Coleman 11

[Ron Nossaman]

>     I don't see how the logic in the above statement.  What does the degree 
>of entrenchment have to do with "a lot of interest and traffic"  among a 
>miniscule minority of technicians.  Just because there is a small but growing 
>interest in changing something doesn't define that something one way or 
>another. 

I'm not the one that defined ET as "entrenched". That one came from a
non-ET advocate - delicately put. Otherwise, I would think that -
>Their reason was that 
>they were "not quite prepared for the aesthetic implications in our 
>proposal".   Whoooeeee doggie!  I know fear when I smell it.........  
-would qualify the attitude.


> The amount of ignorance about alternatives out there 
>is staggering, but that is the reason that progress is being claimed, there 
>are changes happening, and a growing number of performers are part of it.  
>All you have to do is ask 10 piano teachers about temperament and you will 
>find out that the existence of temperament is not generally acknowleded, at 
>all! 

It's been my experience that ten piano teachers don't generally acknowledge
the necessity of piano maintenance at all, much less the pitiable lack of
alternative temperaments. 



>     The pianists I work with are calling this a better approach. More to the 
>point, it is one that they had no idea existed, until someone, (me) started 
>claiming it was worth trying.  

Nothing wrong with broadening horizons, but I also seem to remember reading
reports from techs about somewhat less than enthusiastic reactions too. How
about those who *have* experienced some of the alternative temperaments and
don't particularly care for them, or don't notice at all? Are they to be
pitied for their ignorance and unwillingness to change?  



>Yes, I agree.  And there will also be people that avoid anything new, 
>unfamiliar, and exotic, simply because it is these things.  Those are the 
>people that I said were to be pitied. 

Yes, there are those types, but there are also those who don't have piano
temperaments at the top of their life's priority list. Perhaps, just
perhaps, they might be somewhat distracted by the other innumerable details
and disasters inherent in getting through the day, or they may be the most
adventuresome souls you could imagine - in other directions - and simply
don't see the point in spending emotional resources on something that just
isn't all that important to them. I can't see much positive about lumping
together everyone who isn't interested in historical temperaments as
"avoiding anything that's new", or being afraid. Perhaps they just aren't
interested. Are those that don't like okra to be pitied by those that do,
just because they don't care to try this latest greatest recipe? 


 
>    I don't agree.  Temperament history shows an everpresent changing and 
>melding of styles. The whole evolution took place among a wide variety of 
>tuning systems, and the debate over them was near constant.  The writings of 
>the debaters is our historical record.  This is contrasted to the ET era, in 
>which there was only one style, and no debate over its worth.  I see a 
>profound difference here.

Ok, fair enough, bad illustration on my part. Let's say that a group of
musicians had so loved their  temperament(s) that they stubbornly and
unreasonably resisted these evolutionary changes in their part of the
world. They so restricted their outlooks, and remained so narrow minded
that the purity of their ignorance was kept intact until the present day,
where they have once again become enlightened. Just think, if they had been
adventurous and open minded enough to have allowed their methods to have
drifted to - say - ET, they would have become part of the problem.




>    It doesn't preclude them being the answer, either.   The problem is that 
>we are still playing the music written on the old approaches, but using our 
>new one.  Very few know what they are missing, but when they find out, there 
>is usually an epiphany, and that is always worth something.  

We are also playing modern music written by composers working in ET, but
that doesn't apparently preclude playing these pieces in an alternative
temperament so the logic isn't all that symmetrical is it? It's a pretty
argument, but it ultimately comes down to the subjective impressions of the
pianist and listeners. Anything that non-destructively enhances the music
experience for the performer and/or listener has to be a good thing. No
argument there. An alternative temperament isn't always, or even
necessarily, the imperative way to do that. Musical Nirvana can be reached
by any number of combinations of improved action geometry, duplex scales,
type of hammers, string scaling, voicing, soundboard design, bridge pin
configuration, regulation, and hammer technique as well as by the selection
and reasonably competent execution of temperament. It seems that we can
each pity all the other techs out there for their ignorance and hard headed
insistence on not thinking our way as to what improves the music. Each and
every proponent of each of the above listed categories has their own list
of observed epiphanies resulting from plying their own specialties. I don't
hear a lot of fear and loathing talk among them, even though there is the
same unlikelihood among them that each can be an expert in all things. Why
is it such a big deal with alternative temperaments?


Ron N