>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. Isn't it? Here are Jon's comments again. >Just what is this constrictor-hold that ET has over everyone? > >Fear-of-learning-another-temperament? >The real >debate should be on whether one tuning is so superior to all others that it >should be used exclusively. And as I said, I don't read that the general attitude is that ET, and ONLY ET, should be used and is superior to all other temperaments. Again, the only faction that argues that stand at great length are the AT folks. > 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 must have missed the discussion between you or Jon, since his post is the one I responded to, and David I. about what he meant by the comment. I somehow didn't read all that in those two words. What I did read from Jon was that ET has a constrictor hold over everyone and ET tuners are all afraid to learn a new temperament. I suppose that means David's two word comment was taken by Jon, and apparently you, as speaking for the entire number of tuners of ET. > I offer no condemnation of any temperament, I use them all. And I have offered neither condemnation, nor endorsement of any temperament whatsoever that I'm aware of. Neither have I said that a tuner not following my tuning philosophy is failing to progress and is not following because of fear or prejudice. >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. And as I've said before, temperament tuning is not the only measure of progress in piano technology, as least not for most technicians. It isn't even piano specific. There is considerable progress being made in piano technology by people who don't feel particularly deficient for not pursuing ATs, and describing all technicians not pursuing your specific interest as fearful, prejudiced against anything but ET, and self limiting isn't a lot different from the approach of your colleague in Madison. >. 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. Not to the people doing it. To them, it is quite practical and has been necessary for a very long time. What percentage of techs out there do you suppose restring pianos, recap bridges, replace actions, or even just the occasional set of hammers - compared to all the techs who tune? What's the cutoff point at which piano work becomes academic and impractical? Isn't imposing this sort of arbitrary judgement of what's worthwhile and what isn't limiting your progress as a technician? >Tuning styles affect virtually all techs immediately and >financially. is it any wonder that tuning would be a major subject among us? No wonder at all, and I haven't objected to discussions on tuning styles. What I object to is the characterization of anyone tuning ET as insisting on the superiority of the temperament above all others, and being fearful and progress limited as a tech because they tune ET. > The use of non-ET temperaments brings harmonic judgements into question. >This is really touchy to many techs. Is it? I don't read "touchy". I read "can't tell the difference", which tends to make the AT folks "touchy". I read discussions and disagreements among AT tuners about the appropriateness of a given temperament for a specific piece of music or venue. I read disagreements between AT tuners about what temperament is appropriate for what use, and I read that disagreements are ok, as long as you're trying different temperaments than ET. >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. And with what I think is probably a majority of tuners now using ETDs there's not much different to learn except to apply the specific template and follow the spinner. So it must surely be fear and loathing, rather than just a lack of interest that's preventing universal use of multiple temperaments. Personally, I'm baffled that so few people are interested in learning something about soundboards, preferring to spend their time wondering why they can't voice or tune away that treble "dink", killer octave and tubby low tenor break. > >> 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". My mistake. Jon's comment apparently had nothing to do with any of that - somehow. Nor did yours that not tuning ATs is limiting a tech's progress. >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. All of which is incidental to my point, which I apparently again failed to make in the last post. >There isn't any bias one way >or another, so let's not be poisoned by singular odd perspectives. As I explained above. >Well, David's posting of "ET rules" is sorta like saying "ET is supreme" >isn't it? Only if your comment about lack of a technician's progress equates to "retarded", and research on soundboard design is "useless". How does "sorta like" become absolute declaration in the presence of an AT? And why didn't anyone ask him what he meant? >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. No, it isn't. So why is it still being defended as if it were? > Once again, please don't let one extreme viewpoint come to represent a >whole class of technicians. That's exactly what I'm protesting. >Remaining fixed on a single temperament can be a >problem, discussing the value of change is not. >Regards, > >Ed Foote RPT Again, remaining "fixed" on a single temperament is no more a problem than dismissing improvements in soundboard design as "academic". Considerably less so, in my opinion. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC