=F6sten, Thanks to Don Rose, I can now do most of the ASCII things, except, of course, for the capital "=F6". We'll keep trying. To add to the conversation: At 12:50 AM 2/7/97 +0100, you wrote: > >>I cannot imagine using strict equal temperament (whatever that really is, >>and: do we ever really, truly use it, anyway?), when I can choose not to. >>This is not to say that I radically change temperaments with each tuning, >>or that I subscribe to the wanton use of historical temperaments. >> > >Horace, > >No I'm not sorry I asked. I'm vainly trying to come up with some >intelligent questions to keep you talking. > Well...shucks. Keeping me talking is not the problem. Getting me to shut up is. >A colleauge and friend, who is into serious concert work, sometimes says >that when listening to the concert, after he has tuned for it, he often >feels that the music "demanded" a different tuning and/or voicing (sorry, >forgot regulation). The point here would be that we should not only look at >beats and cents but also at the music. Thank you for making my point. >But as you say, this is not apprentice work, and in this regard, I honestly >feel like an apprentice, lacking knowledge in literature and maybe tuning, >for that part. I get the impression you are a musician also?=20 > We are all apprentices. I have been incredibly fortunate, and can tie my own shoes (usually). >I don't see the old fashioned in your opinion or why it should be in minority? > An indirect, circumlocuitous, "well-maybe" kind of answer: We live in a reductivistic, technology oriented society which does not tend to honor introverted and/or intuitive processes. Jim Bryant's most recent post rather hits the nail on the head: (Thank you, Jim.) "But in fact the mathematical concept of equality is a poor model for using the word equal to describe relations between things in the world. As applied to such things, statements of equality are always relative to an implicit standard of tolerance." And there you have it. "...[S]tatements of equality are always relative to an implicit standard of tolerance." It is entirely appropriate (read absolutely necessary) to go through the reductive process. That is how one develops one's technique. The (reasonably) complete mastery of a certain skill and/or subject is an essential element in being professional. Paderewski's famous quote about practicing comes to mind: "If I miss one day of practice, I know it. If I miss two days, the critics know it. If I miss three days, the world knows it." More in technician's terms, the first 1000 pianos you tuned probably weren't very good. The "implicit standard of tolerance" comes in where the reductive process is no longer applicable - that is, where one passes from what can be reasonably expected from it (the reductive process) to a level where you know more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing. (Piano work is enough like that by default, we need no further help in that department.) The "standard of tolerance" then is essentially subject to a given set of circumstances. "What does that have to do with tuning (or anything else for that matter)?", one might ask. The answer to that is the answer to your question, supra, and where I get into trouble. At some point, when you have done the best reductive job you can reasonably expect yourself to do, you have to let go and trust to your broader knowledge of music, art, acoustics, the performer, etc. - in short, in what shade of blue (red, green, purple, etc.) do you paint? With what kind of brush? Is the concerto in D? Will the artist (or anyone else) be troubled by the nasty sounding c#, or were you able to tune around it successfully? (When was the last time you heard a good one on a new piano?) Which of the oboes is playing principal? The one who gives the "A" at 440, and then plays at 442? Is the concerto in the first half, or after intermission? If you are taking care of a concert account, this is, after all, why they pay you the big bucks... Are any of the above also affected by reductive elements? You bet. Do they also contain elements that are, at least in part, if not largely, questions of art? Absolutely. Am I misusing the term "standard of tolerance"? By some standards. I remember one class given by Norm Neblett some time ago during the course of which, he demonstrated his estimable technique in setting a temperament, and then asked the attendees if he had put a certain note at the "right" pitch. Much discussion followed. In the end, the answer was, of course, that he had put the pitch at the right place to begin with because that's where he put it. In that time and place, the "standard of tolerance" was Norm's judgment. He placed the pitch based on his usual tuning rhythm and pattern, taking into account the specific piano. =20 You ask why my opinion "should" be in the minority. I am not sure that it necessarily is. On the other hand, discussions of piano work within some kind of appropriate context relative to the performance of music do not occupy very much bandwidth here, in the Journal, at chapter meetings, or at conventions. When I used to teach, among the opening questions were: "How many people here do concert work?", (defined as tuning for anything from the local MTA chapter and up) followed closely by "How many of those who do concert work stay and listen?" In any given class of 70-80 technicians, nearly everyone raised their hands for the first question, while an average of less than 10% raised their hands for the second. I am sorry to say that those ratios are outside of my "standard of tolerance". Sorry. >Yours >=D6sten > >"The most understandable thing about the universe, is that it is impossible >to understand"=20 > > - Well Horace, Albert Einstein didn't say that, his opinion on that >matter was the opposite. Does that make my statement an anti-matter statement? > Only if it matters... (I warned you, keeping me talking is not the problem.) Bye for now. Film at 11. Horace Horace Greeley "People forget that it is the little acts of every day that make or=20 unmake character." - Oscar Wilde Stanford University email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu voice mail: 415.725.9062 LiNCS help line: 415.725.4627
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC