a different interpretation of tone or color

[Ron Koval]

First of all, thank you David Anderson, for taking the time to express your 
thoughts on this topic that has an effect on all of us.


In responding to the idea of needing to tune a thousand pianos before 
"getting it" I wrote:

>This concept has always bothered me.....
>
>So, who is paying for that training,

David responded:
A store, the clients, the apprentice, whatever---if someone wants to
learn bad enough, they will.
<snip>

It's not so much who wants to learn bad enough, it's a possibility of having 
a machine available that could certainly help a novice finish with nicer 
tunings than without.  Otherwise, the client is paying to have a beginner 
learn aural tuning.

<snip>
Have you ever heard a really fabulous aural tuning---by Mohr, by Virgil 
Smith, by Bill Garlick.  Gorgeous.  Inspiring.  Musical.  Magical.  Capable 
of providing strong psycho-acoustic illusion.  Beautiful.
You want to abrogate that?  Please, Ron.  Stop and take a look back.  You 
stand on the shoulders of unnamed, unremembered yet gifted
craftsmen/artists/piano technicians.  Honor them.
<snip>

Yes, I have.  And have you ever heard a really fabulous machine-calculated 
tuning?  Gorgeous, Inspiring, musical, magical too.  And with the easy 
overlay of a host of temperaments, more moving, relating to the music in a 
way that ET can't.  And best of all, available to all who wish to tune with 
them, those that can approach with an open mind, as well as open ears.

I think aural tuning is mostly art, and as such is difficult to translate 
that information to others. Why aren't all aural tuners that have been 
trained by Virgil Smith as good as he was? It doesn't have to be "magic", 
only available to a few that have reached the "peak".

I have a responsibilty to those unremembered yet gifted techs that came 
before, to move the craft FORWARD, not to be mired in tradition, only 
repeating what has been done before.

<snip>
>I liken aural tuning to vintage wine-making.  When it's a good year 
>(tuning) it can be very good, but when it's a bad year (tuning) it can be 
>awful.

Why would it EVER be awful, if you're a professional?
<snip>


Well, I just came across one a few weeks back, where both the C# and the F#s 
were all about 10 cents higher than the rest of the piano.  Not likely to be 
a machine mistake, but probably made by a "professional", just the same.  
Backwards from any historical temperament idea, too.

<snip>
>Some machine tunings aren't the best, but they are usually acceptable.
Speaks for itself.  Frightening.
<snip>
Again, speaking of a beginning tuner, the machines can help keep the gross 
mistakes listed above from getting into the marketplace.

<snip>
>It may be time to rethink whether it is best for our profession to teach 
>aural techniques first, given the above code.  I think it would be better 
>to teach "assisted" aural tuning, leaving the full aural experience for 
>those that wish to pursue that option.

I couldn't disagree more.  "Uh, this is a craft based on using your ears, 
but don't use your ears to do the most basic, oft-repeated, arguably most 
important thing we do as professional craftspeople..."
<snip>

Is that answering the phone?....  Seriously, I'd like to preserve my ears 
for a long time.  I'm not trying to say that I don't use my ears at all, 
quite the contrary, but the VT helps me to focus on less, zero in on the 
unisons, to get to those musical tunings.


David, it sounds as if you've found a path that has led to wonderful 
tunings.  I congratulate you on that, and only wish to provide an alternate 
path for techs- and just maybe to raise the level of tunings available.

Ron Koval


_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.  Try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp