Laptop? (was Re: SAT for JP ?)

[Horace Greeley]

Keith,

First, I think I am with many other aural tuners who have great respect for
the technology, versatility and potential which the SAT represents.

Further, in a time when there is virtually no truly competent traditional
training available, many (including yourself) have done exceptionally well
using various electronic tuning aids as a part of their training and
subsequent professional service.

Where I do have significant trouble is when someone makes comments similar
to the following;

>And as to the comment, "Remember, pianos are built for aural analysis."
>I'm not certain that I follow that limited reasoning.  Piano manufacturers
>surely have reasons for building pianos other than aural analysis.

Aural analysis is not limited reasoning, it is the point.

Piano manufacturers build pianos for profit.  To the extent that such
building is not profitable, they either change their product to ensure
profitability, or they build something else, or they go out of business.
This is not new news.  The limited reasoning extant is in what constitutes
reasonable profit in a market which, historically, has fairly slim margins
during the best of times - not in the purpose of the end product.

What lends itself to the confusion is the very concept of "aural analysis",
and how such analysis may be used.  This use may, or may not be, inclusive
of electronic tuning devices as tuning tools.  What is _always_ included is
the subjective, artistic judgment of those who use the instrument for its
designed purpose.  This purpose is the performance of music.

I think one demonstration of this was "The Great Tuneoff", and the
subsequent articles in the Journal by Jim Coleman, Sr., and Virgil Smith.
In that setting, with performances of various kinds of music, in front of
an interested, challenging audience - the machine _seemed_ to have an edge.
I use the word "seemed" because, having not been personally present, I must
rely on the reports of others, and what was reported in the Journal.  The
primary point made at the "Tuneoff", at least, as to the instant
discussion, was _not_ who "won" and /or who "lost"  (both Virgil and Jim
acknowledge that there were still too many variables, besides, they were
not there for _that_ kind of contest) but, rather, that the final criteria
were based on the "aural analysis" of the audience _in a performance
setting_ ( as opposed to everyone making specifically reductive judgments).

Put another way, I recently found some re-releases of performance
recordings made by Leonid Kogan.  One of the disks contains a recording of
the Tschaikovsky Violin Concerto (with the St. Petersburg Symphony)
conducted by Constatin Sylvestri.  In the first movement, developement
section, the solo violin has several ascending scales/arpeggios which end
on a "D".  One of these, on first hearing sounded flat as opposed to the
others, which were "perfectly" in tune.  Fascinated by what seemed to be a
pitch error from a violinist noted for (relatively) perfect intonation, I
listened several times to this movement.  The third time through, the
answer struck me:  in the scale where the "D" sounded flat, it was
performing the function of the flat 7th, as opposed to the other scales, in
which is was either the tonic or the dominant.  Playing the flat 7th as he
did, Kogan set up the necessary tension for the subsequent "D"s to provide
harmonic relief and , therefore, a more highly "colored" (and , to my ear,
exciting) episode.

This is the kind of aural analysis to which our work can, and should be,
subjected.  Does what we have done with an instrument make sense musically?
If not, what could we do differently?

All of this is possible using the SAT, or most any other electronic tuning
aid.  But the final determinate simply _must_ be an informed, committed,
musical judgment - not whether or not the dots stop at a certain point on
the dial.

By the way, when I get inquiries about how to get started in the
profession, I invariably suggest beginning with an SAT.

Best to all.

Horace




Horace Greeley			hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu

LiNCS				voice: 415/725-4627
Stanford University		fax: 415/725-9942