David Anderson -- thank you for speaking so eloquently. I'll put my comments in color. >> Aural skills are still necessary. > Absolutely. Agree 100%. I agree. > >> Even if you prefer to tune aurally > No question; it's much more challenging and fun for me---both huge > personal goals: to have fun and be challenged. Makes me pay much > closer attention altogether. Like gourmet cooking from fresh ingredients, instead of microwaving a pre-cooked frozen meal. >> there are so many instances where they are a benefit: quick and >> accurate pitch raises > I can----because I've practiced it with full attention thousands of > times--- <snip> I can as well, just from the practice over and over again. At least, I can to the point where I don't think the ETD would make enough difference to put up with it. >> multiple pianos tuned together > More than two? Never happened to me in 36 years. I only once had three pianos. Usually two, usually movable. When they can't be moved (scenery in the way, or whatever) I think it would be convenient to have an ETD to record pitches, just to check the second piano. But how often does the two-non-movable-pianos situation arise? Once in five years? And so far I've managed to get them okay, sometimes with a quick check from a helpful observer when I'm just about done. One can get that extra little glisten when one can check both keyboards at once, though. True unisons, the whole scale. A lot of two piano music doesn't have a lot of exact unison playing in it - but a little bit does, and for those, one could tell the difference. >> noisy environments > Here's where I realize I may have a little quirk. I relish tuning on > stage, or at a NAMM show, or a PTG conference. I go into a zone I > hardly ever get to any other way---almost a higher degree of focus, > and a greater body awareness and trust; like calm in the middle of a > battle. > Some of my quickest, "solidest," best-sounding tunings have come from > this zone. Again, I like the personal challenge, so I'm allowed to do > it. It's my business, and my time. <g> <grin> Rise to the occasion, for sure. I'm good in high noise situations. I wouldn't want to do it all the time -- but then, I don't do it all the time. If I had to fight noise on a daily basis, I might get the gadget for help. Part of why it isn't an ongoing problem is that I've parked myself in a situation where it doesn't arise. One of the benefits of self-employment is the power to choose one's geographical location. >> to prevent fatigue in high volume situations. > Agree with this. If I needed to tune *constantly *in loud environments > I would gratefully use a machine. This didn't apply to me, since I don't have the physical stamina for it anyway. If I really truly have to, I go ahead, and then crash for a few days. While the noise would cause mental fatigue, the physical fatigue from many tunings outweighs it for me. And we're not getting younger. I'm 64 now. >> Those who eschew the use of them probably don’t hesitate to use >> various computer programs for book keeping, the making of forms, >> scale calculations, etc., when they could certainly do this the old >> fashioned way, by hand. > Difference is, tuning is a huge part of what I consider my art, my > craft, my gift. So for me the comparison with running numbers and > plugging them in, doing what I consider to be "rote" work, work that > is certainly less attractive, important, and challenging to ME > personally, has no resonance and makes no sense. For ME. "Every head a > planet," as my friend and mentor Gill Melle used to say. I think I like your friend and mentor, sight unseen. >> There seems to be a certain stubbornness from the “con” side that >> baffles me. > I'm not "con" until I experience a tuner using the machine for > everything, letting it tune. IMO, that atrophies a crucial sensibility > and perception that we all need to take our ability to listen to a > greater and greater level. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone how they should tune. I'm just sorry if people with the capacity for deeper work get stuck at a mechanical level because of lack of confidence or unwillingness to put the time in on learning. I think that every decent ETD tuner uses their ears constantly. It's possible that some who are soundly stuck in only-visual tuning mode just don't have the chops for anything else, but I certainly couldn't tell which ones they are. If I'm arguing about this, it's because I think that those who could enjoy the depth of the aural experience but have bought into some kind of ETD-founded mythology about aural tuning should have their chance to reconsider. >> I suppose if I were doing this as a hobby, maybe I’d stick to pure >> aural tuning, maybe. > Careful, now, brother. Retract those claws. This statement is a > passive way of calling me an amateur, which I resent. Or diminishing > me and my choices as less good than yours. <grin> Fighting words, David Love. As I have fibromyalgia and arthritic knees, and as the years keep coming at me, my work load starts to resemble a hobby more than a <harrumph> "BUSINESS." High quality, great enjoyment, less volume. So I can only say, better a high-level hobbyist than a high-volume drudge, especially for older people. >> But since it’s a business and I’m looking for the best use of the >> available tools to insure under all circumstances that I can produce >> the tuning that I will feel the most confident about and in a >> consistent and timely manner > <snip> Never mind the feeling of confidence from taking either path. If I think that I'm not the best person to deliver the goods for those who hire me, I'll step aside. Not the best on earth, but the best in their reach, geographically and financially. >> (we—most of us—do this for a living, after all), having an ETD in >> one’s arsenal I consider simply too advantageous to ignore. > And here I freely admit to being in a different place than you; we'll > collegially agree to disagree, and LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: > > I don't give a rat's ass HOW a solid, ringing, custom, musical tuning > is accomplished; I just demand and desire that it be so. > I give you full permission to use whatever tool you wish. ditto. It comes down to this: the ETD is good for certain tasks, such as tuning in noisy places, duplicating to other pianos, and pitch raises. Some of these tasks one can accomplish by practicing them a lot, some arise only rarely. The other benefit often cited is as a study tool, but I think it can distract people from what they ought to be listening for. It can make them strive for a degree of precision which is sterile in actual practice, at the expense of musical qualities, and thereby make them misuse their study time. The ETD path takes expense, but more important for me, time to develop expertise. Blinking lights and spinning dials also have a mental and visual fatigue factor of their own. If I were young and in a different location, doing a different kind of work, it might tip the scales toward buying one. It never has come close yet. So --- wetware rules. Susan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110126/893d412d/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC