No, I was not saying that someone, by the fact of doing a purely electronic tuning, lacks intellectual curiosity. I don't believe I even implied that. Indeed, just prior to that statement I proclaimed that I have heard some staggeringly good tunings done electronically. You are jumping the gun, David. There are bad aural tuners, and there are bad ETD tuners. Use of the one method or the other does not make you a good tuner. There are people who will learn just enough to get by either way. My point about working for better musicians is about those tuners who have learned to tune electronically but have never developed their aural skills, not the high level technicians who tune electronically. Indeed, isn't it true that the ETDs have developed to the fine level of accuracy and consistency that they have today because aural tuners who began using them found the early models wanting? They devised their own protocols for making the instruments create a better, more musical tuning, and the manufacturers continued to evolve the instruments. As tuners we know about inharmonicity and poor scaling. Badly scaled smaller pianos limit how good your temperament is going to be, for example. I can tune a temperament electronically, and I can tune one aurally. Sometimes I'll check the machine's temperament and it is as good or better than what I can do. Other times, I will feel I can improve that temperament and do so. I can choose to tune one way or the other, but on occasion like to compare them just to see how well the machine does against what my ear wants to hear and I believe can be achieved on that instrument. Generally, my preference is to tune aurally, but that is a preference and not a prejudice. Whatever gets you the best tuning, I am all for, whether aurally, by machine, or a combination of the two. I thought it would have been clear that my remarks were towards the idea that developed sensitivities of touch and tone make us more aware and complete as technicians, and we are better as a result. If Steve Fairchild or Rick Baldassin had said to themselves, "I know enough, I don't need to learn anything more", would they have made the kinds of contributions that they have? Moreover, a more developed skill set almost always brings us to a place where we can create new ways to generate income for ourselves. Will Truitt -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:19 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] regulation without a ruler (was: Old can of worms) Are you saying that those who do purely electronic tunings lack intellectual curiosity? Or that electronic tuning will produce no better than average tunings? Having at times followed various tuners over the years, both aural and electronic, I find many more "average" and needing improvement aural tunings than I do electronic ones. The comment that you will not work for better musicians if you do purely electronic tunings is a completely unfounded assertion. And in answer to Ron's comment "I still don't recall ever reading in any of these discussions that ETD users produced inferior tunings". I rest my case. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com --------------------------------------------------- If one lacks intellectual curiosity, has no particular interest in building their skills, and is satisfied with "average" work, a purely electronic tuning is adequate to this task. But you will not work for the better musicians, because they will see a blind spot in your work that you do not even know is there. In this work like so many others, the way you keep from stagnating is by challenging yourself regularly. Will Truitt
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC