Tuning, temperaments and the traverso (3)
(this consists of three pages 1 2 3)
Similarly, the for the Vallotti temperament

Also this is clearly an attempt to equalise the
character of the different keys. Let us now look at a mean tone temperament.
Mean tone temperament is actually an indication for a class of temperaments.
The next chart shows the mean tone temperament by
Pietro Aaron from 1523.

This looks a bit like the traverso. Only g♯ is strangely low and b♭ and e♭ very high, but this
seems to be the case also e.g. in pure intervals etc. I general there are very
large deviations here.
The mean tone temperament of John Holden of 1770
is found in the next chart.

Again a"no go".
In "Le temperament musical" from Dominique Devie
[7], It is shown that the Rameau temperament of 1726 on b♭ for a particular
flute is pretty precisely right. With thanks to Mr.Pernin who pointed this
reference out to me. It seems to me that this is correct.

This is a slightly different from [7]. However
comparing this with the eight originals and also with what I know about many
more originals we see a striking resemblance.
-d slightly high, this is not like the originals
where usually d1 is a bit low. However, d1 may be just low in our usage at 415. In the first half eighteenth century the optimum joint may have been more between 398 and 408! With a fixed foot this would explain the difference.
-e♭ slightly high
-e just a bit low, not significant
-f clearly high
-f♯ sharp clearly low
-g a bit high
-g♯ almost equal temperament, this is something to
discuss, because the relatively high g♯ found on many copies may not be
desirable (it is not necessary) and due to copying of warp or other artefacts of
time
-a practically equal temperament (choice as
reference)
-b♭ high(!)
-b low which can easily be done, but should we(?),
on the eight originals it varies
-c slightly high
-c♯ slightly low
This to me is rather representative for original
flute tuning. However let me stress again as an old schoolmaster that I have no
real information about the meaning of the clearly present differences between
the eight originals and the Rameau tuning shown above.
However the presence of many of the peculiarities
of the tuning of the traverso is clear. The Rameau tuning is chosen for
keyboard. We often think that the peculiarities of the traverso are forced upon
us by the construction of the instrument. The peculiarities of the traverso most
likely were there before 1726. So, did Rameau choose his tuning to suite the
ensemble playing with the flute? Or did the traverso makers choose the
peculiarities and could they more or less at will have chosen others?
These questions need a lot more consideration
than I am able to give them in this short space.
note: the foregoing does not imply that I am
in any way advocating the Rameau tuning for normal usage. The normal
practice of using a more equilibrated tuning on the keyboard and using the
possibility of the player of the traverso to adapt to this, as is common
practice, is of course quite sensible. However, in the meantime there is some
reliable evidence that in practice this works beautifully as well!
[1]Jane Bowers, Mozart and the flute, Early
music, Feb. 1992
[2]J.J.H.R Ribock, Bemerkungen ueber die floete,
1782, facsimile,Frits Knuf, Buren, Gelderland, 1980
[3]Adam Carse, Musical wind instruments, Da Capo
Press, New York,1965
[4]Owen H.J. Jorgensen, Tuning, Michigan
University press, 1991, ANSI 239.48-1984
[5]Margaret Neuhaus, The complete baroque flute
fingering book, Flute studio, 1986 (originally, now
[6]Otto Steinkopf, Zur Akustik der
Blasinstrumente, Ed. Moeck,nr 5029
[7]G.J v.d. Heijde, Effects applicable to tuning
et. FOMRHI Comm. No 503
[7] Dominique Devie, Le temperament musical,
Societee de musicologie de Languedoc, Beziers, 1990
remark: Knuf no longer exists. They have been
taken over by some German company. As soon as I know the details I will give
them here.
[8] https://www.hpschd.nu/index.html?nav/nav-4.html&t/welcome.html&https://www.hpschd.nu/tech/tmp/kirnberger.html
(this consists of three pages 1 2 3)