<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Focusing on the theoretical attainability of ET as =
an argument
to accept or reject it, I find to be disingenuous. Even if we =
accept that
"absolute" ET is unattainable, small deviations don't destroy the =
relative
effect. Your argument seems to be that since ET is theoretically
unattainable, we should abandon it for EBVT or its equivalent. I =
have
heard the argument that it is easier to tune, more forgiving. In =
other
words, it tolerates greater deviations. Thus, if we can expect to =
neither
tune an absolutely perfect WT, what should we abandon that =
for?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The bottom line is, that small deviations can occur =
without
destroying the effect. And they routinely do occur. If you =
put all
the C&A tuners together and compared their tunings, I am sure you =
would find
deviations. I am also sure that each tuning would be more than =
acceptable
to the most demanding concert artists. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The truth is, that tuning is as much art as science =
and it is
the net effect that is important. Your own argument for "tempered =
octaves"
suggests that. They are certainly far =
from "absolute".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To worry about the legitimacy of how the tuning =
labeled
is a bit type A. When Rubenstein missed several notes in the =
performance
of the Lizst concerto, we didn't read that he performed =
the "quasi"
Liszt concerto last night. Accepting small deviations doesn't dumb =
down
the standard. It just acknowledges that though theoretical =
perfection
is sought after, the failure to achieve should not be =
construed as
failure.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>David Love</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Billbrpt@AOL.COM =
href="mailto:Billbrpt@AOL.COM">Billbrpt@AOL.COM</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=pianotech@ptg.org
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> May 09, 2002 6:48 =
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Jorgensen vs =
Isacoff</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT size=2>In a =
message dated
5/8/02 6:04:31 PM Central Daylight Time, <A
href="mailto:piano@charlesneuman.net">piano@charlesneuman.net</A> =
(Charles
Neuman) writes: <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE">My only complaint about Jorgensen is that he uses a =
strict
definition of <BR>ET and then applies it to other people's use of =
the term.
It's fine for <BR>him to define ET as being good enough to pass the =
RPT
tests, but I don't <BR>think it's fair for him to call someone =
"wrong" for
using the term ET in a <BR>more general sense. In fact, Jorgensen =
could use
his definition of ET and <BR>conclude that ET is not widely used in =
the
world today because there is <BR>not a vast majority of tuners who =
can pass
the RPT exams. Obviously, if <BR>he made that argument then "ET" =
would mean
something different for him <BR>than it does most people who tune =
ET.
<BR><BR>On the other hand, Isacoff seems to be reckless with the =
term "equal
<BR>temperament", and I think he really means "non-restrictive =
temperament
<BR>such that it wouldn't sound out of tune to an average listener". =
If he
<BR>said that he defined "equal temperament" that way, then I don't =
think
<BR>there would be much to argue about with his arguments. For =
example, he
<BR>doesn't care whether it was possible to tune ET in Bach's time. =
His
<BR>comment that "psychologically, Bach had accepted the idea of =
equality
<BR>between all the keys" is really more about the movement towards =
less
<BR>restrictive temperaments than it is about the actual tuning of a =
<BR>temperament. He says that ET was a "philosophical ideal" at a =
certain
<BR>point in history. Again, I think that's a comment about how =
temperaments
<BR>became less an less restrictive over time, and it doesn't =
indicate that
<BR>Isacoff is part of a conspiracy to eliminate key color. =
</FONT><FONT
lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 =
face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR><BR>Thanks for =
bringing this up,
Charles. I'm also surprised that no one brought it up sooner. =
My
opinion is that both Jorgensen and Isacoff have felt forced to =
equivocate at
times. Jorgensen clearly points out that many near or "quasi" =
ET's have
existed, even a couple where only one note had a deviation of 1 cent,
rendering the temperament clinically unequal. He strictly avoids =
the
issue of how ET may not have really been as well established in the =
20th
Century as most people assume and believe it has. <BR><BR>If he did, =
many of
the people who can't really tune ET would think he is talking about =
them and
have a reason to take public issue and offense to what he says. =
He
officially goes along with the idea that any 20th Century music should =
be
performed in ET but he privately acknowledges that it is most often =
not a
requirement. <BR><BR>People often cite the PTG Tuning Exam as a source =
of
authority. The amazing thing is, however that absolutely no =
where in the
entire exam manual is the word "equal" ever used or even implied with =
regard
to temperament. It has always been the assumption and consensus =
among
those conducting the exams to use ET. You can still pass the =
Exam with 8
errors of up to 1.9 cents within the 13 notes of your temperament =
octave.
Obviously, any temperament with 8 deviations of nearly 2 cents =
each
would not really be "equal". <BR><BR>My standards are very high, yes, =
but I
would only consider a temperament to be truly equal which would score =
a
perfect 100. Still, you could have, even in such a precise =
temperament,
some notes 0.9 cents sharp or flat of ideal which could produce =
audible
irregularities which would mean that the temperament is not really =
equal.
<BR><BR>Isacoff on the other hand "shoots his whole wad" when he says =
as a
premise, that most of the music we enjoy today is the direct result of =
the
fact that "...the modern keyboard is a design in perfect symmetry - =
each pitch
is reliably, unequivocally equidistant from the ones that precede and =
follow
it...it creates a musical universe in which the relationships between =
tones
are reliably, uniformly consistent." <BR><BR>He also talks later about =
octaves
having a consistent 2:1 relationship which disregards the idea of =
stretched
octaves altogether. The statement about ET and octaves imply =
that he
believes in the theoretical values of Helmholtz. Any piano =
technician
knows that those will not make a piano which sounds the best, which =
sounds "in
tune" nor that those values are a requirement for producing any kind =
of music
at all. <BR><BR>So, he makes a firm premise which sounds good and =
which
admittedly most people really believe in. But in his rebuttal to =
Jorgensen, he clearly backs down from this statement by allowing the =
idea of
the Quasi ET and even says parenthetically, "(indeed I take the =
position in
the book that even today, *absolute* ET is actually unattainable)". =
<BR><BR>If
I were the cross examiner, I'd really have him in a tough spot. =
"So
which is it, Mr. Isacoff? Is it really equal or is it not? =
How
unequal can it be before it isn't equal anymore? Hmmmm?" =
<BR><BR>The
truth is that we have not come to the *end* of the evolution of =
keyboard
tuning. We have come to greater understanding and have developed =
higher
degrees of skill which allow us to do much more than our limited =
knowledge and
skills of the past have permitted. Unfortunately, there are many =
people
in the tuning profession and the music industry who are at least a =
little if
not way behind the times. Isacoff's book doesn't help this much. =
It tends to reinforce the idea that already enough is known and =
that low
standards are acceptable. <BR><BR>Bill Bremmer RPT <BR>Madison, =
Wisconsin
<BR><A href="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b =
i l l b r e
m m e r . c o m =-</A> </FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>