Shazamm,
Ron, you seem awfully defensive about this discussion, which surprises
me. I seem to remember from your postings that you found fault in the
current state of soundboard production in some of the high end pianos. You
decry the reliance on "tradition" and just building them as they had been
done before, and suggest that an increased awareness of soundboard science
could yield a better sound. You posit that a change in how soundboards are
built would improve pianos.
From all indications, temperament awareness was also static for the
last 100 years, we all just learned what was being done and did it, too.
Tuners simply followed "tradition" and did it the way it was being done when
they began. Now that some tuners decry this reliance on the ET status quo,
and suggest that an increased awareness of temperament could yield a better
sound, you feel that we are condemning those that don't. I am confused by
your vehemence toward the tuners that are promoting a broader view of
temperament while you seem to be waging the same battle with current
soundboard makers. Am I totally wrong to see similarities between these two
progressions?
Yes, there was a lot of condemnation, but it was very localized in
origin, is certainly not a characteristic of the AT tuners at large, and it
is disheartening that such a broad paintbrush be used to color us thusly.
I wrote:
> The liability isn't in using ET, it is in using ONLY ET, (or any
>single temperament).
By this I meant, restricting yourself to only one out of many available
options is self-limiting. This applies to temperaments as well as
soundboards. It is beyond me as to how that is twisted to support a
statement such as:
>> 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.<<
Um, if you are going to that example, make it "our" collegue. My specific
interest is in learning to use all the resources (tunings included)
available. I only used the soundboard example as a comparison of bandwidth to
value for us techs on the lists. So when I say:
>. 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.
You reply:
>>Not to the people doing it.
The people replacing soundboards are of course interested in it. So what?
I wasn't talking about them, just the other 99% of technicians that don't.
>>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?<<
Seems that is really stretching things, comparing the utility of learning
soundboard design to the value of learning how to tune in a variety of
styles. I submit that the latter is within reach of far, far more techs. I
would think a logical cut-off point would be found when there is nothing to
be done about something. Such as when the tech rings the doorbell; he may
be better equipped to sell his wares if he has a variety of tunings, rather
than being able to tell the customer that their soundboard is poorly
designed.
I wrote:
>Tuning styles affect virtually all techs immediately and
>financially. is it any wonder that tuning would be a major subject among us?
Ron replies:
>>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.<<
You left out the word "only" which is the key to the entire debate. I tune
ET along with a lot of other temperaments. And yes, the majority of tuners I
have spoken with are held back from the use of AT because of fear. However,
fear is usually the result of ignorance, and that is what many people in the
temperament classes are there to dispell(at least, that is what they tell
me). It is working, too. There is a constantly growing number of techs that
are now tuning the temperments.
Techs that tune only one way are missing out on a big part of the art. It
matters not whether they adhere to ET or WT or MT or AT, If you only tune
one way, there is, by definition, a limit in place. It seems that if a tech
relies solely on one temperament, they are either convinced of its
superiority, unable to learn others, afraid of something new, or just don't
care. If anyone has another explanation, please let me know!
When I write:
> The use of non-ET temperaments brings harmonic judgements into question.
>This is really touchy to many techs.
Ron writes:
>>Is it? I don't read "touchy". I read "can't tell the difference", which
tends to make the AT folks "touchy".
Well, I don't understand that, at all. A tech that cannot tell the
difference between tunings doesn't create any reason for others to get touchy
about. It isn't the AT tuner's loss, but rather, a helpful bit of
exclusivity.
Ron writes:
>> 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.<<
It may be that doing something about the soundboard is out of reach for
most of us. This is why I refer to it as "academic" interest. Tuning is
something that can be changed easily and sold often. Doesn't it make sense
that something within the technician's ability to change may be more
profitably investigated than piano design?
>Well, David's posting of "ET rules" is sorta like saying "ET is supreme"
>isn't it?
Ron writes:
>>Only if your comment about lack of a technician's progress equates to
"retarded", and research on soundboard design is "useless".
Geez, I chose my words ( limited and academic), carefully, and see no
reason for you to change them to make a better target for your contention.
Limiting oneself to a single temperament doesn't mean retarded, and academic
doesn't mean useless, though for the tech that will never replace a board,
the science of doing so is of limited value.
I wrote:
>Remaining fixed on a single temperament can be a
>problem, discussing the value of change is not.
Ron replies:
>>Again, remaining "fixed" on a single temperament is no more a problem than
dismissing improvements in soundboard design as "academic".
What we got here is a failure to communicate. I never dismissed
improvements in soundboards as academic. I referred to the value of its
discussion as academic to most techs, and is that not true? The fact is,
there is a lot more tuning going on than soundboard replacement so there are
a lot more dollars being spent on tuning than soundboard improvement. From
knowledge of which subject could the majority of tuners profit the most?
Ed Foote RPT
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC