Greetings,
Those with weak postions often attempt to change the subject, so it is no
surprise that suggesting a comparison between temperaments causes Mr.
Bremmer's leap to comparing tuners. While I have no need to respond to his
flaccid attempts at personal damage, I will address a number of points in
which he is in error.
>As usual, the intent is to discredit and as usual, he knows absolutely
nothing about
>what he is writing.
No need to waste energy discrediting anybody, that is something one does
to oneself. The intent was to illuminate the shortcomings of this particular
(EBVT) tuning in reproducing the harmonic organization of classical piano
music. Though I haven't the expertise of Owen Jorgensen, my customers and
peers do consider my experience and research above the level of "absolutely
nothing".
>If Ed *could* tune the EBVT, which he couldn't, even
>if his life depended on it, he'd know that all of what he wrote has no
>foundation.
Anyone on the list that has listened to the years of its author's
promotion and hype should be able to tune this temperament, though according
to Mr. Bremmer, no one but himself can actually do so,(plus the fact that he
has described the procedure in a continually changing way). Thus, there is
no way to judge it unless he tunes it himself. Its practical value for
other technicans is debatable on that count, alone.
>But there are some people who just cannot tune by ear. They've just got
>to go dialing in numbers on an ETD and hope that what comes out will sound
>good. That's what Ed does <snip>
According to my test scores, (100's and high 90's), the professional
organization we belong to believes I can "tune by ear". I am grateful and
proud to have been a North Bennett graduate (1976) and after 27 years of
tuning to broadcast standards for a lot of professional venues, there may be
some slight evidence of competance on my part. Slam dunking Jorgensen's
offsets on top of my saved and refined aural ET tunings in the SAT create ex
actly what following his aural instructions does. I trust them, and encourage
others to try the same.
The use of offsets from ET is a very valid approach to recreating the
tunings of the past, and I see no nobility in making a task as difficult as
possible. It is also a way that distant techs can compare results, knowing
that they are talking about the same thing. If one is mired in a Messiah
complex, the idea of a community of equals comparing notes on similar tunings
is anathema, but cooperative activity is often the fastest road to heightened
awareness. The machines allow that, and excoriating those that use them for
it is nothing more than one man's frightened attempt to retain a "special"
status that doesn't exist. (It is called a "Straw Man" defense.)
>I'd rather listen to the opinion of a man who has been studying and
>practicing this art since the 1930's than to a Johnny-come-lately who first
>was inspired by these ideas when he attended the Convention in Milwaukee
>(where the EBVT was first presented to PTG).
Mr. Bremmer flatters and deludes himself by assuming such a ludicrous
result of his Milwaukee debacle. I was inspired by the events all right, but
not favorably. My first exposure to the concept was from Bill Dowd and Bill
Garlick in 1975. Owen's books some 13 years later reawakened the pursuit.
"Big Red" simply took it to the next level. The only inspiration from
Milwaukee was to do a lot better than what I saw presented.
>And of course, Ed condemns that event too as he did the 1/7 Comma Meantone
at the 1995 Convention.
New Mexico? I wasn't even there and have made no comment about it.
That was a completely separate group of technicians that Mr. Bremmer managed
to offend.
>Soon thereafter however, he is *teaching* it and producing CD's to promote
it.
Not quite. I am not teaching "it", though since Mr. Bremmer has never
before been in one of my classes and knows not of what he speaks, he is to be
excused for the mistake.
I was asked by the Guild to give a temperament presentation at St.
Louis. It was well received and I have been honored to be asked to return,
twice. Contrary to the paranoid accusations Mr. Bremmer constantly levels at
the Institute Committee, the Guild has been a strong proponent of presenting
the topic and all tuners that get to attend the temperament classes of
interest,(Farley, Lamoreaux, Jorgensen) owe them a debt of gratitude for
their progressive embrace of these avante-garde ideas.
In all of my programs, my tuning has been presented for as close an
examination as I know how to make possible,and it has yet to be so roundly
condemned as by the OWAA (One With An Agenda). I have always invited
critiques of my presentation and have used them to continually improve my
delivery of the message, which is, "Technicians should not reject anything
without trying it" and "There is more than one way to tune a piano".
These concepts have been resisted by those that cling to one
temperament, but there has been only one person to draw personal value
judgements about this, which appear to originate from things having nothing
to do with the sound of a piano.
>I'll say one thing without reservation. I can tune a better sounding piano
>than Ed Foote can and I could have it half done by the time it would take
>him to finish dialing in his numbers.
It is a matter of record that Mr. Bremmer believes he can tune a piano to
sound better than anyone, so I don't feel particularly special, here.
However, the subject under discussion is comparing temperaments, not tuners.
To that end, perhaps other techs could tune the contemporary temperaments of
our peers (Bailey, Coleman, Bremmer), and report objectively how they stack
up with one another? I think the list as a whole would be interested in
their use of these for the music of the classical masters.
I know that the ebvt is the optimum tuning for Cage's 4'33'', I heard
that once and it was beautiful, but how about Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven?
Regards to most,
Ed Foote RPT
(more to come this p.m.)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC