A seriously fascinating instrument dazric. I love seeing deviations from the mean. Some amazing keyboards have been invented - and we're really all otherwise using quite a mainstream convention with our standard 88 keys - commerce and artistry and evolution - it's in the end just about allowing us monkeys the easiest ways to get out our collective 'works of Shakespeare' as we all tap away on whatever keys work for us. It could be like learning to touch type on a qwerty keyboard and having to relearn on a different one. I loved the change that was surprising - but the narrative may be lacking something.
I hate to think I'm missing something by degrees - but I think the below might be my best reasoning on that idea. Thinking / typing.
I don't think of transposing temperament as wrong entirely as a device - but the effect will be such that it renders classical music very differently, and therefore would likely not hold much currency in that wide sense, but may be very happily mused over and accepted in the realm of modern music where, although 'no rules' applies, those showing interesting progress in their works might attract interesting associates and fans etc.
For myself, the convention of transposing a temperament (by MIDI controller or a pedal/levers) would mostly be for intermittently pulling in some kind of sweetening or opposite wolf intervals for interesting effects where not expected - or mimicking other devices associated with steel guitars, or bending notes and chords etc. - contrivance and convenience and inre modern music I compose.
It would be fantastic to learn how to play a piece once, then click transpose the temperament down a few semitones - play the same thing with the same shapes on the same keys - saving the struggle of learning to transpose the notes.. that's the great shortcut I can see as the dangling carrot But.. alas..
Given how physics enters into the equation (like light emanating from the prism, at fixed frequencies) sound vibrates - and we hear notes and chords conspiring from triads which create "beats" harmony etc.. these physical waves can't be transposed.. just their intended effects if you kind of follow.
It's kind of interesting to consider all the current options we have to experiment though with Pianoteq - and what we can pick over from this.
Let's say we are using a well temperament set a different diapason in Pianoteq, so that the tuning is a semitone lower..
Result may be even less beating in home keys and strength of some wolf intervals might be lessened. (similar, relating to less inharmonicity when making string length longer)..
Alternatively, if the diapason is set differently and the same tuning scheme is now a semitone above A at 440..
Result may be more beating, a quicker dive into wolf territory and maye less sanctum afforded by the home keys (similar, relating to more inharmonicity by making strings shorter). This could go on until the dogs can't hear it and beyond - like infrared visibility it disappears to us - goes from us to infinity - taking with it, all it's meaning above a certain pitch. Tenor, Baritone - there's a physical as well as psychological and/or emotional difference to the effects of each, even if singing the same tune at the same pitch - if there's this whole octave of natural diff going on, one seems to cruise, the other may seem to have to really stretch - and the strains on the vocal chords (vibration) tells us, "there's stress here" to make that note happen, not comfort - it intones a part narrative in that way. That's why a musical director will cast accordingly - when possible to fill the choir (unless, you know, there's no choir in the production - bad joke) In any case, we wouldn't hear the difference between C maj and F min at diapason of 40440.
Our ears are capable of hearing the frequency range we hear only.. so in a way the whole idea of a common diapason (let's just say today's typical is A at 440kHz) is reasonable - but with each physical piano going back in history, people may have personal tastes, or the orchestras of certain places preferred or demanded certain standards etc. We have MIDI standard these days - for better and worse too in some ways (mostly humanistic reasoning attached for my way of thinking of that - but others won't mind or care for that).
That's the sweet spot or zone though, somewhere in the range of historical diapasons and today's 440. Most things will sound fine to us on a range (in Pianoteq try them all with different pianos - and also some "stretching" and "physical rebuild" - let your ears tell you what's happening). When we transpose quite a bit more than a just a semitone or three, definitely most people will understand unmistakably, that things will sound either too deep or too chip-monk.
So, although, if in theory, we can transpose in toto the whole set of chords and tones up or down as many semitones or micro-tonally as we want, the universe has something to say about this matter also damn you physics!
In the end, it might not be exactly like a slide rule thing.. because with each step up or down, the beatings change too. Therefore, it's almost as irrelevant (in a classical musical sense with historical devices bargained in) as just arbitrarily renaming all the notes
This might give reason to it:
Tuning 18th-century Well Temperament at the Piano, part 2 of 2
Incidentally, just watched one of David's videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JF3YzTG7lU) of Helen York playing that Bechstein (1885) and amazingly, lucked out by clicking through to that one above in the sidebar.. the tuner explains quite nicely how he tunes with temperament in mind.
I enjoy hearing his descriptors as he explains the beating in intervals. Nothing new I'm sure, to a lot of people who have tuned their own pianos - but the video makes for easy understanding.
Summing up - nothing against the idea, I love it (and the experiments dating back in history) - already do very personal things with odd tunings for modern music, piano and other inc. synthetic - but there's no physical way to make the same beatings happen in the same way (you're not my real dad, universe!) - so although, similar effects will occur, they will be different if tuning from A at 392 (I like that diapason for some older fortepianos).. but tune at 440 and it's a different 'feel' entirely, even though theoretical spacings are still "heard" because, obviously it's transposing somewhat - but it will be immutably different. Doesn't mean to translate as 'wrong' but maybe too different to carry literally the same meanings at least on a chord by chord basis.
If anything it's like the guitar analogy above, where I play the same chord shapes on higher frets - different triads used determine if the chord will sound sweeter or more like home.. (think typical student day one C chord on guitar, compared to student day on E chord shape).. you can use the C chord shaper (harder to do so) to play an E - or other chords all over the frets - and I can tune the guitar down semitones or up etc. - but..
it's physics which determines that the actual vibrations we hear are "what they say to us" - then we get to that notion of classical composers wallowing in the darkness of F min or allowing the light to shine in around C or E.. maybe that also makes understanding the notion of renaming notes as being the bit that would theoretically change by transposing temperament - thus only kind of spinning wheels, if trying to do it with affect to classical historical reasons.
Not to suggest "don't bother - there's no reason" - some modern composers are finding things which may have been impossible before recording equipment and reproducible sounds and sampling. Not all of it enjoyable to everyone, or arguably also without as deep a narrative as some might find from the world of classical music and beyond - but all valid, fun and fascinating.
If anyone would like to 'sanity check' any of that, I'd love to know if any is misguided. Fascinating stuff to me, all of it.
Pianoteq Studio Bundle (Pro plus all instruments) - Kawai MP11 digital piano - Yamaha HS8 monitors
