e.t. comment for your response add

[pianoman]

I would agree that before beat counting came in to play that "the degree of
roughness" was what was used to tune with.  My own teacher used that very
same type terminology to describe that the B-3 to tune F#-3 interval was
"the roughest".  This is probably where the "Art" comes into play in to
tuning.
	It is always amazing to me that in earlier times the degree of accuracy
and craftsmanship was so high even though there were not really accurate
tools as we have access to today.  It does show that it is not the tools
available but the degree of human craftsmanship is the main ingredient for
any well done job.  It is the care an attitude that the person has towards
what he is doing that is ultimate in importance.  The name "mechanic" has
always been the most praiseworthy name I, or anyone else, could ever be
called and I hope to be remembered as one who strove for this goal.  I know
quite a few "mechanics" myself.  I think those of you who are, know who you
are.                        I salute you.

James Grebe
R.P.T. from St. Louis
pianoman@inlink.com
"Only my best is good enough"

----------
> From: Frank Weston <waco@ari.net>
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: e.t. comment for your response
> Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 8:38 AM
> 
> ralph m martin wrote:
> > 
> > Horace
> > 
> > I'm going to join you in the minority on this one. If these tuners
didn't
> > count beats, I believe they at least perceived them as "a degree of
> > roughness" for want of a better term.
> > 
> 
> List,
> 
> I don't think Jorgensen's point was that tuners could not hear and count
> beats.  His point was that the mathematics required to determine
> precisely what beat rates were proper for ET was beyond the grasp of the
> average tuner, and what knowledge there was on the subject was not
> widely shared.  Don't forget, this was before the age of calculators and
> computers, and figuring logs to the 9th place was a challenge with
> pencil and paper.
> 
> Nor does Jorgensen's second argument discount the ability to recognize
> and count beats.  What he is saying is that tuners used other methods to
> recognize intervals, and that the asthetic of the time viewed these
> methods as more artful and hence superior.  
> 
> To my ears, ET is somewhat cold and mathematical, and in my experience,
> what passes for ET as tuned by the best aural tuners is usually a little
> colored one way or another (mine included).  My preference is the
> Vallotti-Young, which is described by Jorgensen as "the most perfect
> form of Well-Temperament ever published".
> 
> I have this temperament tuned on the pianos in my home, and I have tuned
> it on about half dozen quality pianos belonging to serious customers. 
> No one who has tried this temperament has ever requested a return to
> ET.  Ed Foote may have a few words on this subject as he has recently
> tuned for some recordings in Vallotti-Young as well as other
> well-temperaments.
> 
> 
> Frank Weston