Jim Coleman, Sr. said a lot of things in his post, including: . . . >I asked for a show of hands as to how many in the audience were musicians. >My estimate was at about 95%. I confessed my ulterior motive for doing >this kind of demonstration. In 1977 Dr. Sanderson and I were asked by then >President Don Morton to develop a standardized Tuning test for the Guild. >We adjusted our scoring procedures so that 80% of the then RTT members would >pass at the 80% score. Being a perfectionist as I am in some areas, I began >pushing for tighter scoring in the Temperament area. We later adopted a >multiplier system such that the total error points would be multiplied by >2.5 and then subtracted from 100% to give the final Temperament Score. >We have used this tighter scoring procedure for almost 20 years now. The >question in my mind is: "Have we tightened our scoring to satisfy the >elitests? Are we now just 'gilding the Lily'? If an audience of piano >technicians who are also musicians cannot tell the difference between >equal temperament and a mild historical temperament, are we on an ego trip? >Are we setting standards to protect our little clique? Are our standards set >to protect the public from shoddy work? Which is it?" > One of the refreshing things about the Tuning Exam, as it currently exists, is that it is NOT a mandate to tune a piano one certain way. Rather, it is a test to see if the examinee can tune a piano to a certain set of directions. It is not a test to see if the examinee can produce "the best possible tuning" on a given piano. Rather, it is a test to see if the examinee is competent enough at tuning to follow a set of directions. The question of which temperament one person prefers over another is not the issue. Whether a group of competent technicians seem to prefer a non-equal temperament on a certain piano on a certain day with certain music is not the question. Rather, the question is, and always will be, simply whether the examinee is competent to perform a tuning that conforms to a set of directions. >My question to this group is: Do you feel that our temperament standards >are a little too high? I would like some feedback. I am not promoting >Historical or hysterical tunings. In all of the classes where I have done >this type of test, it was conceded that both tunings were good tunings. > >Have I opened a "can or worms" or what? > >Jim Coleman, Sr. "Do you feel that our temperament standards are a little too high?", he asks. Personally, I do not think this. Anyone who has given very many exams, and actually PLAYed the pianos at the end of the exam and LISTENed to the results, will not say that our standards are, by any stretch of the imagination, "too high". There are some really bad, uneven tunings that actually pass the exam - because they are within the perameters set by the exam. It is clear that, at times, examinees manage to get the piano even enough to pass the exam, yet not even enough to sound real good when played. I, for one, would not want to relax the exam perameters any more than they are. But thanks for asking. Randy Randy Potter, R.P.T. Randy Potter School of Piano Technology "Training Competent Piano Technicians Into the 21st Century" Celebrating 11 Years, with students & graduates in over 70 countries! See our NEW web page at www.pianotuning.com We are accepting registrations for our 1999 Hands-on Training Seminar July 25-August 1, 1999 @ Northwestern College in St. Paul, MN.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC