tuning wars

[Ron Nossaman]

Hi all, and to whom,

I don't seem to read anything at all in these discussions about the aspect
of tuning I rely on the most - minimum garbage. I see tuning as a sort of
aural sculpture where, through whatever process you use, you systematically
remove or disguise everything that doesn't sound like a tuning. Since no
piano is perfect, and these list discussions have dispelled all doubt that
no tuner is either, the final determination as to whether the tuning is
'right' or not is based on the relative absence of negative features. I've
never heard anyone critique a tuning by saying the piano sounds less
wonderful in the treble than in the bass. They would say they didn't like
the treble. One removes nasties until what's left is what the piano has to
offer. We try to achieve 'less bad', (if I may borrow Del's terminology for
a moment) or more accurate in this case, 'least bad under the given
circumstances and criteria'. The component of the formula that seems to be
most at issue in the list discussions is the criteria part. A lot of
opinions are given concerning the tools used, but the criteria for judgement
during the process is what it's really about, not the tools. 'My
justification is shinier than yours'. We are all witnesses to the same
accident, and each and every one of us saw it differently. How about if we
worry a little less about who has "stars on thars" and get a little more
entertainment and educational value into and out of the posts? Yea, yea, I
know. Work-arounds are necessary, and there are often very large gaps
between the theoretical and the possible (much less practical) and the more
information we have the better informed we are, but it's starting to read
like a "How many (insert personal passions here) can dance on the head of a
tuning hammer?" debate. Now, before someone calls me down for posting a
non-technical time waster, please re-read the 'minimum garbage' part and
hush up. It ain't non-technical. %-)

 
 Ron