Hello Tuning Fanatics, ETD Programmers/Addicts, Engineers, Fishers, and Many Stars that I Cannot Ignore,
On the subject of semantics, I am obliged to clarify my use of a word that a local technician brought to my attention, for those who managed to get through some of my contributions to the list. The hodge-podge assembly of information that inveterately develops in a situation like this can complicate our ability to convey what we mean. The nuisance editors cause in the process of making our ideas clear and concise is a step we are liberated from in this process of determining how false a step this is by CAUT and the PTG to have created in the first place. I think we need to be tactful when those graciously taking time to read cannot get into our heads for us to interpret our particular idée fixe, however unduly critical the Other might be, and on the other foot, realize that our editorial remarks are not official in any way, shape, or form for the most part.
Hook, line, and sinker, caveat emptor. We all pay guild dues, I assume, and so, this is the product; every contribution should be respected for that reason, though I am not sure membership is required. In my opinion, the hazard of contriving such a carte blanche type of forum to express our convictions needs to be guarded as a privilege. Be gentle, and understand we are lucky. Or, on the other hand, as the aforementioned local piano player Pratt has posted on his studio wall:
"Ye though I Walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil, For I Am the Meanest Son of a B_tch in the Valley," or something like this.
Apparently, I have used contiguous as ersatz for parallel. When I called a 10th contiguous, I did not mean C1, E2, G#3, C5. However nascent my ideas about tuning, it is dubious that I will ever tune contiguous 10ths at any stage of development until the day I die. I assumed the word to be interchangeable with the parallel notion that by the contiguous 10ths I would mean C1-E2, C#-F, D-F#, etc. Howl if you might, like the wolf you are, and I will be the boy to cry about it.
I am certain whoever I defend that I shall nevertheless in spite of this concession remain your newest favorite bête noire. Clang, Bloom, Sizzle, what's that clang I hear?
For all those who tuned aurally enough years to care a wit about it,
- Ben
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:17 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics
Gerry:
Gong fishin'?
Hmm, where does the extra energy come from after the initial strike? There is an amplitude rise (volume increase) in a piano tone curve as the two lengths of strings divided by the strike point of the hammer coincide and begin to vibrate as one, then the decay. In a gong isn't this the same thing? Or like it?
Paul
In a message dated 5/8/2009 8:34:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, cousins_gerry at msn.com writes:
In an attempt to lighten up this thread.
Only instrument (acoustic) that amplifies (increases in volume after initiation or activation) is a gong.
A good weekend wish to all. I'm Goin fishin'
Gerry C
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 18:38:36 +0000
> To: caut at ptg.org
> From: pianotuna at accesscomm.ca
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Please don't be obtuse. Amplification implies an increase in energy level.
> That doesn't happen in a piano. Not ever. Stop beating a dead horse.
>
> Can you perhaps make a recording of the sound you are talking about that
> you believe is a result of the vertical hitch pins in Baldwin pianos?
>
> Is there any thing you have been able to do to limit or lower this sound?
>
> At 04:15 PM 5/8/2009 -0400, you wrote:
> >I apologize for using the word "amplify" incorrectly, as those of you
> >understand it. Here's how I and the rest of the world previously understood
> >the meaning of "amplify":
> >
> >Amplify: 1. To make larger or more powerful; increase. 2. To add to, as by
> >illustration and make complete. 3. Exaggerate. 4. Electronics. to produce
> >amplification of. verb: to write or discourse at length; expatiate.
> >
> >Source: American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition.
> >
> >So, who has the correct definition? Physicists or the rest of the world?
> >
> >Is it soccer or football?
> >
> >Semantics.
> >Jeff Tanner
> >> David Love wrote:
> >>> Sorry to disagree but I think in this case it is a semantic issue and the
> >>> original question has been lost on this tangent.
> >>
> >> I disagree. It's not a semantic issue. The terms are clearly defined,
> >> regardless of colloquial usage. It's the continued use and tolerance of
> >> fuzzy ill defined concepts that make these discussions nearly useless, and
> >> doomed to repeat endlessly.
> >>
> >> Ron N
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.22/2105 - Release Date: 05/08/09
> 11:43:00
> >
> Regards,
> Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
> Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
>
> mailto:pianotuna at yahoo.com http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
>
> 3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
> 306-539-0716
>
=
________________________________
Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now<http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090509/ac06b8b2/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC