Old behaviour (temperament)

[A440A@aol.com]

Ron writes: 
<<  Just what is this insistence that everyone who isn't dedicating their 
professional and personal lives to pursuit of alternate temperaments is in 
the stone age and afraid of anything but ET? << 

Greetings, 
    I am not sure where to start.   The condemnation of other tuner's tunings 
was pretty much centralized in the perspective of one technician (now 
absent).  It is very simple to look at the temperament debate as one of "ET 
against anything else", but that is not what is now being done.  The real 
debate should be on whether one tuning is so superior to all others that it 
should be used exclusively. 
    The contention begins when somebody says that one temperament is just 
that.   Jon had posted the results of his practical application of these 
tunings and David I. immediately posted "ET rules".  Claiming dominence is a 
surefire way to create contention.  In fact, claiming superiority for any one 
temperament is guaranteed to start an argument.
     I offer no condemnation of any temperament, I use them all.   This is 
not the same as opining that a mono-temperament technician is limiting their 
progress.  The liability isn't in using ET, it is in using ONLY ET, (or any 
single temperament).  This is a major difference.
 
>>Why aren't you working on a better bridge termination system, or the 
ultimate 
agraffe or capo configuration? Why aren't you fixing killer octaves, or 
inventing a hammer that is uniform and dependable from set to set? How 
about perfecting bass strings? << 

    Umm,  there are techs that are working on these things, and we read a lot 
of posting inre them, no? In fact, I would submit that there has been as much 
posted on bridges, hammers, and capos as temperament.  The last year's 
postings on soundboards was extensive and consumed as much bandwidth as 
temperaments  did.  However, soundboard design is something out of the reach 
of 99% of the technicians out there, thus it is of academic rather than 
practical interest. Tuning styles affect virtually all techs immediately and 
financially.  is it any wonder that tuning would be a major subject among us? 

>>How is it that the instrument the temperament is put 
on is of so much lesser importance than the temperament, that the 
temperament becomes such an issue?<< 

   The use of non-ET temperaments brings harmonic judgements into question. 
This is really touchy to many techs.  Why it is important is that a change of 
temperament can be,(and often is), more profound than the finer points of 
voicing or regulation. That it is an easily learned skill makes it even more 
baffling that so many don't want to consider the concept, preferring to stick 
with their own status quo.  

>> Why do the disciples of alternative temperaments insist that anyone who 
isn't 
interested in their passion is a technological pagan? <snip> I read about the 
desperate clinging of the pitifully backward adherents of ET to their 
obviously deficient temperament(s, including the ubiquitous reverse well 
variants), and their virulent opposition to anything else. I read all this 
from the alternate temperament folks. << 

   Please,  that is a singular viewpoint, from only one source that I know 
of.  You don't read that from the other "Alternate temperament folks".   I 
have only heard one person in 27 years using the term "reverse well" and that 
was condemning others in defense of an extreme postion held.  The current use 
of temperaments today owes its presence to modern technology. The current PTG 
testing  for ET accuracy depends on technology. There isn't any bias one way 
or another, so let's not be poisoned by singular odd perspectives.  
 
>>From the ET folks, I read occasional 
queries of interest, and a more general disinterest. It's neither a 
passion, nor a phobia. It is disinterest. What I don't read, and never 
have, is a general condemnation and vilification or fear of alternate 
temperaments from the ET folks. << 

Well, David's posting of "ET rules" is sorta like saying "ET is supreme" 
isn't it?  As far as general condemnation, perhaps the early postings on the 
list from some of the older techs would be instructive.  In 1997, when I 
posed the suggestion that techs would be responsible for teaching the piano 
playing public a new tuning, I was met with a chorus of condemnation.  
Unfortunately, this was taken as an attack by one proponent and the entire 
subject quickly became poisoned by personal vitriol.   That is not the case 
today.   

 >>Nearly as I can tell, all the angst, all 
the insecurity, all the defensiveness and general antagonism is coming from 
the alternative temperament folks. <snip>if anyone chooses not to follow your 
personal quest, leave them the hell alone and don't characterize them as 
something they're not.<<

    Once again, please don't let one extreme viewpoint come to represent a 
whole class of technicians.  Remaining fixed on a single temperament can be a 
problem, discussing the value of change is not.  
Regards, 
  
Ed Foote RPT 
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html