Jorgensen vs Isacoff

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

Focusing on the theoretical attainability of ET as an argument to accept =
or reject it, I find to be disingenuous.  Even if we accept that =
"absolute" ET is unattainable, small deviations don't destroy the =
relative effect.  Your argument seems to be that since ET is =
theoretically unattainable, we should abandon it for EBVT or its =
equivalent.  I have heard the argument that it is easier to tune, more =
forgiving.  In other words, it tolerates greater deviations.  Thus, if =
we can expect to neither tune an absolutely perfect WT, what should we =
abandon that for?

The bottom line is, that small deviations can occur without destroying =
the effect.  And they routinely do occur.  If you put all the C&A tuners =
together and compared their tunings, I am sure you would find =
deviations.  I am also sure that each tuning would be more than =
acceptable to the most demanding concert artists. =20

The truth is, that tuning is as much art as science and it is the net =
effect that is important.  Your own argument for "tempered octaves" =
suggests that.  They are certainly far from "absolute".

To worry about the legitimacy of how the tuning labeled is a bit type A. =
 When Rubenstein missed several notes in the performance of the Lizst =
concerto, we didn't read that he performed the "quasi" Liszt concerto =
last night.  Accepting small deviations doesn't dumb down the standard.  =
It just acknowledges that though theoretical perfection is sought after, =
the failure to achieve should not be construed as failure.

David Love=20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Billbrpt@AOL.COM=20
  To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
  Sent: May 09, 2002 6:48 AM
  Subject: Re: Jorgensen vs Isacoff


  In a message dated 5/8/02 6:04:31 PM Central Daylight Time, =
piano@charlesneuman.net (Charles Neuman) writes:=20



    My only complaint about Jorgensen is that he uses a strict =
definition of=20
    ET and then applies it to other people's use of the term. It's fine =
for=20
    him to define ET as being good enough to pass the RPT tests, but I =
don't=20
    think it's fair for him to call someone "wrong" for using the term =
ET in a=20
    more general sense. In fact, Jorgensen could use his definition of =
ET and=20
    conclude that ET is not widely used in the world today because there =
is=20
    not a vast majority of tuners who can pass the RPT exams. Obviously, =
if=20
    he made that argument then "ET" would mean something different for =
him=20
    than it does most people who tune ET.=20

    On the other hand, Isacoff seems to be reckless with the term "equal =

    temperament", and I think he really means "non-restrictive =
temperament=20
    such that it wouldn't sound out of tune to an average listener". If =
he=20
    said that he defined "equal temperament" that way, then I don't =
think=20
    there would be much to argue about with his arguments. For example, =
he=20
    doesn't care whether it was possible to tune ET in Bach's time. His=20
    comment that "psychologically, Bach had accepted the idea of =
equality=20
    between all the keys" is really more about the movement towards less =

    restrictive temperaments than it is about the actual tuning of a=20
    temperament. He says that ET was a "philosophical ideal" at a =
certain=20
    point in history. Again, I think that's a comment about how =
temperaments=20
    became less an less restrictive over time, and it doesn't indicate =
that=20
    Isacoff is part of a conspiracy to eliminate key color.=20



  Thanks for bringing this up, Charles.  I'm also surprised that no one =
brought it up sooner.  My opinion is that both Jorgensen and Isacoff =
have felt forced to equivocate at times.  Jorgensen clearly points out =
that many near or "quasi" ET's have existed, even a couple where only =
one note had a deviation of 1 cent, rendering the temperament clinically =
unequal.  He strictly avoids the issue of how ET may not have really =
been as well established in the 20th Century as most people assume and =
believe it has.=20

  If he did, many of the people who can't really tune ET would think he =
is talking about them and have a reason to take public issue and offense =
to what he says.  He officially goes along with the idea that any 20th =
Century music should be performed in ET but he privately acknowledges =
that it is most often not a requirement.=20

  People often cite the PTG Tuning Exam as a source of authority.  The =
amazing thing is, however that absolutely no where in the entire exam =
manual is the word "equal" ever used or even implied with regard to =
temperament.  It has always been the assumption and consensus among =
those conducting the exams to use ET.  You can still pass the Exam with =
8 errors of up to 1.9 cents within the 13 notes of your temperament =
octave.  Obviously, any temperament with 8 deviations of nearly 2 cents =
each would not really be "equal".=20

  My standards are very high, yes, but I would only consider a =
temperament to be truly equal which would score a perfect 100.  Still, =
you could have, even in such a precise temperament, some notes 0.9 cents =
sharp or flat of ideal which could produce audible irregularities which =
would mean that the temperament is not really equal.=20

  Isacoff on the other hand "shoots his whole wad" when he says as a =
premise, that most of the music we enjoy today is the direct result of =
the fact that "...the modern keyboard is a design in perfect symmetry - =
each pitch is reliably, unequivocally equidistant from the ones that =
precede and follow it...it creates a musical universe in which the =
relationships between tones are reliably, uniformly consistent."=20

  He also talks later about octaves having a consistent 2:1 relationship =
which disregards the idea of stretched octaves altogether.  The =
statement about ET and octaves imply that he believes in the theoretical =
values of Helmholtz.  Any piano technician knows that those will not =
make a piano which sounds the best, which sounds "in tune" nor that =
those values are a requirement for producing any kind of music at all.=20

  So, he makes a firm premise which sounds good and which admittedly =
most people really believe in.  But in his rebuttal to Jorgensen, he =
clearly backs down from this statement by allowing the idea of the Quasi =
ET and even says parenthetically, "(indeed I take the position in the =
book that even today, *absolute* ET is actually unattainable)".=20

  If I were the cross examiner, I'd really have him in a tough spot.  =
"So which is it, Mr. Isacoff?  Is it really equal or is it not?  How =
unequal can it be before it isn't equal anymore?  Hmmmm?"=20

  The truth is that we have not come to the *end* of the evolution of =
keyboard tuning.  We have come to greater understanding and have =
developed higher degrees of skill which allow us to do much more than =
our limited knowledge and skills of the past have permitted.  =
Unfortunately, there are many people in the tuning profession and the =
music industry who are at least a little if not way behind the times.  =
Isacoff's book doesn't help this much.  It tends to reinforce the idea =
that already enough is known and that low standards are acceptable.=20

  Bill Bremmer RPT=20
  Madison, Wisconsin=20
  Click here: -=3Dw w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =3D-=20

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c5/46/67/de/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--