Tuning Testing Standard

[Kenneth Sloane]

        Reply to:   RE>>Tuning Testing Standards

Jim- Your suggestion to combine the stability and unison part of the test is a good one, thus giving examiners a chance to see/hear if the person being tested can accurately tune unisons that will withstand a substantial test blow. I would suggest doing this in the entire treble break just above the agraffes where unisons just love to embarass a tuner. If you can tune unisons here that will sing real pretty throughout an all Liszt program, you're doin' just fine!     Ken Sloane, Oberlin Conserrvatory

--------------------------------------
Date: 2/18/99 10.40 PM
To: Kenneth Sloane
From: caut@ptg.org
Hi Ken:

Thanks for your comments and especially your emphasis on stability. Our
Tuning test does give a fairly tight scoring on stability.

I would prefer to change the stability test to cover only the 5th octave
to save time and have this combined with unisons. This is the killer
area where unisons most often go out, not in the 3rd and 4th octaves. I
have mentioned this in our committee. It was then felt that we should not
make too many changes at once. Perhaps next year would be more appropriate.
This would shorten the test and we would not have a score for stability
as such, but it would be reflected in how the unisons stay. I feel that
this would be a more practical test for stability and unisons. It doesn't
make any difference how well a person can tune a unison if it does not
stay.

Jim Coleman, Sr.


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by qmgate.cc.oberlin.edu with ADMIN;18 Feb 1999 22:38:44 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by bridget.rudoff.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA13311
	for caut-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:38:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from andy@localhost)
	by bridget.rudoff.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA13305
	for caut@ptg.org; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:38:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from post5.inre.asu.edu (post5.inre.asu.edu [129.219.110.86])
	by bridget.rudoff.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10609
	for <caut@ptg.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:30:02 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp2.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-12 #24133)
 with ESMTP id <01J7WB7OSXQQ8YBXNW@asu.edu> for caut@ptg.org; Thu,
 18 Feb 1999 17:31:03 MST
Received: from sss1-03.inre.asu.edu (sss1-03.inre.asu.edu [129.219.5.132])
 by smtp2.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA11726; Thu,
 18 Feb 1999 17:30:09 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:28:50 -0700 (MST)
From: "Jim Coleman, Sr." <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tuning Testing Standards
In-reply-to: <n1292875162.60806@qmgate.cc.oberlin.edu>
X-Sender: pianotoo@imap2.asu.edu
To: Kenneth Sloane <Kenneth_Sloane@qmgate.cc.oberlin.edu>
Cc: caut@ptg.org
Message-id: <Pine.PCW.3.91.990218172316.12286B-100000@sss1-03.inre.asu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-caut@ptg.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: caut@ptg.org