tuning <> TUNING

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Isaac writes: 
>ET have a lot of consonance happily, particularly because of the iH and
>the spectra of the grand piano.
>My guess is that what you call consonance is flatness, or dullness in some
>case. Makes me think of the Barocco thing, where musicians unable to produce
>music with a good sound became specialists of a thing that nobody can judge
>objectively.

    I am not familiar with "The Barocco" thing", and it appears that we may 
have a semantic problem here.  Physical consonance, in my use of the word, is 
the lack of tempering.  I think that can be very easily and objectively 
demonstrated.     Yes,  Meantone, with its consonant thirds, can sound flat 
or dull when used for music that was written for something else.  For most 
pre 1700  keyboard music, it is a necessity if one wants to hear what the 
composer had in mind. 
      Does "in tune" mean harmonically "Just", or all intervals alike?  These 
are two very different definitions of "in tune".   The first is based on 
physical characteristics of the combinations, the second is based on 
conditioned reflex.  
  
>I have the Beethoven CD, don't like the way the pianist brutalize the
>instrument and the music, nor the piano sound, ugly treble   and
>uninteresting medium. You cant mask capo noises with the tuning, it is
>better to revitalize the hammer and mate it to strings.

     You will need to further translate this,  are you saying the unisons are 
too clean, and would have sounded better with looseness in them?  If so, you 
are tuning for different customers than  I have been guided by.  
    As far as Mrs. Katahn brutalizing the sound and piano, this is an 
interesting and unique description of her playing.  
 
  > The tuning don't hold well in the treble, and I feel you where obliged
>to close too much the unison, in an attempt to have them stable, let me tell
>you it did not work.

    "Close too much the unison" doesn't make clear sense to me, unless you 
are saying the unisons are too clean.   Stability and unison agreement are 
two different things to me, so I am again, not sure of your meaning.  

>The unisons, octaves and bass tuning sound as the work I done 2 years ago,
>focusing on partial match at the detriment of the warmness and bloom of
>the sound.

    One of the most common denominators in the response of well-tempered 
customers is how much "warmer" the piano sounds.  ET is regarded as cold.  
These are odd adjectives to apply to aural sensations, but they are used a 
lot.  What is curious is the apparent 180 degree reversal in your usage.  The 
double octaves on my tuning in this recording are as pure as I can get them,  
listening closely, you may hear a very slight beat in the single octaves 
above C5.  If your reservation is that they are still too tight,  then we 
simply have a different taste in sound. 

>May be it is because I am used to European Steinway, but I don't
>like these mushy hammers artificially hardened , they can't accept hard 
playing
>and they don't help the tone.

    The hammers were Renner Blues that had never seen lacquer,(though this 
was done on a school piano and the hammers were 5 years old).

 
>I guess too that tuning the piano in these different ways does not allow
>for enough precision in unisons. It may be more useful on an historic
>instrument, more forgiving. 

   Precision in unisons as a function of temperament?  I don't think they are 
dependant on one another,but would be happy to hear the logic.  I tune my 
unisons aurally, and this is the first time I have heard that they sounded 
out.  
 
>I would not say that if I did not understood recently that it is a matter
>of bizzness to you, please don't take too much people with you in this 
foolish
>trade, pianists are in need of very good tuners more than ever, and they
>are too rare now ...

    Well, tuning is a business to me,  I assumed it was also to you, so I 
miss your point.  I learned to tune to make a living, and my tuning now 
represents what I have found to sell, best.  I have presented my tunings to 
numerous conventions and chapters and haven't been told that the unisons were 
a problem with anything.   Also, my customers are at the high end of things 
around here, so what exactly is the "foolish trade"?  

 >Having a professional appreciation and knowledge of temperaments is well 
something
>desirable, but all the mystics sold with it is a little too much for me.
>And remember the pitch can well be very different at the times involved, so
>don't talk about emotional content.


    Emotional engagement is what my temperament customers have all mentioned 
as being heightened by unequal tuning.  They unanimously regard ET now as 
sterile sounding, so we seem to be working for two distinctly different 
audiences.   The variation of pitch standard is of no consequence in the 
relationships between keys, so you lost me there.  
    If one is to avoid talking about the emotional content of the music, I am 
not certain there is much to talk about, anyway.   Perhaps you could clarify 
your post a little further, or perhaps point me towards a recording of your 
tuning so that I could hear the difference for myself??
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT