At 09:39 PM 10/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >That goes along with my comments that the disagreements on the amount of >stretch among those setting up the master tuning doesn't normally affect >the final outcome of the test. 0.2 cents may change how the tuning >sounds to well trained ears, but with a two cent window for a target >in the midrange, the exact amount of stretch the examinee uses is the >least >of his worries! Better to concentrate on the basics of good stable equal >temperament. Dean, I could not agree with you more. Your wisdom and years as a CTE are quite evident in this statement. When I first took the tuning exam in 1984, I was so sure that there was a problem with my temperment octave, that I neglected to concentrate my attentions on other aspects of the exam. I did pass, and I had done very well in the temperamment, but I had failed to reach my own goal of getting above 90% in all areas. I noticed that we have had two different conversations going in our last posts. One for the examinees and one between examiners. You made a good point that there are safegaurds within the PTG Tuning Exam process. My intent is to discuss what motivates us to stretch our octaves. Stephen Haasch has added two points for consideration. 1) Using different interval checks and priorities can produce different kinds of stretch. 2) It would be interesting to examine what defines the amount of stretch involved in the tuning exam. I've enjoyed adding my 2 cents (or in this case .2 cents) to the conversation. I hope that I was not too much of a bear that night in Dearborn. :>) I do love the master tuning process. I find it an excellent outlet for exploring the fine details of tuning with other good technicians. I am not ashamed of my arguing a point of stretch in fine tuning. I might even learn something and become convinced to improve my own tuning style. Papa Bear Robert S. Bussell Registered Piano Technician P.T.G. Indianapolis In. rbussell@iquest.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC