Hear, hear.
On 6/26/07, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:
>
> Bernard
>
> You seem like a nice fellow, and we have hashed this through before. I
> go out of my way to credit you for the work you did in the 70's.. or
> whenever it was, since you first brought my attention to it. You no
> doubt were influenced by people in your career and something stimulated
> you to thinking along these lines... just like happened to me. I
> actually do resent greatly your insistence that I am in so many words a
> fake and a phony in this matter. The fact is that the major 6th and
> double 10th comparisons I ran into some years back do not add up to a
> perfect 12th tuning. They just happen to compare the 3:1 coincident.
> They (these tests) were brought into the picture as just one other test
> for helping one get octaves. No one mentioned anything to me at any
> point about tuning straight out from a 12ths perspective instead of an
> Octave.
>
> Now this is the deal Bernard... through history many folks have thought
> up things all on their own, made developments all on their own, without
> knowing of others works before, after, parallel ... whatever. Happens
> all the time. Get used to it. In this case.. I have time and time again
> since you first popped up claiming prior whatevers on this idea
> acknowledged that you were before me. I have never tried to take credit
> for being the first guy to ever come up with this idea... quite the
> opposite... In fact I have insisted that it is quite likely the idea
> precedes you as well. In fact I dont give a hoot about any of this kind
> of thing.
>
> I do on the other hand take harm at someone insinuating time and time
> again that I purposefully mislead people into thinking that the P-12
> tuning idea that I came up with and executed on Tunelab was my own. It
> was, and all your nasty insinuations to the contrary will not change
> that. I had no idea of what your work, and for your information Andre
> was not the first person, nor the last for that matter to <<introduce>>
> me to these tests. Not by a long shot. The only real coincidence any of
> this has with Andre is that I had developed sufficiently in my own right
> to add a couple 2 and 2's together and think about what would happen if
> you just plain used Tunelab to enforce P-12ths strictly and ignore any
> and all other priorities. Nor did anyone give me any hint at all about
> looking at the 9th root of 3. It wasnt a quantum leap to make or
> anything mind you... since using the 12th root of 2 do divide an octave
> into even bits had been around for ages... when one first decides to
> look at 12ths... its a rather reasonable step to take. Yep... that
> piece of <<brilliance>> was also all my own...despite it obviously
> having been done elsewhere in the world unbeknownst to me previously.
>
> As for the rest of what you claim about Andre and Arnold, I think its
> in kind of poor taste to publicly accuse people of what you do below
> behind their backs as it were. I would point out tho your version of
> <<history>> clearly admits a prior knowledge to your own of the basic
> idea of using the 3:1 coincident as a tuning priority. I would also
> underline that the first instance I ever ran into of P 12 ths thinking
> was a PTG article in the early 80's or late 70's as I remember. At the
> time I just read it with interest and dismissed the thought. I never to
> this day have seen your own article... and since I had no contact at all
> with Euro Piano prior to 1996 it is not likely that I would have either.
>
> Now... I'd appreciate an apology from you on the matter. I do not, nor
> do Andre and Arnold, whom are fine, respectable, and honest technicians,
> deserve these kinds of remarks. Nor do you have any reason whatsoever
> to feel threatened. Nobody at all has taken issue with your work. In
> fact... In my first response along these lines just yesterday I paid
> deference to that and mentioned you by name.
>
> Cordially
> Richard Brekne
>
>
> Ric,
>
> The guy who put you into the trail to P12 you was André Oorebek from
> Amsterdam (you figured out in another post) and "a rather small
> article
> i found about in the seventies" (your own words, you still have to
> find it)
>
> Both indicates and proofs that it was not yourself who pushed you up
> into the thing. In practice, the "other guy" already did so. Now for
> the
> theory: Arnold Duin from Amsterdam, a former companion of André
> Oorebek,
> told me at a Mensurix workshop i hold in Amsterdam a few years ago at
> their convention that they learned the major
> sixth-doubleoctavemajorthird test from their old teacher who was not
> firm with any theory about tuning, but a good tuner. They tried to
> convince him, that it is not correct to do so from tuning theory. Some
> years later, after my publication in euro-piano, they began to
> adapt to
> the P12. The article you mentioned was probably mine (the initial
> publication of the pure twelfth temperement or "Stopper-Tuning" in
> euro-piano 1988) So your finding was indirectly (via Andre) and
> probably
> directly (the article) initiated by my work about the matter. I really
> hate to offend other people, but you do so to me a little by
> continously
> claiming independent authorship on the theoretical matter in your
> posts.
>
> It was always my intention with the P12 temperament to get the tuning
> theory compatible with what the best aural tuners tend to do, while the
> standard 12th root of two tempermant theory is not so. Mathematically
> the 19th root of three temperament is on a first look only one approach
> between thousands of possibilities to split the pythagorean comma on
> either side of the fifths circle.
>
> More important (if not sensational, sorry for the self-praise) is my
> finding of the beat symmetries (or symmetric interfenrence phenomene)
> inherent in only this equal temperament four years ago, cancelling out
> the beats in octave and fifths combinations and thus turning a tempered
> tuning into pure tuning when playing chords. And this the proof why
> this
> tempermant is superior to any other.
>
>
> regards,
>
> Bernhard Stopper
>
>
> Richard Brekne schrieb:
> > Hi Jason. To take your thought a step further, The guy who first put
> > me on the trail of the P-12ths idea showed me a series of test
> > intervals. A major third, major sixth, octave 10th and double octave
> > 10th. For tuning C6 for example, the relevant notes would be Ab3,
> C4,
> > F4, C5, and C6, with the Ab3 being the control note the whole way.
> > The Third should be slowest, but just slightly slower then the 10th.
> > The 6th should be fastest, again by a very slight amount, and the
> note
> > you are tuning... the double 10th should be just inbetween the 6th
> and
> > the other two. This makes the 12th below C6 just very slightly off
> > pure. Just got me thinking back then that it would be easy to use
> > Tunelab to do this directly
> >
> > David Anderson using the clean fourths this way moves in a very
> > similar direction.
> >
> > Cheers
> > RicB
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes. As I think about it, I recall that David Andersen puts great
> > emphasis
> > on the fourths, especially on the way down through the tenor. Now
> > fourths do
> > happen to have the coincident partial that is a P12 from the
> upper
> > note. So
> > in a manner of hearing, David is emphasizing P12 in his own
> way. Hmm.
> >
> > Jason
> >
>
--
| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
jason's cell 425 830 1561
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20070626/304bf85c/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC