I will say no more than this...my comment "ET does rule" was simply to state a fact and comment on Jon's statement. I have little interest in HT and yes I am a piano tuner. I don't need HT folks jumping on my case so Ed and Jon save your same old comments for another time with a different group who haven't heard them over and over again ad nauseum. David I. On 11 Feb 2003 at 9:46, Ron Nossaman wrote: > > >Ron writes: > ><< Just what is this insistence that everyone who isn't dedicating > >their professional and personal lives to pursuit of alternate > >temperaments is in the stone age and afraid of anything but ET? << > > > >Greetings, > > I am not sure where to start. The condemnation of other > > tuner's > > tunings > >was pretty much centralized in the perspective of one technician (now > >absent). It is very simple to look at the temperament debate as one > >of "ET against anything else", but that is not what is now being > >done. > > Isn't it? Here are Jon's comments again. > >Just what is this constrictor-hold that ET has over everyone? > > > >Fear-of-learning-another-temperament? > > > > >The real > >debate should be on whether one tuning is so superior to all others > >that it should be used exclusively. > > And as I said, I don't read that the general attitude is that ET, and > ONLY ET, should be used and is superior to all other temperaments. > Again, the only faction that argues that stand at great length are the > AT folks. > > > > The contention begins when somebody says that one temperament is > > just > >that. Jon had posted the results of his practical application of > >these tunings and David I. immediately posted "ET rules". Claiming > >dominence is a surefire way to create contention. In fact, claiming > >superiority for any one temperament is guaranteed to start an > >argument. > > I must have missed the discussion between you or Jon, since his post > is the one I responded to, and David I. about what he meant by the > comment. I somehow didn't read all that in those two words. What I did > read from Jon was that ET has a constrictor hold over everyone and ET > tuners are all afraid to learn a new temperament. I suppose that means > David's two word comment was taken by Jon, and apparently you, as > speaking for the entire number of tuners of ET. > > > > I offer no condemnation of any temperament, I use them all. > > And I have offered neither condemnation, nor endorsement of any > temperament whatsoever that I'm aware of. Neither have I said that a > tuner not following my tuning philosophy is failing to progress and is > not following because of fear or prejudice. > > > >This is > >not the same as opining that a mono-temperament technician is > >limiting their progress. The liability isn't in using ET, it is in > >using ONLY ET, (or any single temperament). This is a major > >difference. > > And as I've said before, temperament tuning is not the only measure of > progress in piano technology, as least not for most technicians. It > isn't even piano specific. There is considerable progress being made > in piano technology by people who don't feel particularly deficient > for not pursuing ATs, and describing all technicians not pursuing your > specific interest as fearful, prejudiced against anything but ET, and > self limiting isn't a lot different from the approach of your > colleague in Madison. > > > >. However, soundboard design is something out of the reach > >of 99% of the technicians out there, thus it is of academic rather > >than practical interest. > > Not to the people doing it. To them, it is quite practical and has > been necessary for a very long time. What percentage of techs out > there do you suppose restring pianos, recap bridges, replace actions, > or even just the occasional set of hammers - compared to all the techs > who tune? What's the cutoff point at which piano work becomes academic > and impractical? Isn't imposing this sort of arbitrary judgement of > what's worthwhile and what isn't limiting your progress as a > technician? > > > >Tuning styles affect virtually all techs immediately and > >financially. is it any wonder that tuning would be a major subject > >among us? > > No wonder at all, and I haven't objected to discussions on tuning > styles. What I object to is the characterization of anyone tuning ET > as insisting on the superiority of the temperament above all others, > and being fearful and progress limited as a tech because they tune ET. > > > > The use of non-ET temperaments brings harmonic judgements into > > question. > >This is really touchy to many techs. > > Is it? I don't read "touchy". I read "can't tell the difference", > which tends to make the AT folks "touchy". I read discussions and > disagreements among AT tuners about the appropriateness of a given > temperament for a specific piece of music or venue. I read > disagreements between AT tuners about what temperament is appropriate > for what use, and I read that disagreements are ok, as long as you're > trying different temperaments than ET. > > > >Why it is important is that a change of > >temperament can be,(and often is), more profound than the finer > >points of voicing or regulation. That it is an easily learned skill > >makes it even more baffling that so many don't want to consider the > >concept, preferring to stick with their own status quo. > > And with what I think is probably a majority of tuners now using ETDs > there's not much different to learn except to apply the specific > template and follow the spinner. So it must surely be fear and > loathing, rather than just a lack of interest that's preventing > universal use of multiple temperaments. Personally, I'm baffled that > so few people are interested in learning something about soundboards, > preferring to spend their time wondering why they can't voice or tune > away that treble "dink", killer octave and tubby low tenor break. > > > > >> Why do the disciples of alternative temperaments insist that > > >> anyone who > >isn't > >interested in their passion is a technological pagan? <snip> I read > >about the desperate clinging of the pitifully backward adherents of > >ET to their obviously deficient temperament(s, including the > >ubiquitous reverse well variants), and their virulent opposition to > >anything else. I read all this from the alternate temperament folks. > ><< > > > > Please, that is a singular viewpoint, from only one source that > > I know > >of. You don't read that from the other "Alternate temperament > >folks". > > > My mistake. Jon's comment apparently had nothing to do with any of > that - somehow. Nor did yours that not tuning ATs is limiting a tech's > progress. > > > >I > >have only heard one person in 27 years using the term "reverse well" > >and that was condemning others in defense of an extreme postion held. > > The current use of temperaments today owes its presence to modern > >technology. The current PTG testing for ET accuracy depends on > >technology. > > All of which is incidental to my point, which I apparently again > failed to make in the last post. > > > >There isn't any bias one way > >or another, so let's not be poisoned by singular odd perspectives. > > As I explained above. > > > > >Well, David's posting of "ET rules" is sorta like saying "ET is > >supreme" isn't it? > > Only if your comment about lack of a technician's progress equates to > "retarded", and research on soundboard design is "useless". How does > "sorta like" become absolute declaration in the presence of an AT? And > why didn't anyone ask him what he meant? > > > >As far as general condemnation, perhaps the early postings on the > >list from some of the older techs would be instructive. In 1997, > >when I posed the suggestion that techs would be responsible for > >teaching the piano playing public a new tuning, I was met with a > >chorus of condemnation. Unfortunately, this was taken as an attack by > >one proponent and the entire subject quickly became poisoned by > >personal vitriol. That is not the case today. > > No, it isn't. So why is it still being defended as if it were? > > > > Once again, please don't let one extreme viewpoint come to > > represent a > >whole class of technicians. > > That's exactly what I'm protesting. > > > >Remaining fixed on a single temperament can be a > >problem, discussing the value of change is not. > >Regards, > > > >Ed Foote RPT > > Again, remaining "fixed" on a single temperament is no more a problem > than dismissing improvements in soundboard design as "academic". > Considerably less so, in my opinion. > > Ron N > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC