<HTML>In a message dated 10/18/01 12:28:26 PM Central Daylight Time, drwoodwind@hotmail.com (Ron Koval) writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I hear from other tuners, that they would like to appreciate HT's, but the dissonences just get in the way.  I'm not surprised, considering the choice of temperaments listed; Young, Kirnberger III, and the Coleman XI are all pretty strong choices!  There is an 'aquired' aspect to tuning in temperaments, and it becomes easier to accept 'stronger' temperaments the more they are heard. </BLOCKQUOTE> I read consistently good thinking from you on this subject, Ron.  Congratulations!  I also liked what Tom S. had to say.  I'm tempted to write a long essay which few people might read but I don't have the time right now.  I've said it all before anyway. I'm sure that some people expect me to rant and rave, saying, to paraphrase a couple of others, "The more H in the HT, the better" but I'm not going to do that and it doesn't reflect my views anyway. The truth is that I am forced to listen and work with pianos tuned in ET all the time, whether I want to or not.  I appreciate a professionally tuned piano in ET and have no gripe against it.  Those technicians who insist upon ET however must realize that they are imposing *their* values and belief system on everyone else.  It's understandable, it's the way they were trained. I went through that period myself, long ago.  I would not use Kirnberger, Werkmeister, Young or any of these most commonly known HT's for Jazz, Romantic, Pop or anything else, precisely for the reasons the others have stated.  Since I rarely tune a piano for one specific type of music for a single performance, I would almost never use any of these HT's.  I don't consider them appropriate for the modern piano, just as the people who have said that they do not and for the same reasons they do not. What needs to be understood is that this "the *more* E in the T, the better" is a fallacy in itself.  Remember George Orwell who made fun of that concept?  Once it is not E, it is not E.  One temperament cannot be more E than the other.  I accept that when the T is really E, *some* people like it best.  But many, if not most have expressed a liking for that *almost* E but not taking it as far as *MEAN* (as in gritting your teeth, shaking your head, leaving the room muttering how the world has gone NUTS) tone. And thanks, Ron for saying that the same applies to octaves too.  What sounds pure and *good* to the technician may well sound dull and flat to the musician but not always. My goal is clarity, definition and texture, together providing for a more musically pleasing and appropriate sound from the modern piano, not unacceptability. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin</HTML>