<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   A440A@aol.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE> Richard writes: <<   I asked and got told about the Young / Valoti....  and thats like wayyyy more extreme then this Broadwoods best # 5. That particular BB was actually a good pass for an ET.<,    Actually, the Young temperament only has four thirds that are wider than the Broadwood's and some of them are only 1 cent wider, (Db-F is 19 cents wide of just vs. the BB's 18,  the F#-A# is 21 vs 18, the B-D# is 19 vs 18, and Ab-C is 18 vs 17).  However, the Young is actually more consonant in Eb, Bb, C D, and the same in A.  So,  there is not that much difference except at the most remote keys.  </blockquote> Well.... theory aside.... my ears tell me quite quickly and quite emphatically, that the Young is quite a bit farther away from ET then the Broadwoods best.  This is one of the things that bothers me about some of the argumenation. Ric Moody declares he cant hear temperaments or beating of intervals while playing. I cant understand how one can not. In the end, its what we sense and hear, and in what perspective we put those that is going to be the important thing, not whether something is more or less consonant in a some keys.   <blockquote TYPE=CITE> >>The responses I got to it immediately made me think more about Baldwins experiments with the slightly out of tune unisions more then anything else. And that because of the very different kinds of responses I got from players about the Y/V.<<    I was under the impression that you tried the EBVT and got virtually no response, and when you switched to the Broadwoood, many people took notice. Was that not what was posted earlier?</blockquote> I have used the EBVT, and got few responses, and I have used the Y/V with similiar results. The Broadwoods best sounds quite a bit closer to ET, yet defininatly is not ET. Why I got some immediate response to that particular temperament I would not speculate on at this point. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I have received more than a few comments from players that wanted to buy the Steinway upright I lease to a jazz club.  They all talk about how that piano sounds like no other.  I keep it in a Young temperament!</blockquote> I'm sorry Ed... but this in itself doesnt really tell me much. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>In a separate posting, Richard writes: >>I have a feeling that Ed's enthusiasm would tend to colour the results abit... tho I would be glad for the chance to evaluate his testing in person.<<     When I put one of the Steinway D's (it is the "lesser" piano that is otherwise relegated to "only if I have to use it" status) we have on stage in a Moore or a Broadwood, it suddenly starts getting used a lot more.  When I retuned one of the virtually identical practice room C-2 Yamahas in a Broadwood, the sign-up sheet filled up before any of the other ones, (that was before I put a notice on the door).  These sorts of "blind" results are telling me that pianists react favorably to non-ET, even when they don't know the tuning was changed.</blockquote> Yes... I would agree they tell you exactly that... but precious little more... at least nothing conclusive. There could be several explainations that need to be sifted through. And one of the most attractive of these is the Baldwin experiements concerning unisons. And there are most certainly other possiblitiies as well. The point is that before we start drawing all sorts of conclusions about the appropriateness of 19th century music relative to the general tendencies in key characters found in these temperaments we should be sure that we are not dealing with some other non ET phenomena. And I see nothing in any of the informal experimentation going on that is directed thus. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>When the sum total experiences of those of us that have put pianos out in front of techs is considered, we see that the non-ET is preferred in an overwhelming percentage of the cases.</blockquote> I think that is a pretty disputable statement Ed.... but I am willing to see any documentation thats been assembled. My own experience so far simply does not bear this out. And if I was to speculate as to why... I would hesitantly venture a guess in the area that our students are simply not interested enough. They are so wrapped up in what their professors are teaching them they it all simply passes them right by. But thats just a guess based on way to little information. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>     Dr. Jerry Reed, head of the piano dept at Lipscomb University, had me tune the recital hall piano in a Coleman 11.  He told me later that students he had worked with all year suddenly began playing far more expressively than he had ever seen them play.</blockquote> Lets see... a Dr of music asks specifically for a particular temperament (based on what personal experience of his own ?? ) and then this same Dr (who of course in this situation is purely impartial and has no interests or personal biases) declares an increase in expressive play ?? Gezzz Louizzzzz Ed... This kind of data would be thrown out of any science class without further ado.  Where are the formal critera for judjing the increase in expressive play, where is the impartial judge who has no knowledge of which piano has which temperament ?   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The students knew nothing about a change of tuning.     The evidence seems to continue piling up in a particular direction, does it not?</blockquote> I see some things that definantly point in a non ET direction. But then I also find that ET if meticuously tuned generates simliar interest, if for seemingly different reasons.   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I think it would be great for lots of techs that have the venue to put one piano in a Victorian era tuning and see what happens.      I can see the desire for absolutely clinical, double-blind testing, but that takes time and money.  I personally didn't need the scientific proof of anything to find out where my customer's desires were.  All I had to do was to give them a choice.....</blockquote> Like I said... we can compensate to some degree for the cost of a more scientific method by providing more (many more) samples. And we certainly can be more creative in chooseing exactly what we are looking for then a 50 / 50 choice of  ET or HT.  And if we are going to turn around and use such testing as an argumention for historical appropriatness then I think we should.   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Regards, Ed Foote RPT <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives"></a> </blockquote> All this being said... As per Ron Kovals suggestion... I got one of our music professors, whom I know from personal experience has a certain sense for recognition of HT characteristics to go along with letting me "fool around"  (as I put it). I've told him to just play and tell me his impressions... and not to hesitate at being critical if thats what he feels. More then this he doesnt know. For all he knows I could be up to some action stuff... he knows I like to experiment with Stanwood principles... So.. On his Yamaha C6, I will keep my cleanest ET, and on his Young Chang of similar size I will put what you, Ron K, and Bill Bailey aggree upon that I should. And I will report his responses faithfully. We can start next week... from Wed. I am off for a short b/p trip to Prague this weekend so you have a few days to decide what I am to do. Ok ??   -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A>  </html>