<HTML>In a message dated 3/17/02 1:47:26 PM Central Standard Time, Billbrpt@AOL.COM writes: Bill, I don't know how a posting about electronic advances in music production wound up to be another one of your sermons on historical temperaments, but allow me to respond to some of your comments. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subscribers to this list continually misread and misinterpret what I have to say. </BLOCKQUOTE> As I have stated, the concepts you have are great. What many people have trouble with is the way you say it. My point is that tuning is still taught and thought of as having only one correct <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">method and outcome. </BLOCKQUOTE> When I took my first music theory course, I made many mistakes. When I told my instructor that there is lots of music with parallel fifths and octaves, he said, "When you learn to do it right, then you have the right to do it wrong." Before you can learn to do a historical temperament, you need to be able to an equal temperament. Not because a HT is right, but that is what is needed to pass the RPT exam. Once that has been established, then there is nothing wrong with experimenting with HT's. Historical Temperaments, refinements such as different types of octaves and other <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">alternatives such as newly designed temperaments are scoffed at, downplayed and even viciously opposed.  Often, the greatest resistance comes from the people who don't want to even see such a thing on the Convention or seminar schedule and who know virtually nothing about these ideas. </BLOCKQUOTE> In most cases, Bill, it wasn't the concept that these people were opposed to. It was the person who was asking that these concepts be used. At the Central West Regional last year, both Ed and Skip's classes were very well attended. I have been to many other classes by these two people, and others, where attendance was very good. But not everyone at the seminar wanted to attend those classes, because HT's are not the only way to tune a piano. Not everyone is wants to do it that way. If you could only accept that, and quit trying to cram it down our throat, perhaps we would be more willing to listen to you. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> PTG has been great for me, it's where I learned everything I know.  It provided me with the foundation to take what I learned and create something new, not just regurgitate what I had been taught.  But at this point, from what I have heard from the Institute Director, it has little more to offer.  I'm not the only one who sees little or no value in attending the Convention.  As I see it, I would only be contributing to and affirming the quest for the lowest common denominator.   </BLOCKQUOTE> The PTG has been great for me to. It is still great for me. But just because you don't see enough HT classes offered at the convention, you decided not to attend. You don't think there are any other classes offered from which you could learn something? I'm sorry, Bill, but I just don't buy that. I have been to 24 conventions and probably three times as many seminars, and by golly, I learn something new every time. And most of the new things I learn are in classes where I thought I knew it all.   <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">As I see it, some of these, maybe most of those who just wish I would go away and shut up are the ones who seek the "dumbing down" of the profession.  The advice offered is often poor and misguided, the information is often just plain wrong.  </BLOCKQUOTE> Now that is an awful strong statement to make. Please explain what you are talking about. If there are classes or subjects taught that are just plain wrong, I hope you let that person know he/she about it. To criticize or offer a counter opinion is viewed as a "personal attack" yet some of <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">those individuals feel the right to do the very same thing: the old "pecking order". </BLOCKQUOTE> "To criticize or offer a counter opinion." Now that says it all. Bill, as I, and many others have said, there is nothing wrong with offering a counter opinion. But why do you have to criticize the opinions of others? That is where your problem lies. Yes, you have the right to disagree with me, and offer a million other opinions. I am even willing to accept you egotistical way of telling me how great you are. But don't criticize my opinion, or my way of setting a temperament, or my way of dealing with customers. In spite of what you might think, I really do appreciate your talents. What I don't appreciate is your condescending attitude, not just to me, but to others on this list. Offer suggestions and different opinions. Explain how your temperament works. But don't criticize the people on this list, and above all, don't attack someone personally for their attitudes or opinions. Because, as you can attest to, we will bite back. Bill, you have apologized time and again. But as I said earlier, I will wait to accept your apology until I can see you really mean it. With your recent comments to the Institute Committee, that wait is going to be very long. Wim </HTML>