----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Coleman, Sr. <pianotoo@imap2.asu.edu>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Tuneoff
| Hi to Ric Moody:
|
| Thanks for accepting the challenge. As I mentioned in the proposal,
I
| would wear earplugs and ear muffs, so , yes, it really would be
machine
| against the ear which was my main point in the first place.
Well thank you. Advantage mine then. Gentleman Jim is offering me a
handicap in that being the best tuner of unisons on the planet he is
relinquishing his edge to a machine. It will truely be Man against
Machine.
Regarding your offer of the winner's prize, If I win I think the
machine's manufacturer, not you should pay my dues in consideration of
my offer. If you, I mean the machine wins, I will buy the machine.
Since the machine is worth, what 6 years dues, and the company stands
to make a profit if I loose, they should stake you for that amount,
it should not have to come out of your pocket.
If the outcome is to be determined soley by audience that lets in a
wider margin of error so to speak, then I am confident it will be a
tie, so no money is really at stake.
|If you have
| any suggestions as to what would define the experiment any further,
| please feel free to add any other qualifications
As far as the judging I am hoping there can be several methods in
addition to the audience. I would like to see tuners come in and go
through prescribed seqences enabling them to judge
the various intervals on "score cards" . A few might listen to one play
the intervals to save time.
| It was
| worth it though, because it was an SD10 rebuilt by Rick Baldassin
and
| Michael Spreeman
I am sure many and me most of all wonder, why that tuner in South
Dakota? Jim knows tons of
tuners, RPTs and Examiners, tuners at major universities and venues.
Why not Rick Baldassin whose name is on a temperament tuning method.?
Hmmm, on thinking into this, Jim has heard me tune in his home on his
own piano, and knows his advantages already. ; ) (If his Steinway L
shows up as one of the tuneoff pianos I am a dead duck.) (Or for any
L, I claim foul.) He has 20 years experience on me as a major
player (OK, tuner) in the music industry and a Guild icon. Not that
I am making excuses but it might be prudent to consider an alternate
in case I can't make it to Chicago as planned, or suppose someone
really wants the challange and wins a "play off" tuneoff.
Actually if the machine is to prove its superiority it should go
against a tuner who has won a few pleminaries. This though I don't
think is possible as any good tuner should not be demonstrably better
than another good tuner (or one of them is not yet a good tuner) and
all of this can only be determined by other good tuners. We know that
a machine so far, is not demostrably better than a good aural tuner.
If that were the case, good tuners would have switched to machines
because good tuners would never pass up an opportunity to improve.
So perhaps the objective of a machine vs ear tuneoff is to show that
machines are as good or nearly as good as an aural tuner. In that
case the ETD has it easy. But if the objective is to prove the
machine better, it is a set up for failure because "as good" or almost
as good" is not "better". Now should the machine come out "better"
then the tuner has fallen below the standards of "good" or if not the
machine is finally better than the human ear.
But how can this be determined? What qualifies a good tuning? How
can any tuning be judged, and then its quality be shown? If a better
tuning is to mean anything in the music world it must be recognized
and demonstrated in a way it can be heard by players and then
hopefully by their listeners. Since hearing and listening is the
primary experience of music, the desired standards of tuning can only
be determined by aural evaluation.
A set of aural tests and evaluations should be agreed on. This could
be complied through suggestions and then agreed on in the comming
weeks. I have forgotten the questionair the audience filled out. We
could start from there.
|This time in the
| judging, the audience knew who had tuned which piano because of the
| different appearance of the two pianos. We can rule out this
possibility
| of favoritism this time if the pianos are visually equivalent.
Put the piano behind a curtain. Drape them might be better. Use 3
pianos, one is a "dummy", ie, in tune but not tuned by either of us.
The audience is told two of the 3 pianos are being tuned each time but
one isn't. If the "control" piano has widely varying results in the
two sessions, then that is an indication the judging is not
consistant.
In the end take one piano away and ask the audience which of the
two they would prefer for the lead in a piano duo. and other
questions about tonal differences after the tuning questions have been
completed. Would be interesting to make up question and evaluation
sheets from suggestions off the list.
| I guess the next step is to see if the new Institute Committee would
be
| interested in having this on the docket for Chicago next Summer.
The interest in the list is sufficient incentive for the Committee I
think.
There has also been interest in tuneoffs between the various machines.
This might simply be arranged by offering the exhibitors a chance to
get their pianos tuned free and a bunch of people showing up to
evaluate that tuning, thus showing off their pianos in the process,
exactly what they came to do. This way anyone who wants should be
able to get a crack at comparative tuning.
I do like his idea of doing this in Bergen,
| however, because I have never been able to enjoy the scenery there
except
| through the National Geographic Magazine. Hey Ric, all we need now
are
| sponsors to get us over there and back. I could use the vacation
Charge admission to the tuneoff. Sell videos, recordings, tee shirts,
autograph photos..........Book passage on a Greek freighter.
---ric aka Richard Moody
-------------------------randoms-------------------------
A set of aural tests and evaluations should be agreed on. The
intervals have a beat rate or tonal quality derived from a theoritical
norm. It is the sound of these intervals that determines how close
this norm is realized. The ear is trained to hear this. Just as ear
training is taught in music theory, a similar ear training is taught
in aural tuning. It is not that difficult to point out to the
players and musicians how the beat rates of the 3rds or 10ths or 6ths
should sound. Likewise the tonal difference between a pure 5th and a
contracted 5th. All musicians and listeners can quickly be shown the
differences between unisons that beat slightly or those that are
beatless. The same with octaves. If quality of tuning is to be
appreciated in the music world a little knowledge about the subject
goes a long way in enhancing the appreciation. Who else but tuners
especially those who are musicians are better able to do this. If the
tuneoff can result in a standard of judgment of quality by the
listener then we are all winners. The highest stakes in this contest
to me are the educational opportunities to be gained or simply passed
by.
First comes detecting weaknesses and demonstrating improvement.
Finally a tuning is tested through and pronounced "can't improve".
Also how do you define "strictly aural"? I have used pocket tuners as
a pitch source. For 10 years the only thing I used my fork for was
to demonstrate how sensitive it was to the heat of your hand. I will
use a fork at the tuneoff though.
I would like to compare it to the SAT III at the time I first strike
it, to when I am finished with it.
When blindfolded we could be asked to tell who tuned which piano. If we
can't tell then we should make very good judges. I assume though the
tonal differences would be great enough to tell. Might be interesting
experiment in and of itself.
---------=-------------=-=-=-------------=======---=-=---------------==----
-----=----=---=-----=
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Coleman, Sr. <pianotoo@imap2.asu.edu>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Tuneoff
|If you have
| any suggestions as to what would define the experiment any further,
| please feel free to add any other qualifications. The procedures
which I
| mentioned in the original post were a result of having done this
before
| and are an attempt to make the deal as objective as possible.
|
|
| The weeks of voicing recommended by R. Breckne should not be
necessary
| since, if we trade pianos on the second heat, any differences in
tone
| quality would be negated. I do like his idea of doing this in
Bergen,
| however, because I have never been able to enjoy the scenery there
except
| through the National Geographic Magazine. Hey Ric, all we need now
are
| sponsors to get us over there and back. I could use the vacation, I
had
| to do 3 separate Church concert tunings yesterday from my wheelchair
(in
| one of them I had to crawl up ten steps to get to the piano. It was
| worth it though, because it was an SD10 rebuilt by Rick Baldassin
and
| Michael Spreeman - ask for details if interested).
|
| I guess the next step is to see if the new Institute Committee would
be
| interested in having this on the docket for Chicago next Summer.
|
| The first time in Chicago, Virgil and I had the choice of two fairly
well
| matched pianos (except one had a high polish finish and the other
didn't).
| In the first heat, it didn't make any difference because we had
tuned the
| pianos before the audience arrived just before noon. They didn't
know who
| had tuned which piano. During the second heat, we each tuned the
opposite
| piano before the audience for educational purposes. This time in the
| judging, the audience knew who had tuned which piano because of the
| different appearance of the two pianos. We can rule out this
possibility
| of favoritism this time if the pianos are visually equivalent.
|
| Another thing we learned from the first Tuneoff was that the
position of
| the pianos on stage made a difference as to which one sounded
better, so
| we exchanged the piano positions halfway through the listening time
to
| help balance out any advantage of position on stage.
|
| I know Richard B.was giving us some "tongue-in-cheek" treatment when
he
| suggested that detuning would take so much time. In the PTG Exam
rooms
| we take about 10 minutes for this, not an exact science, but
effective.
|
| We probably should have some acceptable alternates ready to carry on
for
| us if either of us should become ill. This only seems reasonable
when you
| consider all of the logistics involved in providing the pianos,
setting
| the schedule, moving the pianos before and during the contest, etc.
I
| have one or two people who may willing to wear the earplugs if it
became
| necessary, and I'm sure you could find many "dyed-in-the-wool" aural
| tuners who would jump at the chance to "defend the faith" if you
should
| become incapacitated. (Tom Servinsly has already volunteered, and if
he
| is related to the Tony Servinsky I knew, he's got to be
exceptionally
| good).
|
| Where would professional sports be today if they only played between
| their first and second teams and only at home. Competition has
driven the
| sports to greater heights of achievement. Could this happen in piano
| tuning? Could such an event stir up national interest and national
media
| coverage? Would piano owners become more critical in their selection
of
| pianos and piano tuners? Could we achieve such an interest in fine
piano
| sounds that it would once again be fun to make music rather than
play
| nintendo (I took seriously the remarks of Brian Chung at our opening
| assembly at Reno this summer). I think playing the piano IS fun, I
think
| that tuning a piano IS fun. I also think it is fun to tune aurally
as
| well as with ETDs (did you ever catch my class on "Strictly Aural
| Tuning?).
|
| Well, here I've gone to dreaming again.
|
| What are your thoughts?
|
| Jim Coleman, Sr.
|
| PS It was good to see you and Ric B in Reno.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC