[pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion

[Susan Kline]

Hello, David Love

That's nice, giving me the last word. I agree we've shot our wad on this 
topic
and it is decidedly time to move on.

Since we have a very different paradigm for tuning in general, I think 
that my
responses reached across the gap fairly well.

As someone else has pointed out, it is true that both aural and ETD 
tuners can
get onto autopilot, and do essentially mindless work, as quickly as they 
can.
It gets them to a destination of sorts, but at a cost. I don't blame 
many of
them for burning out. Life is too short to spend it like this .... etc.

You talk about the test not dominating your thinking, but then you 
continue to
use the guessed-at score of an imaginary RPT test for aural tuners' daily
work as your sole measure of quality. Something in this discussion (that
pianists might react favorably to aspects of tuning other than extreme
precision) does not seem to have sunk in for you, or you just don't
believe it.

The bottom line is that what you do works for you, and ditto on my side.

Susan Kline

On 2/1/2011 12:04 AM, David Love 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
>
>
>
>
>
> From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
> Of Susan Kline
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:20 PM
> To: pianotech at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion
>
>
> Strange that you thought it an insult....
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
>