Open letter from Owen Jorgensen by way of Skip Becker

[bases-loaded@juno.com]

Thank you, Jim, for your ever insightful posts!

Mark Potter
bases-loaded@juno.com

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:21:44 -0700 (MST) "Jim Coleman, Sr."
<pianotoo@imap2.asu.edu> writes:
>
>
>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
>