Jim, I am not "committed" to the stretched tuning. And I personally prefer the sound of the clean double/triple octaves. I do think it is interesting how pianists react to the stretch. None have said "oh! what happened to your beautiful clean octaves!". There may be a time and place for different types of tunings. Why limit yourself? John On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, harvey wrote: > Uh-oh John, now that you put it in this context, I may have to > reconsider my approach. Other than clean (and solid) unisons, > clean double/triple octaves are where I put a lot of emphasis. > > Does this mean I must start asking about the artist and scores > (Horace and Avery are particularly big on this), then refuse to tune > where lot's of arpeggio's are indicated? > > Jim Harvey' > [just when I thought I finally had it right] > > > On 14 Feb 2001, at 20:08, John D. Chapman wrote: > [portion cut] > > When we use equal temperament we are already compromising > > everything but the octaves. If we tune the double octaves pure, > > or even the triple octaves pure, our octaves can sound good to > > us, but to many listeners melodic lines will sound cramped, flat > > in the treble and sharp in the bass. Here another compromise > > might help. Do we want beautiful octaves and cramped > > arpeggios, or do we compromise the octaves? > > I feel that this stretched tuning works especially well in big > > halls, or in situations where the piano needs to carry or cut > > through a muffling environment. > > > > John Chapman RPT > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC