etd's and ears addendum

[RicB]

Ah hell there Ron... you just put down one of those posts that shows the 
true potential of this list.  Excellent contribution I gotta say...in 
every single way.  This is one I'd just love to sit over a couple beers 
/ coffees / whathave yous in some appropriate sitting room somewhere and 
delve into with you for an hour or so... or at least until we reach burn 
out as such topics inevitably lead to after yielding a time of 
discussional enjoyment.

I think I will just throw in a couple thoughts, qualifiers if you will 
into all this.  You border nearly all the way in this post on 
philosophical grounds that go to the core of what music / art is.   I 
think we all agree immediately that a machine of any sort has no 
creative ability in itself. At very best any machine can do only what 
its program directs it to do. Anything done WITH the machine that 
exceeds or diverges from that programing has directly to do with the 
will of the user.  And THAT is where the dividing line between 
creativity with ETD's and simple going through the motions with less 
then stellar results.  (Again... I'm refering to high level tunings 
here... and in that regard even the closest attention to the dial 
without any ear involved is less then the best we can do IMHO)

You refer to the general level of aural tuning improving with the advent 
of machines. I dont know of any data to support that claim in general, 
but I do know that use of the ETD has most certainly vastly improved my 
own tunings.  Not the use per se... but the fact that I also dig into 
the woodwork of the machine, how it does what it does... how it relates 
to what my ear is trying to accomplish...  tuning theory as it were.  
With greater understanding come greater ability to execute with 
precision.  And the ETD does have precision degrees for specific target 
frequencies the ear can not achieve... because the ear doesnt work that 
way. But one CAN utilize this capability of the ETD to help the ear zoom 
even closer in on what the ear targets, even tho the kind of target is 
quite different.

What is a great tuning ?  I suppose everyone has an answer... but mine 
is simply worded.  The measure of a great tuning is how well the tuner 
accomplished a very conscious and clearly understood tuning goal.... 
what he/she set out to do.

So I agree with very much of what I understand you to say.  But the 
bottom line with me will never be a machine when it comes to any form of 
art.  It will always be the intellect behind the machine.  Tuning in 
itself is every bit as much of the making music concept you sketch 
below.  And in the end it deserves every bit as much of our personal 
hands on attention as voicing, regulation, or any of the rest of it.

In as much as any particular usage of an ETD shortens the path to that 
end, or even lengthens the end itself, raises the standard as it 
were.... then their useage is positive.  But if / when they achieve an 
end in the other direction... then they are counter-productive.

I agree that no-one gives a hoot how beauty can be achieved.  And I'll 
even go with you a ways down the road that says computer generated art 
can be beautiful.  But only to a point and with quite a few qualifiers.  
The main one being that the machine has no creative thought process.  
What it does is either random by programming purpose... or specific by 
same. Art by nature is in essence a three fold intellectual experience 
of either creative endeavour, appreciation, the process of communication 
between these two... or some combination of these three.  Any art 
generated by a machine is only art because of the ability of a human to 
find some appreciation of the result.  And that is a severe limitation 
really to the scope of art in general.

Teaching yes.... Again... we have no studies to show one way or the 
other what is the most effective way of teaching.  And I dont mean aural 
vs ETD assisted alone. There are just too many unknowns to draw too many 
conclusions on the subject matter.  And why should their be ?... We are 
after all a very small part of the world with little or virtually no 
resources to study such things.  We see some potential value in this and 
that approach.... and observe casually this or that result.... but all 
this is far from conclusive. There is no Suziki method for violin 
comparative in our trade.... not yet anyways.

Great post you wrote Ron.  I really do love it when people put out as 
your post below shows you do.

Cheers
RicB


    So all this talk got me to thinkin'...

    This tuning process becomes a self-reinforced feedback loop.  We create
    something using a specific series of checks.  Then to test the
    result, we
    use the same series of checks...  The variable in the equation is - the
    tech.  Now there are techs happy with this aural approach, or that
    aural
    approach, tunelab, Korg, Strobe, RCT, SAT and Verituner - all which can
    produce different final results, all proven and checked by the
    specific tech
    in question.  The clients too, get trained to expect a certain sound
    preferred by their tech.  Add to that the preferred differences
    between ET
    and the whole gamut of alternate temperament views ....  Remember
    the whole
    arguement that most aural techs aren't able to tune anything BUT a mild
    reverse well temperament?  (I'd have to agree to finding many, many
    examples
    of that around here.)

    So...

    What makes a great tuning?

    We can't seem to agree on octaves.  There's the direct reference
    folks, the
    slightly expanded folks, the pure fifths, or octave fifths... beat,
    or dead
    on.  Is there such a thing as beatless?

    Even the unison.  Dead on, or ever so slightly off to bring more
    life to the
    note?

    I'm not sure David still quite "gets" the direction of my path... (I
    have
    the utmost respect for your work.  We've never met, yet I "feel"
    your warm
    soul through this connection.)

    "I would never denigrate your skills or the skills of
    anybody who uses the ETD as a powerful tool and as an ADJUNCT to
    their ears, their body, their
    intuition."

    Close, but not quite...

    "NONE OF
    US GIVE A HOOT HOW THE BEAUTY HAPPENS, JUST THAT IT HAPPENS.  CAPISCE?"

    There ya' go...

    Here's where I take a sharp turn different than many and believe that a
    machine calculation is capable of producing a beautiful tuning. 
    It's an
    "ends justify the means" approach that has been argued over in the
    past.  Is
    someone just "following the lights" still a piano tuner?

    I'd like to "raise the bar" again.  Aural approaches to tuning have
    made
    great strides (in consistency)in response to the development of the
    machines.  I like to search for the methods to give even beginning
    tuners
    the ablility to bring MUSIC to the instrument.  Yes, MUSIC.  Shorten
    the
    tuning learning curve to focus on voicing, actionwork and other
    approaches
    written here on the list.

    There shouldn't be an excuse for random temperament errors multiplied
    through a tuning to end up with many of the wild bass and treble
    tunings
    I've heard.  "Hazing" new recruits with aural training simply isn't
    a valad
    reason.

    Are we there yet?  Close, so, so close...

    Ron Koval
    Chicagoland