Hi Jim,
Exactly the response that I expected, I'm playing the devil's
advocate. But I have an underlying set of questions and observations.
Whilst RPT's have passed a tuning exam, many of them cannot trouble shoot,
what I would consider basic action problems, and do not have a full
understanding of the inter relationships of action adjustments, and tone
production. So should we try to revisit what is being done in this area?
If we are to improve standards then some attention is needed in this
direction.
Question. Has the system become too focused on Tuning, to the detriment of
other technical skills? So much is talked about spicing a string!! A
practice that I personally think should only be used as a last resort type
of fix.
On the question of false beats. I frequently drop the tension in the killer
octave to polish a pressure bar to get rid of grooves. Epoxying a bridge
pin is also a frequent fix for a somewhat similar symptom.
On the hammer line, I was thinking more in terms of shallow dip, raising
the line to get dip, and promise to regulate later. (smile)
A review like you are undertaking is healthy for every one. Bravo.
Regards Roger
At 09:25 PM 16/02/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Roger:
>
>You asked now often I have "cheated" on the hammerline. Answer: very often.
>A dropped hammerline is the greatest cause for no aftertouch. I must confess
>that a few times I have "cheated" on letoff, but mostly to disempower a
>banger or string breaker.
>
>At the present time, we do not have any test for voicing. In giving the
>test, we try to use pianos with a bare minimum of false beats in order to
>give the examinee a fighting chance. Most of the remedies for false beats
>are merely temporary unless dealt with in the rebuilding process.
>
>Jim Coleman, Sr.
>
>
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roger Jolly wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>> A well written, thought provoking post. Loosen the standards on
>> temperament, but tighten the standards on false beat elimination and
>> voicing. These two items mentioned, has a big effect on tuning, and
>> ultimately the musicality of the instrument.
>> Also some cause and effect test in the practical regulation part of the
>> test. As an expert tech, how many times have you cheated on a hammer line
>> to get after touch? 20mins and the piano feels a lot better, vs a complete
>> regulation.
>> Regards Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> At 04:32 PM 16/02/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> >I thought there may be some who would be interested in the latest Tuneoff.
>> >
>> >At the California State Conference Feb 12-14, I taught a class on Advanced
>> >Tuning. At the beginning of each class I presented two identical pianos
>> >which had just been tuned in different temperaments. One was just a
standard
>> >SAT FAC tuning which incidentally is a very good tuning on a Yamaha C3.
The
>> >other tuning was the Moore 18th Century Well Temperament which had some
>> >notes tuned 2.5 and 3.0 cents off from equal temperament.
>> >
>> >After playing identical selections on the two pianos, I asked the class
>> >which piano they thought was the one with the "funny" tuning (actually, I
>> >used the words Moore Well tempered tuning). In the Friday class, the
voting
>> >was fairly even. 54% thought the FAC tuning was the Well Tempered
Tuning and
>> >only 46% guessed correctly. In the Sunday afternoon class, 80% thought
that
>> >the FAC Tuning was the Well Tempered Tuning. I next asked which piano they
>> >liked best as far as tuning was concerned. It was almost unanimously
decided
>> >in favor of the Well Tempered Tuning. All of the voting was done
without the
>> >audience really knowing which piano had which tuning.
>> >
>> >I asked for a show of hands as to how many in the audience were musicians.
>> >My estimate was at about 95%. I confessed my ulterior motive for doing
this
>> >kind of demonstration. In 1977 Dr. Sanderson and I were asked by the then
>> >President Don Morton to develop a standardized Tuning test for the Guild.
>> >We adjusted our scoring procedures so that 80% of the then RTT members
would
>> >pass at the 80% score. Being a perfectionist as I am in some areas, I
began
>> >pushing for tighter scoring in the Temperament area. We later adopted a
>> >multiplier system such that the total error points would be multiplied by
>> >2.5 and then subtracted from 100% to give the final Temperament Score.
>> >We have used this tighter scoring procedure for almost 20 years now. The
>> >question in my mind is: "Have we tightened our scoring to satisfy the
>> >elitests? Are we now just 'gilding the Lily'? If an audience of piano
>> >technicians who are also musicians cannot tell the difference between
>> >equal temperament and a mild historical temperament, are we on an ego
trip?
>> >Are we setting standards to protect our little clique? Are our
standards set
>> >to protect the public from shoddy work? Which is it?"
>> >
>> >I asked for a show of hands in the advanced tuning class for those who
think
>> >we have elevated our temperament standards too high. The voting was almost
>> >unanimous. I mentioned that I had talked to some very well respected
tuners
>> >who also agreed with me that we are guilding the lily. I do believe that
>> >we should keep the 1 cent tolerance for scoring the points in the
mid-range
>> >and temperament section, but that we should relax the conversion
>> >multipliers. I further believe that we should add some questions in our
>> >written test to include various test intervals to be used in making
>> >decisions as to whether an interval is too wide or too narrow. With this
>> >covered in the written test, we can save time during the tuning test
scoring
>> >by eliminating much of the hesitancy on the part of the examinee in
>> >aurally verifying his penalty points. I do still believe that Equal
>> >Temperament should be our testing standard, but that we have just
>> >made it more difficult for associate members to upgrade because of our
>> >arbitrarily tightened standards.
>> >
>> >This is the third year in which I have conducted this type of test in my
>> >classes. The results have been even more demonstrative in other
classes. At
>> >the Arizona Conference this year and at the Calif. State Conf. last year,
>> >almost the entire audience guessed wrong when asked to identify the piano
>> >which had the Well temperament.
>> >
>> >My question to this group is: Do you feel that our temperament standards
>> >are a little too high? I would like some feedback. I am not promoting
>> >Historical or hysterical tunings. In all of the classes where I have done
>> >this type of test, it was conceded that both tunings were good tunings.
>> >
>> >Have I opened a "can or worms" or what?
>> >
>> >Jim Coleman, Sr.
>> >
>> Roger Jolly
>> Baldwin Yamaha Piano Centre
>> Saskatoon and Regina
>> Saskatchewan, Canada.
>> 306-665-0213
>> Fax 652-0505
>>
>
Roger Jolly
Baldwin Yamaha Piano Centre
Saskatoon and Regina
Saskatchewan, Canada.
306-665-0213
Fax 652-0505
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC