In a message dated 98-02-13 08:10:07 EST, you write:
<< I was really hoping that Bill Bremmer was still on and would give his
answer if he has had a chance to sample the digital pianos with their version
of the historical temperaments and what his opinion would be on their
accuracy. Yes, I really would like to know his opinion on this subject, so if
you are still there, Bill? >>
Thank you for the question. I am happy to respond although I am not a
subscriber at present and will not have time to partcipate actively for a few
weeks, at the least.
I have not seen or heard the newest Electronic Keyboards (EK) that Les
Smith spoke of. However, I have seen others that offered HT's. I and other
Madison Chapter Members have noted that while the temperaments offered were
unequal and differed from thne ET mode, they were questionable as to what they
really were. This leads only to more questions and I hope that someone on the
List will find a way to inquire with the manufacturers (Kurzweil & others)
about where they got the information on HT's and how it may have been adapted
to the EK.
You would think that if the EK in question were state-of-the-art and top-
of-the-line, that every effort would have been made to present the real "Mc
Coy". But this leads back to the discussion of HT's on modern pianos. In all
of the literature there is on HT's, Jorgensen's et al, the only topic
addressed is the temperament itself. There are two very important questions
remaining if the temperament is to be properly effected on the modern piano:
inharmonicity and octave stretching (the two being related problems).
One of the problems that was immediately noticed with the early EK's was
the fact that each key was merely tuned to a theoretical ET frequency. They
also had artificial or synthesized sounds and cheap, crummy little speakers.
This made them easy to scoff at as being clearly inferior to a real piano.
They also did not have a full 88 key keyboard and the touch was that springy,
electronic organ type that offered no mechanical interaction to the player.
While these could serve as a substitute for a real piano, they actually
made people appreciate a real piano more than anything else. They also
replaced, to a large degree, the pianos that truly were poorly made. There
were manufacturers who were trying to make a low cost piano that they really
expected to only last about 15 years. The public did not want these. For one
thing, they could not be tuned to standard pitch and hold on to it with any
realistic expectation. The EK's, obviously did not have that problem.
This is one reason why I have strongly defended certain very ordinary
pianos on this List. I feel it is imortant to distinguish between those which
are well-built and serviceable and those which are not. Many of those which
were really no good are already gone. If a piano can hold up for 20 years or
more and can still be tuned to standard pitch, it has been well-made. It may
well need cleaning, action tightening, alignment, regulation and voicing along
with repairs and some possible correction of original defective workmanship
but these activities are our business.
We need to learn and know how to handle these kinds of service
requirements with ease and efficiency and be able to do them for a price the
customer can afford and still make a good living for ourselves. That is our
challenge. If we continually badmouth the Kimballs, Wurlitzers, Acrosonics,
etc. and have the attitude that there is no good way to tune them, that they
are too much trouble to take apart and routinely service, and we show that
attitude to the customer by our words and our body language and by telling
them "it's not worth the cost of..." and by quoting prices for services that
are way beyond that of being realistic, the public will increasingly turn to
the EK's, no matter what their limitations are.
As EK's developed, they added the Digitally Recorded Sampled Sound (DRSS)
of real pianos like the Steinway and Bösendorfer. They also added the so-
called "stretch tuning". I went to a demonstration at a Dealer's a good 10
years ago where he was saying that these would be used in TV commercials. He
proclaimed that no one would be able to tell the difference between the EK and
a real piano when used in this situation.
The commercial's sound is all packaged up and compressed and you hear it
over your TV's sound system, whatever that is. I remarked at that time that I
thought I'd still be able to tell the difference. The dealer said to me
directly, "Well, maybe YOU would, Bill, after all you're a little different
than most people". Most of the general public probably doesn't think about
or care if the music they hear on a TV commercial is a real piano or not. I
might not have ever paid attention either but ever since that dealer said that
to me, I always notice the sound of a keyboard, real piano or otherwise over
TV or radio whether I want to or not. Most of these studios that produce
these commercials have long ago gotten rid of their real pianos. Why pay a
tuner all the time for a tuning that doesn't last on an instrument which is
difficult to properly record when they can just plug in to this EK and get
something they can at least depend on? The longer that kind of sound is the
only thing ever heard, the more the public accepts it as the norm.
EK's have come a long way but they still produce a clearly artificial,
imitation sound that is clearly distinguishable. If we don't support quality
piano sound on all pianos, large and expensive, and small and ordinary alike,
the public will gradually accept that imitation sound and forget the real one.
They may even learn to prefer it as people seemingly have learned to prefer
the smooth, rounded off sound of ET over the powerful, vibrant and emotional
sounds that the HT's can have.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about octave stretching and how
much is appropriate. I have realized in my own work that the amount of
inharmonicity a piano has and the situation the piano is being used in can
both affect the decision. I wonder what criteria the EK manufacturers use?
Is it some kind of average? Are there simply some mathematical multiples or
arbitrary percentages?
With regard to the HT's: Where was this information obtained? Were
deviations from ET that were published in a book the source used? How, if at
all were any compensations made for octave stretching?
Several years ago, Wendy Carlos produced a sequel to the original
"Switched On Bach" recording called "Switched on Bach 2000". In the liner
notes she describes the discovery of the effect that the HT's can have on the
synthesized music. It is the most extensive, laudatory and elaborate
discussion of the merits of HT's I have ever seen in a commercially produced
recording.
Carlos recognized that ET was not providing the shades of color that
performing musicians provide when they play their instruments expressively
using vibrato and other techniques. She discovered that the HT's provided a
facsimile of these shades principally by the varied speeds of the Rapidly
Beating Intervals (RBI). This is a point that I have been trying to make.
Some seem to feel that the emotion in music can come from other sources and it
surely can but to ignore the potential that lies in the HT's is to really
ignore a great number of possibilities.
Yes, you can have a I-IV-V7 structure and leave it unresolved in ET and it
will still leave the listener "hanging" much the same as it would if the piano
were tuned in an HT and as it would if the piano were simply out-of-tune. It
would do it in Reverse-Well too. That's not really the point. The harmonic
structure of music is essentially unaffected by the temperament, but the kind
and quality of temperament you apply to it will act as a spice does to a
recipe.
Some of these national chain restaurants all have certain recipes that
their cooks (not chefs) must follow. Everything has been pre-determined to
offend no one. These places are of course a dependable source for a good
meal. But when you want something distinctive, individual, prepared by a chef
who has his own ideas about what will titilate the palate, you go to an
individually owned and operated restaurant. Some will say "that food is too
hot and spicey for me". Others will say, "I don't go there, everything is so
bland". It's all a matter of taste and preference. But if the only thing
available is that which has been pre-determined by those who control the
industry, the public is not even aware of that which might interest them.
They might be so used to that which is ordinary and bland that they find
anything else strange and shocking.
I hope everyone on the List will buy Ed Foote's CD. It really is quite
good. But if I had to summarize my personal feelings about it in just a few
words, I'd say, "Too smooth! A little rougher next time, please!" From what
Ed has said here on the List and in the way he tuned the piano in the
recording, Ed is very consciously concerned about offending anyone with
something they just might find to sound out-of-tune. He produced a sound for
the piano that has crystal-like clarity. But this is only one of the
virtually infinite possibilities. He could have, for example, used the same
temperament but stretched his 6th & 7th octaves quite a bit more for a
different sound. This might have been more appropriate if it were a concert
hall recording rather than a studio one.
While I have never heard Beethoven sound better in a commercial CD, I
know that there are other temperaments which can bring out far more color than
that which was used. This is not really a criticism of Ed's choice as much as
it is of the status quo that forces him to be so constrained. The pianist
might not have liked anything any stronger. Why? She simply has never
experienced anything stronger. She might be shocked by it and instantly
demand, "Back to ET!".
Even though the tempering was so mild, there were still technicians on the
List who thought they heard sounds which were "out-of-tune" to their ears.
This is because they have trained themselves to think and respond to a very
narrow band of tolerance. While exacting standards are good, the narrow range
of what is acceptable and not becomes much like the standardized recipes in
the chain restaurants. The tuning is rounded off and equalized to the point
where there is no longer any texture to it. Nothing stands out. It offends
no one, supposedly.
People come to accept that sound whether they ever stated a preference for
it or not. It was served to them without their consent. Yes, there may have
been people who stated a preference for ET in the early part of the 20th
Century just like there were taste tests that made the determinations about
what combinations would offend no one, the choice of ET was made back then
and more or less forced upon the general public. The public has forgotten to
a large degree that there could be anything else. When given the choice
between any two alternatives, it is easy to influence the outcome. "Regular
or MEANtone?"
So, in my view, serving up ET as the only offering is in itself imposing
an individual technician's idea of what is right or making an assumption of
what the customer wants without asking, even if this is what the majority of
the tuning profession does and believes to be proper. The problem is
complicated and complex because there is so little common knowledge and
understanding about what the alternatives may be. I am influenced by this as
well for I feel that most of the time if I am going to do an HT, I have to do
what Ed did and tune something that will offend no one. I really get a
distinct pleasure out of tuning a stronger temperament for a customer who
knows the difference, understands it and asks for it by name.
We need to keep ahead of the EK competion by being able to provide
something which they can never successfully duplicate with the artificial,
imitation sounds that their products offer.
Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC