<grin> John, that's a lovely post, and your points are very well taken. The metaphysics ... nobody needs them to do an aural tuning! They sort of show up in some heads, and that is a very good thing (at least I hope it is!) I think that metaphysical meanders <guilty as charged ...> are how people make sense of what they observe. Susan On 1/31/2011 6:05 PM, John Formsma wrote: > I use a calculator because I became accustomed to it in college core > engineering courses. And it's faster, and more accurate ... /_as long > as I hit the correct buttons_/. <G> We are arguing about how the > "buttons" match with reality, right? If one doesn't know what aural > perfection is, how can one tell when you've hit the wrong "button"? > > Similarly, if one has never learned to estimate, one will be totally > dependent on the calculator's answer ... and never know for sure if > it's even close to displaying the correct answer to the problem. Which > is what some have been saying in this discussion: One _/must/_ be able > to know where the target is before he can proclaim he has hit said target. > > The math I mostly do these days is adding up checks on a deposit slip. > And if I were to put the calculator away, I'd be faster with a paper > and pencil. And at least as accurate. Now, get into to larger numbers, > I'd be using an electronic calculation aid. <G> > > Seriously, now, this brings up a thought. I think we tend to think > wrongly of aural tuning as this somehow vastly complex and irreducible > problem ... this really weird and far out stuff like quantum physics > or something. It is complex at first, and it is hard to learn. > However, it is not nearly so metaphysical as we think, despite what D. > Andersen says <G>. The more we chip away at it, the more we realize > that it's just a puzzle. And the more we look at a puzzle, the better > we can piece it together. > > My thinking is that folks just don't try long enough. They get a few > of the basics -- enough to do an adequate job. Then they find an ETD > and never add enough more of the right stuff to what they already > knew. Then their ears get dull. > > It's like a schoolchild who can add a one or two single or > double-digit numbers. Then he is suddenly presented with adding > streams of multiple digit numbers. He freaks, because it's way beyond > his ability. To him, it's a vastly complex and irreducible problem. > Then someone hands him a calculator and says, "Here, kid ... let me > show you how to use this --it will make it easier." So he becomes > accustomed to never learning how numbers work together. And he remains > in the sad position of thinking that it's impossible to learn how to > quickly add columns of numbers. > > I see both sides of the argument. Really I do. I just remain firmly on > my side. <G> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110131/4cb2bd86/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC