It seems to me that the "point" of the RPT tuning exam is (at least one point) is allowing candidates to demonstrate that they have a certain level of control over where they place *anthing* on the piano. It may not represent where any one of us might prefer to tune the entire piano when all is said and done. It does however, set forth an objective criteria, and asks each candidate to demonstrate how accurately they can produce the result that is being asked for. Can you tune a 4:2 octave, etc.? Can you control your tunings enough to get clean single octaves in the high treble. The test asks each of us to be able to demonstrate particular skills sets that are necessary for the tuning process. I don't understand why the standards are considered meaningless by any. It seems very reasonable to me, very objective, to be asked to demonstrate that you indeed have a level of control that allows you to execute to achieve a particular standard, to achieve a particular result, for testing purposes. When it comes down to it, that's all we can really judge anyway. When we start talking of degrees of stretch for octaves, width of fifths and fourths, how to handle the breaks so they sound best, subjectivity is the rule, and would be, I think, unquantifiable. William R. Monroe On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:04 AM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote: > Well you've extracted various sentences somewhat out of context and managed > to comment on them but generally missed the point. I mention the tuning > test only because it is the standard by which aural tuning is objectively > measured at present. The data suggests that most aural tuners taking the > test pass somewhere in the 85% range. There's no reason to believe that > the > aural tuners out in the real world (some who have not passed the test) on > average achieve a much higher and most likely a somewhat lower level than > that. I would contend that ETD users, if they can control their tools (a > question mark for aural tuners as well), very likely hit the ETD provided > targets at a higher rate than aural tuners both calculate and hit theirs > since there is much less subjectivity and judgment involved. Since the > ETDs > are based on algorithms as sampled by what the programmers consider to be > the styles used or targeted by the top aural tuners, why would you think > that an aural tuning that tends to achieve its goal to a lesser degree > would > on average provide a more musical tuning? Is it because it's unique and > individual? Well I've heard plenty of those that were not what I would > consider musical, though perhaps they were unique. Even if the standard > etd > tuning requires minor tweaks, in my experience (having actually done it > both > ways), those tweaks tend to be relatively minor on most pianos and left > untweaked would not likely lower the "score" significantly were it to be > judged by an objective panel. > > Your suggestions that etd users are more disconnected from the instrument > has no basis other than your own speculation based on your one sided > experience (and one observation, I suppose). While the connection may take > some different form by virtue of the difference in procedures or sequences, > there is no real evidence to suggest that one necessarily provides a > greater > connection than another. More likely some aural tuners are connected and > some aren't, simply going through a rote exercise without really paying > attention. I know aural tuners (and highly respected ones) who after > tuning > the temperament simply tune down with octaves and up with octaves, dropping > in an occasional fourth or fifth to check. That's less than I check > aurally > even with the most basic etd tuning. Yet the same undoubtedly holds true > of > etd users who tune straight up from A0 to C88 and never look back or even > around. So neither group can really lay claim to connectedness. It's > meaningless conjecture especially as it relates to any one individual. > Moreover, connection to the instrument from the process can come in many > different ways and at different times. My own style of etd tuning (like > many others who tune similarly) has me involved both during and after with > various checks. The process is demanding but less than pure aural tuning > and is such that even at the end of a long day, when I want to hear how the > piano sounds producing real music, I play it. What greater connection is > there than that. > > Each person who decides to do this for a living needs to be honest with > themselves about their abilities and the requirements under which they work > and choose the method that works best for them--it seems we probably would > agree on that. I would say, however, that they should neither be > intimidated by those who suggest that tuning with an etd is somehow *less* > or hesitate to ply their trade for money (as you strongly suggested) until > they achieve what you deem to be a proficient level of aural tuning. > > I think I've exhausted my input on this subject (I'm sure the natives are > thankful). Please, have the last word if you wish. > > > David Love > www.davidlovepianos.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110201/94396285/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC