William Monroe is now officially channeling David Andersen. Thanks, William, for giving my fingers a break. DA On Apr 4, 2009, at 7:52 AM, William Monroe wrote: > Heee, heee, > > Boy I hope you guys are zipped up. > > David, "don't shoot the messenger"? Your not the messenger, you're > the originator of the opinion and as such, should be shot if that's > what is called for. ;-] > > Note the smiley face, please. Intended to be a funny quip, not > suggesting you be shot. > > I have no trouble discerning between 440 and 441. I'm sure most > don't. I'm guessing you're suggesting more along the lines of 440 > and 440.1hz which is difficult to hear when comparing but not > impossible. When listening to one string at a time, another story. > > Guys, get this: Tuning is listening. Period. If you can't listen, > you have no way of knowing whether your results are acceptable or > not. Those who lack the ability or skills to hear well enough to > tune, shouldn't, unless they are actively developing those skills. > Saying someone who can't hear to tune shouldn't be [deterred] from > being a tuner is like saying someone who is blind shouldn't be > deterred from racing cars. You need to see to drive a race car, you > need to hear to tune pianos. Listening is the foremost skill > necessary to be a tuner. Now, if you want to be a rebuilder and > can't hear to tune, there's nothing that says you cant be the best > rebuilder in the world. Different skill set. > > Your ideas on art are somewhat different than mine, BTW. I've never > thought of art as perfect. Rather, it is either pleasing to me or > not. What pleases me tends to be very different than what pleases > others to greater or lesser degrees. Similarly, no tuning is > perfect. We all consciously make choices as to where we want our > pianos. You stretch more, I stretch less. Not perfect. > Different. And artistic. ;-] > > William R. Monroe > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Dave Foster <pepsi29 at sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > It is completely impossible to hear aurally the difference between > 440 and 441. Or better yet, 880 and 882. And that’s what the EDT > will check for in the test. The test isn’t designed to measure “the > best tuned piano”. It’s designed to measure certain criteria that’s > the human hear can’t hear without assistance. > > I tune with EDT most of the time, not because it’s a better tuned > piano, but because after tuning 5 or 6 pianos per day, my brain > starts to hurt. It takes a lot of mental endurance to tune ALL DAY, > and using a EDT takes the thinking about the tuning away. I know > the customers I have, and which ones want a better tuning, and I’ll > take the time aurally to check my work, whether it’s aligned with > the EDT or not. But I also know my customers that don’t necessarily > care about the tuning. As long as their Pearl River is sitting out > in the front window with the sun beating down on it, and everyone in > the neighborhood can see it, and little 8-year-old Suzie can do her > scales. It is not worth my mental stability, or a headache, to give > this customer a perfect 99% accurate aural concert tuning when in 7 > days it will be flat or sharp again because of the furnace vent > blowing up on the soundboard. There are certain customers that just > don’t seem to care, no matter how much I try to persuade them to > treat their beautiful instrument (and I use that term loosely in the > PR case) with TLC. And in this case, and EDT tuning will suffice. > > Don’t get me wrong, I tune aurally regularly, when needed. But I > disagree that a technician NEEDS to know how to tune aurally to be > considered a Piano Technician. So people just aren’t born with the > natural ability to hear certain things. That shouldn’t detour them > from being a well-respected great Piano Technician. I know a few > Techs in the area that don’t tune well because they can’t hear > sharply beats and harmonics, but they have the intellect and respect > of the technical end of being a technician, and they are considered > one of the best rebuilders in the area. > > I use the example from Matt, when he checked the older gentleman’s > tuning and it was “all over the place”. I also knew a guy, in this > 80’s, great technician, funny, experienced. He tuned aurally for 60 > years and considered his tunings “right on and perfect”, when truth > be told.. they weren’t. But his stubborn nature won’t change his > mind, because he had refused to believe his aural tuning had faded. > And anyone not willing to listen to the EDT-pro crowd is also > stubborn, and some day will refuse to believe their aural tuning > will fade. > > The art of aurally tuning is not an art at all. A tuning is either > perfect, or less than perfect. How is that art? Art is considered > perfect in the eye of the beholder. A piano tuning has to be > perfect for everyone to enjoy it, as pianos were meant to be heard. > > > That’s my opinion… don’t shoot the messenger. > > > Dave Foster > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090405/25bd3dd1/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC