On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:56 PM, PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com wrote: > I figured that much of what is being said here is tempest in a > teapot and largely semantic. I think that, if you go back to Virgils > original claims, and see where they were coming from (the anti- > science bias, etc.), he was tuning just I tune, and as you tune, and > as all of us tune who are fine tuners (so self-proclaimed :-)) This is the central truth of our craft. Anyone who is a serious piano tuner uses their developed hearing skill in a global and multi-leveled way to get to the same place: a musical, soaring, stable, singing tuning. It doesn't ultimately matter one whit how you get there: ETD, non-ETD, ET or non-ET, strip, no strip, "partial matching," "whole- tone listening," light, stiff levers, heavy, even impact levers, sitting low, sitting high, "impact" or "jerk" or "wiggle" lever technique...the bottom line is this. Does it sound fantastic? That's all anybody really cares about, so I want to do it the way it's most fun and fulfilling for me, AND the most idealized and musical to my trained and demanding ears. Because my custom protocols have worked so well for me, I want to share them. I don't really care if you adopt them or not. I just want my colleagues to produce the finest tunings in the best way for them. David Andersen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090313/921a1567/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC