Talk:Well temperament

Etymology note in lead.
The German usage is gute Temperatur "good temperament", but "well temperament" has become ingrained, despite its perceived ungrammaticality and hence avoidance by some authors.

I'm assuming Das Wohltemperierte Klavier is the reason we've picked it up as "well temperament", but I might point out that the German gut often does translate better as well than good, so I don't see it as a bad translation of the German; Funny how we say "well fed", not "good fed"; "well tempered", not "good tempered". But, ah, I suppose "a good temperament". What a bizarre langauge.

Anyhow, my complaint is that German usage of gute Temperatur doest not really imply "good", as the lead claims, but it is more rightly English grammar that implies it. Furthermore, a look at the German version of this page suggests that "Wohltemperierte" is actually the more common German usage anyway. - Rainwarrior 05:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordinaire NPOV?
The article seems to fail NPOV in the way it blows off temperament ordinaire, which did have wide use in certain places and times. If there is no objection, I'll change it some time. Gene Ward Smith 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed it. The sentence that I removed wasn't even completely formed. The statement that follows about many-sharped/flatted keys being used only "fleetingly" sounds innacurate as well, but I've left it for the moment.


 * An unrelated question though; I removed a redlink to "irregular temperament" (replacing it with regular temperament). I don't know who put it there, but since you know a lot about Regular Temperament, I'm just wondering, is there such a thing? I do suppose that such a thing is possible to theorize; maybe a limitless just intonation would be irregular? But, I would be astounded if there was any practical consequence to the idea of an irregular temperament. (Maybe I just haven't thought it through though...) Any thoughts? - Rainwarrior 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Circulating temperaments are often called "irregular"; that's what Barbour called them, IIRC. Gene Ward Smith 03:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh okay, so in a circulating temperament, basically every interval is different, making it "irregular"? I was thinking too strictly that any temperament with a finite number of notes could be a high-ranking regular temperament. So, do you think "irregular temperament" deserves its own page, or just the mention in this article about well temperament? - Rainwarrior 03:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well temperament should suffice, so long as it is clear that "ordinaire" is included. Gene Ward Smith 05:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

References to music history and theory lacking
Surly some mention needs to be made to the Pythagorean comma? The term comma is used often enough without a handy linked definition so the point of the whole article is rendered obscure. The wonder of the Well Tempered system is that is solves the Pythagorean comma problem. This was such a revaluation at the time. 58.170.80.159 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the references of three very important books, written by prof. Herbert Kelletat, an eminent specialist, discussing well temperaments. Unfortunately I don't know about an English translation of these. Broekaert Johan (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With apologies if my comment sounds like a complaint, but following up on the original post of 2008, and speaking as a general reader who simply wants to know what well-tempering is, frankly I have no idea what this article is trying to say. And Im a musician, although not formally trained. Surely the introduction should include some explanation of WHY some intervals sound out of tune, and HOW well-tempering adjusts the pitches so they sound better. The article seems to assume the reader is already aware of the fundamental principles and issues, and explanations are given in terms that only an expert is likely to comprehend, so that only an expert can understand what is said here. Could some knowledgeable person please review this and insert some explanations understandable for the general reader? Solviva (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment does sound like a complaint, but I don't know why you should apologize! You are absolutely correct: This article is written like some experts complaining to other experts about abstruse matters, not as an honest explanation of what the subject is about. I am ashamed to have had this article on my watchlist for so long, without having yet done anything about this shameful state of affairs. Thank you for bringing this matter to my (our, I hope) attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Unequal Temperaments book and website
Dear friends,

The Unequal Temperaments book of 1978 was described-in writing-as the definitive reference on the matter by authorities such as John Barnes, Hubert Bédard, Kenneth Gilbert, Igor Kipnis, Rudolf Rasch and others. In the 1990's I also developed the first professional-grade temperament spreadsheets.

Eventually I setup the "Unequal Temperaments" website, where I uploaded the spreadsheets which, kept permanently updated, are available for FREE. I also uploaded years ago a provisional "Update" to the book of 1978. The website lately gives information on the recently released new version of Unequal Temperaments 2008, which includes a detailed treatment of WELL TEMPERAMENTS. (Please note: the website does NOT sell the book)

It would be useful to Wikipedia readers if my website was included among External Links:


 * Unequal Temperaments website, with Preview of the new 2008 book by Claudio Di Veroli

Kind regards

Claudio

Dr. Claudio Di Veroli

Bray, Ireland

86.42.128.58 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a interesting page, but it curiously lacks a formal "References" section (which is more conventional than the current "Notes") and citations. For example, see the Wikipedia entry on Bach's Well Tempered Clavier.  Because of the nature of Wikipedia ,where anyone can alter the page, confirming citations and sources are particularly important.  Perhaps contributors can be encouraged to put these references, remove the dangling "Notes" (no pun intended) ... and include Prof. Di Veroli's book.   Tachyon 13:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janopus (talk • contribs)


 * WP:ASL seems to imply that "Notes" is fine. Hyacinth (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening note
I apologize in advance for not being an active Wikipedian, and therefore for any non-standard terminology or a lack of familiarity with certain things that may seem obvious to others...

I find the opening phrases of this article contradictory. Werckmeister sort of "invented" well-temperament, and yet the opening says that the phrase comes from Bach, not his predecessor who invented the thing? Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it's hard to tell since the statement does not have citations itself, and is not referenced again in the body of the article.

I would say it's the other way around—that Werckmeister's system of well-temperament prompted Bach to write in all 24 keys and it is after this that he named the collection The Well-Tempered Clavier. Megan Lavengood (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate citation is in the internal wiki link to Werckmeister. Tachyon (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but this seems to still support the idea that Bach got the idea from Werckmeister, not the other way around as the opening of the article seems to suggest. Megan Lavengood (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cause of wolf fifth in 1/4-comma meantone
Explaining the cause of the wolf fifth in 1/4-comma meantone, as well as other characteristic 16th-17th centuries shadings of meantone, requires focusing on both the syntonic and Pythagorean commas, the former of which is the main concern of a regular meantone, with both being vital to well-temperaments.

As the current text correctly states, the syntonic comma of 81:80 or 21.506 cents, the amount by which a major third formed from four pure 3/2 fifths at 81/64 (407.820 cents) exceeds a pure 5/4 major third (386.314 cents), is distributed among the four tempered fifths forming a pure 5/4 third (e.g. C-G-D-A-E), each therefore 1/4-comma (5.376 cents) narrow. This, in fact, neatly solves the syntonic comma problem, as long as one is ready to bear with the temperament of these regular fifths. The wolf fifth issue is something else again.

That "something else again" involves the Pythagorean comma, the amount by which 12 pure 3/2 fifths exceed 7 pure octaves. This comma, at 531441/524288 or 23.460 cents, is the total amount by which all the fifths of an intended 12-note circle must be narrowed in order to balance the circle. The problem with meantone, if we desire a viable circulating temperament in only 12 notes (rather than 31, which 1/4-comma meantone provides), is that tempering fifths by 1/4 syntonic comma each (or 21.51 cents for each four fifths, e.g. C-G-D-A-E to make C-E pure) rapidly exceeds the amount of tempering (23.46 cents) needed to close the circle.

With all 11 fifths (e.g. Eb-G# in the most common 16th-century tuning) tempered at 1/4 syntonic narrow, we have done 59.142 cents of tempering in all, with a harmonic excess, as it is sometimes termed of 35.682 cents beyond the Pythagorean comma, thus the amount by which the wolf fifth, typically at G#-Eb, is wide of a pure 3/2.

My apologies for this rather lengthy explanation, but clarifying the role of both commas might help readers to understand some of the strategic choices in seeking to modify meantone so that it will circulate in only 12 notes.

Mschulter1325 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?
As Mschulter1325 points out, this page currently lacks the theory necessary to understand what a good temperament is, and without this understanding, the page is meaningless. In fact the theory is amply covered, with good explanation, in other Wikipedia pages, such as "Circle of fifths". This page makes three (different) attempts at defining "well temperament": (1) the opening sentence states that good temperament is a feature of 20th C theory, which is nonsense since the concept of tempering, the temperaments that are usually referred to as good temperaments, and the term "wohltemperiert" from which the name "well temperament" is derived, all date back to Baroque times. (2) The "Origins" section correctly contradicts (1) but says that the tunings are imperceptibly out of tune, which is clearly wrong, because if they weren't perceptibly out of tune, a tuner couldn't actually tune them; the definition would have been better if it had stopped at the point of saying that all keys are usable (3) The "Forms" section suggests that the term "good temperament" is usually applied to irregular temperaments, but avoids committing itself on whether equal temperament counts as a good temperament. This skirts something that, for this article, should have been a really important issue: what did Bach intend for the well-tempered clavier? The title is also a phrase that many highly reputable authors prefer to avoid, on grounds that it is terribly bad grammar, inappropriately dragged, kicking and screaming, from a foreign language (where indeed "wohl" is, like "well", an adverb, and not applied to nouns like "temperament"). Were it truly ingrained in regular usage, the title would be forgivable, but a quick google-search suggests that nearly all hits for "Well temperament" are either Wikipedia pages, or pages by people who've derived most of their material from Wikipedia; maybe the term is more ingrained amongst wikipedians than amongst the wider musicological world? Currently this page offers little to the reader; it could, to good effect, be reduced to a list of good temperaments (in which it should be fleshed out, for example reminding us that there were multiple Werkmeister and Kirnberger tuning systems. 79.64.220.94 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)