Fred and Jim, I've got several points, see below: On Feb 2, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Fred Sturm wrote: > Hi Jim, > The devil, as usual, is in the details. What did Don M mean by > wide and narrow stretch? Perhaps he will weigh in and tell us. I > suspect he did what would be relatively easy, and used, perhaps, > RCT, tuning one with the #9 preset, the other with a #1 or #2. Now > this certainly meets a definition of wide and narrow stretch, but > it is measured largely focusing on octave size: choosing that size > and using it throughout the range (probably oversimplification, but > true at least in large part). > For my own part, I dislike the sound of RCT #9 in the midrange. > The octaves it produces are too wide in the midrange to my ear. I > personally begin in RCT with a #5 preset (right in the very middle > of the road), and expand the high treble using “Custom EQ.” That > pretty consistently gives me results I like. The octaves I tune in > octaves 6 and 7, on some pianos, may be much wider than some would > tolerate. I find them quite tolerable there, and would find the > triple octaves produced via narrower octaves to be objectionable. > One man’s opinions. With the increased used of ETD's we've learned a lot about tuning, have been provided with an important teaching tool for the profession, and the final tuning results are probably better than when technicians had to struggle to learn aural only tuning. But ETD's are a two-edged sword. I think they're partly to blame for the confusion about what constitutes stretch in a piano. ETD's are measuring tools that have tremendous benefits; I use one. And aural methods don't guarantee quality. ETD's don't make judgements, our brain does. Those judgements are based on a concept of what is best aurally. My point is that the generally accepted standard for a concert grand needs to be descriptive and provide a basis for quality. Secondly, that standard is much more specific and widely accepted than is generally acknowledged. Rather than letting ETD's determine what is right, the physics of the piano and the aural characteristics of a well-tuned piano is the basis for quality. > The idea of tuning a piano (specifically stretch) to match > repertoire is not a new one. Horace Greeley has written along those > lines many times, for instance. Of course, this approach leaves the > question, what do you do with a mixed rep concert? > On the other side of the coin, Richard West wants to have a > consensus opinion about what an “ideal” concert instrument tuning > would be. I’m more in favor of “Vive la difference!” I prefer > variety of opinion and practice (just as well, because that’s what > we are certain to have among crotchety, opinionated piano techs > <G>). We should all experiment, and decide based on our own ears > and experience, not just follow some dictum from whatever guru we > choose to follow. One good reason: we are likely to have > misinterpreted what the guru wanted to say (might be the guru’s > fault, not having said it precisely enough). My reply here is: Is there a difference? I'm certainly a "Vive la difference" kind of guy. But my point is that we've emphasized the "differences" rather than the similarities. Good concert work among good concert techs results in tunings that are not really different, one to the next. If we can refine and perhaps redefine the way we describe a concert tuning, we would have a more solid basis for communicating a quality standard and helping those that use ETD's to avoid the confusion about the "proper" stretch. As to the "guru" of the month, a better concert tuning standard would be more professional. We have lots of books describing the basics of tuning, but few that really describes what concert tuning sounds like. Describing a sound is difficult, but we have aural tests and they could be taken to another level to more accurately characterize what we're all doing. The "guru" idea is one held by the public and one that is romantic to plug into I admit. But we really know a good tuning comes down to decent ears, patience, some skill with a tuning lever, and a good idea of what a good aural tuning is. Richard West > Going back to Don Mannino’s class, I think (if I have guessed > right about what Don did) it may illustrate what I was trying to > get at in the beginning of this thread: the problem of focusing on > the octave itself, on the octave’s own size, as opposed to looking > at how that octave fits into an overall picture. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > > > On 2/1/07 5:33 PM, "Jim Busby" <jim_busby at byu.edu> wrote: > >> Fred, Richard, >> >> >> >> Don Mannino gave a class a few years ago where he tuned two same >> model/similarly voiced, etc. grands; one stretched to (or beyond) >> the normal limits and one way under (not enough stretch). He hired >> a pianist to come and play for the class. This class was a >> revelation for me because it clearly showed a stark difference >> what the two pianos seemed to “like” (My words) as far as >> repertoire goes. IMO the stretched piano sounded much better on >> the melodic and faster pieces whereas it sounded too active on >> sustained chords, etc. The other piano sounded great on the >> ballads and awful (or at least not near as good) on the quicker >> and/or more high range melodic numbers. Of course, Don put the >> pianos at extremes. >> >> >> >> My point is that the repertoire might require more or less >> stretch. (???) Maybe Jazz needs more and Bach needs less??? I >> don’t know, but maybe Don can address it. A happy middle ground >> might not be as easy to get for every kind of music. >> >> >> >> Jim busby BYU >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070203/c6edeb35/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC