-comma meantone. The interval of the fifth in meantone is only slightly less pure than the fifths in equal temperament, which has no pure intervals. The appeal of meantone was a wonderful sense of harmonic purity and a deep, rich sonority. The natural harmonics, when played together, create sub-tones representing the fundamental of the harmonics. The interval of the pure fifth C–G produces a sub-tone one octave below the C. The interval of the pure third C–E produces a sub-tone two octaves below the C. This is a primary source of bass tone deriving from nothing more than the pure thirds of meantone tuning. The famous three-manual and pedal organ by the elder Clicquot at Houdan has a satisfying depth of tone, but it has no 16′ stops, not even a single 16′ stop in the Pedal. The 16′ tonal gravity is entirely the result of the tuning.

The later trend towards equal temperament produced sounds that lacked the gravity of meantone, and organbuilders responded in two ways. First, organ specifications often featured manual 16′ stops. Second, the new Romantic voicing style and higher wind pressures provided real fundamental power. The end of the eighteenth century saw a profusion of transitional “well temperaments,” which tried to bridge the gap between meantone and equal temperament. All of these attempted to preserve some harmonic purity while affording some degree of the freedom of equal temperament, but the results were largely unsatisfactory on both counts. It is worth taking a closer look at some of the early tunings, uncompromised by later efforts to dilute their character.

Comparing triads

We can visualize the sonority of major and minor triads as shown in illustration 1. The upper triangle of notes, B–F# and B–D, represents the B-minor triad. The B-major triad is shown in the lower triangle. Beat rates are shown between the notes, e.g., the minor third B–D dissonantly beats 26.7 times per second when playing B in the middle octave with the D above. A pure or nearly pure interval is represented by a green line connecting the notes. Intervals with more beats are represented by lines of different colors as seen in the table to the right, where very dissonant intervals are red, and violet intervals represent extreme dissonance, also known as the “wolf.” These colors allow us to “see” the relative consonance or dissonance of these intervals—numbers are more difficult to interpret at a glance. Black arrows point in the directions in which we will find intervals of fifths, major thirds, and minor thirds. Minor triads are shaded gray.

Comparing tunings

We can expand this model to include all 24 major and minor triads. And with this expanded model we can quickly compare different tunings based on pure fifths, pure thirds, and equal temperament, all of which are shown in illustration 2. (Beat rates are referenced to the 2′ middle octave, a = 440Hz.)

The first example in illustration 2, Kirnberger I (not to be confused with Kirnberger II or III) is a late Baroque tuning that features nine pure fifths, three pure major thirds, and two pure minor thirds. This is a variant of Pythagorean tuning and has the tonal color required for very early music. It also plays much of the later literature with radiant harmonic purity.

The second example shown in illustration 2 is the 1/4-comma meantone devised by Pietro Aaron in 1523. It is a wonderful representative of the class of tunings that emphasize the purity of major thirds. Also note the extreme dissonance in the “wolf” intervals in violet, the price paid for the purity in the thirds. A glance at this example will show why older organs tuned in strict meantone had no bass octave keys for C#, D#, F#, or G#. Many variants exist that rearrange the dissonant and consonant intervals, and it is important to match compositions created in meantone with their proper meantone variations. (The important reference for this is Claudio Di Veroli’s Unequal Temperaments, Theory, History and Practice, 3rd Edition.)

As the demand arose to have more freedom in the use of more remote keys in the eighteenth century, a virtual flood of attempts arose to trade off the purity of the meantone third for less dissonance in the more remote keys. These are known as the “well temperaments.” As noted earlier, these attempts mostly disappoint; harmonic purity was watered down to the point where the sense of consonance disappeared when any real sense of freedom emerged in the more remote keys. The logical consequence was, of course, the rise of equal temperament, which is ubiquitous today.

The third example shown is equal temperament. This tuning has a wealth of nearly pure fifths, but no interval has real purity, without beats. The major thirds are quite impure and very dissonant. Minor thirds are worse. We have simply grown to tolerate this dissonance through familiarity with it. The pure, or nearly pure, triad is rarely a part of modern keyboard experience. We pay a very dear price in the sonority of our music with the freedom we gain to access the tonality of any key.

We can make early compositions sound as exciting to us as they did to their composers if we play them in their appropriate tunings. The musical impact of a tuning is determined by its consonances and dissonances, and these sounds are described by beat rates, not “cents.” This model hopefully provides a more intuitive way to understand the variety of tuning styles for the pipe organ.

References

Di Veroli, Claudio. Unequal Temperaments, Theory, History and Practice, 3rd Edition. Bray, Ireland: Bray Baroque, 2013. Available as an eBook on Lulu.com.

Jorgensen, Owen. Tuning the Historical Temperaments by Ear. Marquette,  Michigan: Northern Michigan University Press, 1977.

McNeil, Michael. The Sound of Pipe Organs. Mead, Colorado: CC&A LLC, 2012.

If one may indulge in melodrama, one might refer to "The Curse of Equal Temperament" when commenting on the method of tuning that steadfastly refuses to take into account the relationship between an instrument, its music and player. "Equal" is tuning for the sake of tuning, done by successive generations of tuners who practice their craft exactly the way they were taught to do it, no questions asked. And the whole business has been cast in cement by electronic tuning devices--ETDs--in widespread use today!

Looking back over the past two centuries, we can take note of several events that contributed to this situation. They include the invention of tuning forks, the industrial revolution (with its myriad of factories that produced musical instruments) and the emergence of ETDs such as the Conn Strobotuner.

Tuning forks as we know them appeared in the early 1800s. Their fixed pitch enabled a reference to specific frequencies for tuning of musical instruments; tuning practices previously had varied widely by region and nationality. Tuning forks were a valuable resource for the stabilization of tuning everywhere. By the end of the 19th century, they were used for temperament tuning in the great piano houses such as Broadwood and Moore.

The turn of the 19th to the 20th century was surely the golden age of the piano, and in North America the houses of Steinway and Heintzman represented a pinnacle of musicality and at the same time promoted the artisanship of factory craftsmen unparalled in our own times. The revival of the organ as an "authentic" instrument would wait some fifty years, and with it the same emphasis on tuning as an integral part of a musical instrument.

Thinking back on the piano and its artists of the early twentieth century, one can reflect on the incredible tuning of these instruments, made for Rubinstein, Horowitz, Richter, Gilels and so many others. Pianism was almost a cult, and the tuners who worked on these instruments behind the scenes contributed a rare form of art to the piano. They defined its sound, its carrying power and its musicality as surely as the artists who played it so superbly.

With the revival of the tracker organ, tuning once again became an integral aspect of the musicality of these instruments. Temperament is most carefully thought out by artisan organ builders today with or without the help of tuning machines.

Machines? Yes, the same tuning devices that began with tuning strobes evolved into electronic displays of one sort or another, as varied as one might imagine. To some extent, they displaced "aural" tuning, so highly valued within the community of piano tuners and technicians. Unfortunately, some tuning practitioners passed "go" on the Monopoly board and skipped ear training by jumping into machine tuning as a quick means to an end. However, fine tuners the world over incorporated tuning devices into their tool kit as important aids to the musical ear that was already hard at work. It is this kind of practitioner that exemplifies the best in the tuning business.

The "curse" of machine tuning is that it implies that equal tuning is mathematically precise, and that the ear is irrelevant to the outcome of setting a temperament. Semantics are everything, and it is something of an understatement to say that "equal" tuning is not at all equal! An artistic tuning, whether in a baroque temperament for Bach cantatas or a modern tuning for a Rachmaninoff piano concerto, is anything but equal. It is what the music demands. A marvelous example is the use of the Vallotti temperament for performances of Beethoven's "Emperor" Piano Concerto. Yes, it works very well. One can only marvel at the work of the world's best piano tuners on the concert stage. The tuner's ear is alive and well in our finest recordings and live concerts--as it should be in the presentation of our finest pipe organs.

The "blessing" of machine tuning is that it provides the opportunity to record "best" tunings for various instruments and occasions--for tuning devices are not only tone generators of various pitches with an array of mathematical relationships, they are recorders, too. They make possible the quantification of any kind of tuning, from pianos to organs to gamelans. They are, in a sense, the power that destroyed some important aspects of tuning by ear, but they are also the force that brings back aural tuning. This is a happy conundrum that should be exploited for all it is worth.

The tuning device as recorder provides the opportunity to use temperament in an artistic manner to give expression to the best qualities of an instrument (and sometimes, to suppress the worst ones). For example, a concert grand piano in a large hall derives carrying power from vibrations generated within the temperament, as well as the soundboard and case of the instrument. For this reason, mild temperaments with more- and less-pure thirds benefit these pianos if they are speaking in a vibrant hall. On the other hand, a pure temperament can go a long way to smooth out a small piano with short strings that are full of false beats. Try that on your spinet in the choir room. You will be amazed at the improvement in sound!

Some practical considerations for the tuner

For the benefit of the reader who is truly interested in investigating the benefits of 19th-century (or earlier) temperaments with the help of machine tuning, this last of three articles will be devoted to the practical application of tuning techniques. Since it is widely available at low cost, the ETD (Electronic Tuning Device) of choice will be Robert Scott's TuneLab97 software, available at <www.tunelab-world.com&gt;. A basic computer and sound card are also required. With this tuning program, there will be a set of historical temperaments that offer a wide range of options for the tuner. Temperament files are extremely simple. They are notated in cents deviation from an equal distribution in this manner:

Representative Victorian Temperament (Moore)

C   2.5

Cs  0.0

D   1.5

Ds  1.0

E  -1.5

F   2.0

Fs -0.5

G   3.0

Gs  0.5

A   0.0

As  1.5

B  -1.0

Armed with this modification to equal proportional tuning, the tuner can proceed to lay bearings for a temperament. Fear not! I am not going to give the reader blow-by-blow instructions on how to tune. But it is important to note that most tuning failures result from tempering the wrong intervals first! Therefore, with this temperament one can follow the practice of using F, A and Cs tuning forks to divide the circle of fifths into manageable portions, so that one will not choke on a cumulative error. In this case, A and Cs may be set from tuning forks A=440 and Cs=277.18. "A" is used to embark on the white notes in the circle of fifths, and Cs is used for the black notes. As a rule of thumb, the intervals involving black notes are tuned first, pure or nearly so, and the intervals involving white notes are tempered and tuned last. Follow that rule, and you will avoid the trap of "reverse well" tuning.

The tuning fork F=349.23 completes the triad of foundation notes. In well-tempered tuning, "F" will be raised to provide the desired effect of the third F-A. Generally, the F-A and C-E triads will determine the nature of the well-temperament desired, whether mild, moderate or intense, as in the baroque temperaments. This is where the sound and character of the instrument and its music come in.

If one is tuning "equal" temperament, the thirds F-A-Cs¢-F¢-A¢ provide a very useful octave and a third in which to lay the bearings. These thirds will increase their vibrations as they ascend. This is one of the tests used in setting equal temperament. Conversely, in laying well-tempered bearings, the thirds will alternate in vibrancy between white and black keys. F-A will be slower than equal, A-Cs will be the same as equal (13.7 cents wide), Cs-F will be faster than equal, and once again, F¢-A¢ will be slower than equal. So far, the only adjustment has been to sharpen "F" to make a relatively slow third F-A.

Once this has been accomplished, one should tune Cs-Fs-B relatively pure and Cs-Gs-Ds-As-F relatively pure, monitoring the computer screen while one tunes these notes. Then, tune A-E-B and A-D-G-C-F relatively tempered, while monitoring each note on the computer screen. This will provide well tempered bearings, while applying tuning tests to the process. There will be little chance of a cumulative error of any significance.

Since the tuner is applying aural tests as well as reading a computer screen or a dial tuner to monitor progress, this work can be carried out at the organ console or the inside of the organ case, or preferably both. A tuner's assistant can do much more than hold keys. It is very helpful if they monitor an ETD while the tuning is in progress. This prevents errors and speeds up the tuning.

Which temperament to use?

There are literally hundreds of temperaments from which to choose, so it is very useful for each tuner to develop criteria which work for them. Several points are worth consideration.

It is most helpful to adopt a temperament that allows equidistant bearings for the tuning of a circle of fifths. The F-A-Cs method provides this option in both well and equal tempered tunings.

Another consideration is the provision of various degrees of purity within a related group of well tunings. An example of three temperaments that progress from mild to moderate are Moore, Peter Prelleur, and Young (1799). All are based on zero deviation in cents for the notes A and Cs, and increased purity for the triads C-E-G, F-A-C and G-B-D.

One may take into consideration the balance of triads in a symmetrical or non-symmetrical array. A symmetrical array of triads will increase vibrancy in direct proportion to the number of accidentals in each key. Asymmetrical triads will favor certain keys and are more consistent with harpsichord tunings where temperaments are chosen for specific literature.

Blessing or curse: from anathema to good fortune

If one looks upon machine tuning as a curse for its illogical suppression of musical values (modulation being the first victim), the descendants of strobo-tuners must bear a heavy burden of resentment. However, the computer and its dedicated mechanical brethren have rescued those who still tune by ear by providing the means to record their "best" tunings, and experiment with the most musical tunings for each instrument. Credit must be given to a significant group within the Piano Technicians Guild for their unflagging efforts to promote both aural tuning and the use of unequal, "well" and nearly-equal temperaments. A review of the comments of these technicians reveals a dedication to musical performance that stands as an inspiration to organ technicians and tuners as well. Commendation and approbation is also well deserved by artisan organ builders who have often stood alone in a sea of indifference by insisting that temperament and tuning are significantly related to each musical instrument they produce. There are many organ builders who will not resign their instruments to "ordinary tuning and care," but who steadfastly maintain their own instruments so that among other things, the tuning will be preserved. Bravo (!) to these dedicated builders.    

Herbert L. Huestis is a contributing editor of THE DIAPASON.

Most of the time, pipe organs and pianos share equal
temperament--at least in theory. Compared to an average piano tuning,
organ tuning is a massive job. Organs are relatively easy to touch up, but a
major operation to tune thoroughly. A number of factors are critical for
accurate organ tuning, including temperature, location and condition of the
pipes, the accumulation of dirt, and wear and tear. In addition to these
factors, it is just plain hard to get around in them. One must manage walkways,
ladders and work in scary places. Hardly any piano tuners have fallen off a
piano or dropped their tools in the strings, but we often hear of organ tuners
taking fateful trips down ladders or worse, winding up in the pipes!

Some years ago, I learned that it was not a very good idea
to change organ tunings on a whim. An organist might ask a tuner to lay on a
Werckmeister III tuning, so they can hear what Bach should really sound like.
After the enthusiasm for Bach has worn off, the next organist to take that job
will insist that the organ be returned to equal temperament. (Don't ask
me how I know that these things can happen.)

It is unfortunate that what passes for equal temperament on
many instruments is really no temperament at all. The sound is all a jumble.
Other situations occur, where tracker organs that should be well-tempered bleat
unmercifully with equal thirds, and lovely turn-of-the-century heirlooms howl
in baroque temperament. So often, the punishment really does not fit the crime,
and perfectly good tunings are wasted in the wrong places.

More organists have come to realize that tuning is an art,
and pleasing musical results come to those who invest time and attention to the
details of a well constructed and pleasing tuning. A good tuning is more than
theory and strategy and hard work. It is understanding of what is possible and
taking some effort to achieve those possibilities.

This is where the piano tuner comes in. If an organist is
going to understand temperament as it applies to his instrument, a good place
to start is with pianos. Historic temperaments are manifold with many different
names and variations. They are represented by lists of numbers that may defy
rationality and sometimes beg the question of authenticity. Who is to say the
numbers are right, when many versions of each temperament make their claim to
be authentic? Scholarship is sadly lacking.

Machine tuning is often used to set temperament with varied
results, depending on how good an aural tuner the technician is. The best
tuners never abandon aural tuning--in fact tuning by ear is still the best
source of a superior tuning. Both equal and historic temperaments can be set
with an electronic tuning device, but the real test of any tuning is the way
the intervals work. Theoretical tunings may be derived by study and transmitted
by tuning charts, beat rates, or deviations from a theoretical point. But in
the final analysis, it is the ear of the technician that makes the decision to
go flat or sharp. In my own experience, I look for logical relationships
between intervals, no matter what the name of any tuning.

This is the direction in which organists can go as well.
When they hear a fine instrument, the tuning should also make an impression.
It's not a matter of sour notes, but how the stops of the organ sound
both in the quality of the pipes and the tonality of the ensemble. Temperament
contributes purity, harmonicity, and overall aesthetic satisfaction. The sound
of the finest organs will contribute immensely to an individual's musical
understanding and appreciation.

In addition to listening to fine organs, some experiments
can be made with pianos in a church setting. When these instruments are tuned,
purely equal temperament can be set aside in favor of historically derived
tunings. This does not mean that they must be severe. In fact, some of the most
delicate temperaments are very close to an equal distribution of intervals.
However, the deviations they display are intentional and often the result of
the best tunings of bygone technicians. If nothing else, they displace random
errors in favor of intervals that lean the right way for a musical result. A
good example of this type of tuning are "Viennese" or
"Victorian" temperaments. They are found on reed organs and other
19th-century instruments.

In addition, there are well-tempered tunings of a more
moderate nature that are appropriate for romantic or classic (but not baroque)
organs. They are often derived from English sources, such as
"Broadwood's Best" and "Handel's
Well-Temperament." These tunings give good key color and favor the white
note triads. They also have the excellent feature of providing consistent ear
tests and do not require the uncritical setting of pitch according to the dial
on a machine. Yes, you can use your ears when tuning these temperaments. And
your ear will reward you when you play the music.

Organists can open up aural vistas with pianos at hand by
arranging for their tuner to assist with well-tempered tunings. This is not to
be confused with changing pitch. Piano tuners are taught to maintain pianos at
A=440 and should be encouraged to do so. It is not hard to find a tuner who has
an active interest in historic temperaments, since this subject is an area of
lively scholarship and discussion in conferences of the Piano Technician's
Guild, the parent organization for most piano tuners. A search for the right
technician will be well worth the effort. Organists will be rewarded with
instruments that "teach" them how to listen to music.

After some time with pianos, the question of the ultimate
tuning of the organ can be considered with much more clarity and logic than
"tuning on a whim." It is far more likely that good insight and
perceptive decisions will prevail.