In a message dated 10/6/00 8:20:03 AM Central Daylight Time, JIMRPT@AOL.COM writes: << Well we are never going to see eye to eye on this Bill Because I think you are as wrong as you think I am..........since we both are hardheaded and stubborn and both 'right'...we are just going to have to agree to disagree. >> Well, Jim I can back up what I say. As usual when talking about temperaments, I refer to the teachings of Professor Owen Jorgensen RPT. The primary reason that he (and consequently I) feel ET is best for the PTG Tuning Exam is that it is the most difficult of all temperaments to execute properly. If you can do it, you can do anything, so to speak. The very reason that few tuners could tune ET before the 20th Century is because of the amount of information required to do so. This information was not available back then. To tune ET, you must make 3 *estimates* before you can make a single check. Even then, it is possible to make errors along the way because of the *unavailability* of adequate checks and proofs that the temperament is progressing properly. In many HT's by contrast, absolute *proof* that each and every interval is correct is available at each and every step thus allowing the tuner to know with ease and for sure that the temperament is as intended. Add that to the fact that small errors *do not* affect the outcome of a typical HT as much and you have a strong argument to support the statement that "ET is the most difficult of all temperaments to tune." One glance at the instructions for ET in Jorgensen's book shows how complicated it is compared to the relatively simple instructions for most HT's. What evidence to you have to support your argument that ET is no more difficult in terms of + or - cent errors than any other temperament? Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC