<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Feb 3, 2007, at 8:02 AM, <A href="mailto:rwest1@unl.edu">rwest1@unl.edu</A> wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>My reply here is: Is there a difference? I'm certainly a "Vive la difference" kind of guy. But my point is that we've emphasized the "differences" rather than the similarities. Good concert work among good concert techs results in tunings that are not really different, one to the next. If we can refine and perhaps redefine the way we describe a concert tuning, we would have a more solid basis for communicating a quality standard and helping those that use ETD's to avoid the confusion about the "proper" stretch. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>As to the "guru" of the month, a better concert tuning standard would be more professional. We have lots of books describing the basics of tuning, but few that really describes what concert tuning sounds like. Describing a sound is difficult, but we have aural tests and they could be taken to another level to more accurately characterize what we're all doing. The "guru" idea is one held by the public and one that is romantic to plug into I admit. But we really know a good tuning comes down to decent ears, patience, some skill with a tuning lever, and a good idea of what a good aural tuning is.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Richard West</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>Hi Richard,<BR><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>I suspect it might be possible to come up with a more or less consensus "vanilla" concert tuning that a reasonable majority would call acceptable. And it may be that the differences in style are not perceived by the average music lover. That said, we have been discussing tuning and fussing with it in a pretty well-defined way for decades, and the result is continued disagreement - note that the trend with ETDs is for more and more customizable programs, and no one has come up with a pre-loaded page for the D that is universally acceptable.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>Twenty or more years ago, I might have said there are two major concert tuning schools: "PTG" and "Steinway basement." "PTG" fusses with every single interval, and is rather conservative when it comes to keeping octaves "dead on." "Steinway basement" sets a quick, reasonable good temperament without fussing, tunes outward listening to octave and fifth, aiming for wide octave and beatless fifth, and puts most emphasis on rock solid stability and crystal clean unisons. I think there is more variety today than that today.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>What does a good concert tuning sound like? I think there would be considerable disagreement, except with regard to unisons (which are king). OTOH, there is probably a considerable range of tuning that would be found acceptable to most, if they just heard the piano played musically (IOW, our level of disagreement is probably overstated in its significance).<BR><DIV><DIV>Regards,</DIV><DIV>Fred Sturm</DIV><DIV>University of New Mexico</DIV><DIV><A href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>