Open letter from Owen Jorgensen by way of Skip Becker

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

The idea of presenting "Tune-offs" originally seemed proper to me at the time 
that they were done.  Over the past year however my thoughts concerning them 
have been reversed.  This is based on the following axioms:

There has been no evolution of temperament from primitive to superior.  There 
have only been changes throughout the history of temperaments.

For each change that was made in history, a new and good acoustical quality 
was gained at the expense of another good acoustical quality that was always 
lost.

Because of the latter, no temperament can be judged to be either superior or 
inferior to any other temperament.

In general, historical music sounds best or most effective when performed in 
the temperament from its own historical period.

Actually, there has not been an evolution progressing from poor to better in 
any of the so-called fine arts.  Who would dare say that our modern authors 
are better than Shakespeare?  Who would maintain that the best of our modern 
music is superior in value to Beethoven's symphonies?

Since temperaments cannot be rated or judged, the fallacy of the "Tune-off" 
idea becomes apparent.  If tuners nevertheless insist on sponsoring 
"Tune-offs", then the following conditions should be adhered to:
The two pianos being compared must be of the same make, model, size, age, 
condition, style, and finish.  The two pianos being compared must be 
alternately moved to the same spot on the stage before judging.  The voicing 
and action regulation of the two pianos must be identical.  One single 
impartial tuner who is equally skilled in both temperaments must tune both 
pianos so that the octave-stretch and quality of unisons on both pianos will 
be identical.  The music examples should be very carefully examined because 
the music chosen along with how it is interpreted and played will determine 
the voting outcome. (Actually, this last qualification nullifies the whole 
project and shows the futility of this exercise.)  

Thus, a "Tune-off" cannot determine which temperament is best; it can only 
reveal the current taste of the audience.  Any temperament can be shown to be 
desirable if the appropriate music for it is demonstrated on it.  To hold a 
"Tune-off" is similar to asking a group of people to vote on whose music is 
the best between J. S.  Bach, Beethoven, or the Beatles.  Any of these 
composers could be the winners depending on the tastes of the particular 
group doing the voting.

If a program presents two temperaments not as a contest but as a revelation 
for the future, this could be very beneficial.  The current universal usage 
of equal temperament is not good because it has no accommodation for those 
people of varying tastes.  It is especially restrictive to those musicians 
who prefer the classical music of the nineteenth century and before.  To 
instruct musicians that many other temperaments in addition to equal 
temperament are available not only would be a satisfaction to many of them 
but it would also add much interest and variety to the daily work of the 
piano technician.  To be skilled at tuning more than one temperament and 
giving the customer choices greatly enhances the professional image of the 
tuner.  It brings the musician and tuner closer together because of the 
theoretical and historical knowledge involved.

Currently we have many brands of top-quality pianos such as Steinway, 
Baldwin, Mason&Hamlin, Yamaha, etc.  This is good because varying tastes can 
be accommodated.  It would be terrible if only one brand was available, but 
this is the deplorable situation right now with temperament.

Sincerely Yours,

Owen Jorgensen