In a message dated 98-01-31 00:22:55 EST, you write:
<< I said exactly what I wanted to say, exactly the way I wanted to say it.
Please do not put confused, muddy, slanted, and inaccurate words in my
mouth.>>
Just giving you a little of your own medicine, Susan. It seems to me, that
when you see something that I have written, you feel an absolute complusion to
twist my words against me in a personal way. You are not the only one either.
I get the distinct impression that I have violated some sort of "pecking
order" on this List and that is always the focus of remarks that are directed
towards me by a few people on the List rather than a discussion about the
topic at hand.
<< I hope you tune pianos better than you "translate." (Keep your day job.)>>
It just so happens that I do earn some side income translating both Spanish
and French. When I look at or listen to what people have said, it is my job
to correctly express that in English. Thus, I don't always translate
literally. Again, I see that the very reason you respond in this debate is
not to contribute to the discussion about temperaments, but to make a personal
attack on me. This has been called a "flame", a "waste of bandwidth" and
"libel" on this List. To have to take the time to respond to the accusations
you make is truly a waste of time and energy. I'd much rather talk about
tuning and temperaments or about other issues such as how to service the more
ordinary pianos rather than simply ridiculing them.
I said,
<<I beg to differ. Very small differences in a temperament do matter.>>
You responded,
<< (snip) if you have a major third, in the temperament octave, and you
change one
note 1 cent, what is the change in the beat rate they are making?>>
A few beats per second, depending on exactly where it is.
<< As you are listening to music, not one isolated interval, can you hear
this change of beat rate?>>
If it is only a matter of 1 interval changed by 1 cent, in the entire
scheme, then the difference would be noticeable only in certain musical
contexts but it still would be noticeable by people with keen perception such
as recording engineers, artists and music directors.
This very question, however, is an example of what I'm talking about in
your confrontational approach with me. Where have I ever talked about mere 1
cent and isolated deviations from ET? What I did say on this List as a
hypothesis was that if I took an ET tuned by an Exam committee and had the
exact values for that temperament, I could change each of them except the "A"
within the 1 cent tolerence for an Exam "error" and create a whole different
temperament that would indeed have a noticeable, perhaps even profound effect
on the music. But that is just a hypothesis, not something I'd do in a real
situation. What you have just said is to just change one note by one cent.
What would be the purpose in doing that? What would be the purpose in citing
an example such as that, which I have never talked about other than to attempt
to demonstrate to everyone on the List that "Susan is right and Bill is
wrong"?
<< Does it make an emotional difference if a third beats at 14 beats per
second instead of 13?>>
Most likely, not.
You asked,
<< How much difference in the musical effect does this one cent change make
compared to minuscule differences in regulation, voicing, string
inharmonicity, minor variations in terminations, scaling, and all the other
unavoidable inequalities in real pianos?>>
One cent on one note wouldn't make too much of a difference. One cent on
11 out of 12 most definitely would.
I said,
>When playing an instrument or singing, the vibrato that is musical and
proper
>varies the pitch greatly from flat to sharp.
You responded,
<< More importantly, it varies from one second to the next, in response to
the
musical ideas of the player. It is an _inflection_, not a static state, like
beating intervals in pianos.>>
Of course, you are right. This is obvious, everyone knows that to play or
sing with good musicianship, we must do this. If we all played or sang with
the same intensity of vibrato on every note performed, it would be
inappropriately unmusical, just as, I submit, ET is.
I said,
<<In the piano, the temperament creates a vibrato-like sound. When that
vibrato is carefully and precisely arranged in line with the cycle of 5ths, it
will be appropriate for virtuallyall music.>>
You asked,
<< What is appropriate or inappropriate about it? >>
Then supplied the answer yourself.
<<As I said above, it is not acting in a musically effective manner...>>
We all know that you cannot change the vibrato created by tempering while
playing the piano. What we can do is arrange it to be in line with the cycle
of 5ths in one manner or another by a carefully crafted temperament. If you
tune in a perfect ET, this vibrato is inappropriately arranged for virtually
all music but if it is really a truly perfect ET, it is only slightly
inappropriate. If the ET contains random errors, even small ones, the vibrato
will be confused and disorganized. If the attempt at ET ends up being the
very commonly and erroneously produced, "Reverse-Well", then the vibrato's
intensity is at a constant state of opposition to what the music calls for.
I hope this answers this question you raised.
<< And why does precision help whatever it is that the beats are doing?
Many intervals are sounding, in many different beat rates, and combinations of
beat rates, all the time. Why would making one of them _slightly_ different,
in an amount that hardly anyone could discern even in slow motion, cause a
musically beneficial effect?>>
You also asked,
<< If a _small_ variation in pitch _could_ cause a musically expressive
effect (and I don't see how it could) how important would that be compared to
the other musical effects the pianist is using? >>
It is a portion, perhaps small in itself like whether a piano is well-
voiced or not but nevertheless important and integral to a good quality sound
from the piano.
You asserted, acerbically,
<<Perhaps that is why tuners obsess over perfectly accurate minor changes in
temperament.>>
What to you seems to be an obsession is merely the normal, everyday level
to which I have learned and taken my art and craft by studying, listening and
learning from others who knew and know more about it than I do. I am not
alone in these pursuits. many of the people who practice and cherish the HT's
don't talk about it openly with other technicians because they know they will
get reactions like yours and a few other people on this List who prefer to
make accusations of unethical practices and conduct rather than to try to
understand some very real and basic concepts. Your ignorance is your
stregnth. Your war is your peace. Your state of enslavement is your freedom,
to paraphrase George Orwell. Perhaps this calls for you to redirect you
focus on the way you tune and view your colleagues.
Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin
> When you tune in ET, you divide up that vibrato uniformly so that every
>chord has the same vibrato all the time, no matter what key you are in or
what
>the mood of the music is. It may not be in opposition to anything but it
also
>fits nothing well either.
I admit that key colors are lacking in ET. I just feel that key colors are
minor compared to the huge differences even between different intervals, let
alone all the other musical effects in any piece. And we were arguing about
_tiny_ changes of temperaments _very close_ to ET. I do not believe that
these tiny changes will produce noticeable key colors, for the reasons I
gave above.
> When you attempt to tune in ET and make errors, even small ones, you
>disorganize that vibrato and cause musical chaos. If you think that small
>errors in your temperament don't matter, then you imposing that which you
>disregard and don't care about on them.
I don't think they matter. I think they matter so little that they are not
even "errors." I don't think anyone hears them. I think that good unisons,
stability, and musical octave spacing are hundreds of times more important.
I am imposing nothing on pianists by doing equal temperament. They have
always played equal temperament. The only chaos seems to be in your theory.
I have never heard this chaos, or met anyone who talked about it (except
you.)
When you say that temperament either is _exactly_ equal, or it isn't equal
at all, you are confusing a scientific and a musical definition. There is
always a tolerance, even with the ETD. It is too small to hear, but never
mind. The one cent differences you are talking about are too small to hear
in music, anyway.
Ironically, your "near equal" temperaments probably do very well, and cause
no dismay in those using them. They probably do well _because_ they are near
ET. They are "within tolerances" for the performers.
I said: << If they have not already adjusted to the temperament in the past,
>several weeks of practicing with it might hardly be sufficient for them to
>change their musical interpretation and feel comfortable.>>
You said: > In most cases, they just stop listening and "bang" harder.
They >just learn to "tune out" that which is musically incorrect.
And you consider it acceptable for us to make them do this? In concert?
Without warning? All I can say is, "seriously unprofessional."
> << the 1 cent differences in temperament are totally
>indistinguishable.>> (about near-et temperaments)
> <<Who are we to inflict our notions on them?>> (about mean-tone and
other non-mild historic temperaments in concert, with no disclosure.)
You repeated these, but you said nothing to discredit them. I can only
assume you repeated them because you had no answers for them, and they made
you very uncomfortable. I can't help that. You were asking for a list that
made people think, I believe? Start here ===> provide some _logical_ reasons
why 1 cent differences will cause musical chaos.
Susan
Susan Kline
P.O. Box 1651
Philomath, OR 97370
skline@proaxis.com
"By using your intelligence, you can sometimes make your problems twice as
complicated."
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
>>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC