Thought Police - was HT's -Reply

[A440A]

 Steve writes:
<< There is implicit in the derisive
> statements about ET that it is somehow invalid; not a "real" tuning.  If HT
is
> good, then ET is bad.  Or, the oft expressed feeling that ET is the last
> improvement in the ever upward evolution of tuning theory, so it is
> therefor the best. >>

      C'mon now,  these viewpoints are not the viewpoints of the majority of
HT proponents, and I am amazed that one reactionary opinion has the ability to
polarize an entire list!   
      To condemn ET or MT or HT is no more than a self-limiting standpoint,
IMHO.  To my knowledge, Bill B. is the only one deriding modern tuning, and he
takes pride in not providing that style of tuning.  In this, he is the extreme
exception.  That is cool with me, it is his bag, and if he can make a living
with that position, fine.  It does seem to be counterproductive, but hey, the
temperament debate that raged for centuries isn't going away, it has just been
on hiatus for the last 150 years.  
 
   There are many tuners out there that hold the same perspective that I do;
that the temperaments are good working tools, all of them,  and the technician
that understands multiple temperaments and their uses is a more rounded tech
than the tech that has some kind of block about using one or the other
temperament.   
      Don't paint all HT users as anti-ET, that just isn't so!  
( There are a lot more CD's out there with my ET on them than my HT's,  ( by a
factor of 6,000,000:1) !!!!!!  I like them both.  
Regards, 
Ed Foote