If

[JIMRPT@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/21/99 4:27:19 PM, Don wrote:

<<"If unisons are *really* the only thing that matters">>

Don;
If did someone say that unisons were "the only thing that matters"??
Name the scurrilous dog and we shall all chastise him forthwith and maybe
fifthwidth too.

<<"(i.e. everyone agrees about what a unison *is*)">>
Hah ! :-) 
(but thankfully there is only one definiton of unison)

<<"and if *everything* else is really just a matter of *taste*">>

  Well let's see here now Mr. D., in this past year how many different styles
of temperaments have been published in the Journal??? Are they all right, or
all wrong except one?? Isn't each of those temperaments a "matter of taste"?
  Haven't we agreed, more or less, that not all equal temperaments are equal,
and that not all historical temperaments are historical, and that what works
best for the person doing the work, and the customer, is what should be used?

<<"then why don't we have a pretest based on doing a single unison?">>

  Hmm..doesn't the "pretest" checklist have the unison stability excercises
built into it? I thought it did.  I think, if I recall correctly, that the
only instance of a designated stability test during the tuning exam is on
unisons and that it covers the middle two octaves...is that correct?

  I suppose there are many ways of looking at this thingee
but.................here is how I see it...just for discussion sake:
Good temperament + solid unisons  = good tuning
Good temperament + shaky unisons = not so good tuning
Not so good temperament + solid unisons = not so good tuning
Not so good temperament + shaky unisons = bad tuning
(all the above are disregarding individual stretch preferences of course)

  Of course I may be accused of slanting my list with a personal bias
but......
Jim Bryant (FL)
ps-I don no bout da rest of y'all but i'm bout reddy for dis cold weather to
give way to SPRING!!