More on Aural Analysis (long)

[atonal@planet.eon.net]

Horace Greely writes:

> 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.

Why can't I write like that? That is what was intended in my
original statement regarding 'aural analysis'. Tuning, listening,
voicing, playing, are all included under this blanket definition.
What is *also* included in my term are the use and refinement of
aural skills using aids (hearing aids, including earplugs),
electronic tuning devices, teaching & mentoring (the "traditional"
system of apprenticeship may be gone, but there are always
alternative methods of getting instruction & criticism).
	Let me be clear on one point: I have used and will use electronic
tuning devices (both the SAT and the TuneLab 97 program, which, I
digress, runs just fine on an average Pentium notebook). I'm not an
"aural snob", ie: aural is *always* better and machines have no place
in piano tuning. I never posted my original message with that
intent.
	What prompted me to respond with such zeal was the reasoning
behind choosing the ETD:

(to paraphrase)

My aural skills weren't good enough, and now I can tune with the
machine.

 Not so, unless you work with the machine to improve your
aural skills as well! Where are the weak areas of your aural tunings?
Top end? temperament? Use the machine *in conjunction* with what
you're hearing, also use aural checks (see Virgil Smith's excellent
article on aural checks in the last Journal). Find where you are
deficient and work to improve that skill.  Again I repeat, don't sell
your aural skills short!  In essence, use any and all means to
improve your tuning, but don't simply trade off one style for
another.
  		I watched Gary Kasparov vs. Deep Blue with a great deal
of interest (and cheered for the machine!). Yet the machine was
victorious because it was programmed for one objective: beat
Kasparov. It is not the best chess player in the world, it was
programmed to react to a certian style of play (Kasparov's), analyse
and present the best stategy. Much like a SAT, if I may be so bold as
to make the comparison. The machine is programmed to analyse input
data and return its best interpretation of the proper tuning to lay
on that instrument. Could Deep Blue take on a host of chess champions
and win? Not without human assistance in programming. Can the SAT
take on every piano and produce superior tunings? Again, not without
human assistance in checking and correcting (and stabilizing, and pin
setting). This is of course a superficial and limited analogy (ya
win or ya lose in chess, but *superior* tunings are not as easily
measured). We return to that old subjective problem regarding
measuring *good* tuning, and hence, back to my idea of aural
analysis of the piano, a term that encompasses a variety of
methods.

Can I sit down now?
8-)  Rob Kiddell