>Thank you for your post. Ron wanted a *brief* description of what Reverse >Well is and I gave it to him twice. This was not good enough for him, so I >wrote the long version. It seems to me that Ron expected that I could not >define it and when I did, he wrote what he was planning to write anyway, some >kind of nasty, condescending, inflammatory response. * What I wanted was a meaningful description of your terminology, limited to that description, without three pages of anecdotal evidence of the superiority of your tuning method. The first two descriptions were superficial and dismissive, and I asked for clarification. I had no doubt that you could define it, just whether you would. When your explanation indicated that the condition was just a failed attempt at ET, because the tuner hadn't used whatever tests were necessary to meet the guidelines for ET, I said so. Reading the rest of your post here, I wonder if I may not have misinterpreted something you wrote in your definition of reverse Well. You seemed to be describing a series of consecutive thirds in which the beat rates weren't progressive. Now I'm wondering if you weren't describing progressive thirds, but with detectably uneven beat rate progressions as the signature of reverse Well. Please clarify this for me. So you will know where this is going, I am trying to determine with some degree of certainty, just how fine a hair you are splitting here. > It seems to me that what I said threatened Ron's peace of >mind and really made him wonder if he is making the errors that I >identified. * If your awaited clarification of my above question indicates that you are talking about less than absolutely perfectly spaced, but progressive, thirds beat progressions, you are correct, but I wouldn't consider it an issue worthy of the adrenaline. If you mean consecutive thirds that aren't beat progressive, you are incorrect. >I stick with what I said before, you really need to know how a Well-Tempered >Tuning sounds before you can be sure that what you are tuning is not a >backwards version of it. * So one should learn to tune ET correctly by learning to tune Well, and reverse Well, and then being careful to do neither from then on. Why not teach these misguided souls some aural checks to improve their ET. I still submit that someone who can't tune an acceptable ET, can't tune an acceptable HT either, unless the standards for the HT are so loose that it doesn't matter. Tuning skills will apply to any temperament you care to learn, as will their lack. You can't have it one way without the other. If the standard temperament was Well, would there be a majority of aural tuners producing ET by mistake, all the while believing they were doing Well? >Well, by now, I guess a few more people know what Reverse Well is than did >before. I put the words in capitals because it is a proper subject. I could >say that I consider Reverse Well as a *capital* offense against music but that >would just be a joke. > >Regards, >Bill Bremmer RPT >Madison, Wisconsin > And that would be a shame. Ron
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC