On 11/30/04 4:41 AM, "David M. Porritt" <dporritt@mail.smu.edu> wrote:
> I tend to agree that the test emphasizes aspects that are less-than-absolute
> requirements in the real world. However, it is a test and needs certain
> objective elements. You can't have the standard for the test to be "Octaves
> stretched somewhat" or "pretty much equal" temperament. The alternative to
> the test as it exists now would be to go back to the good old boy system of
> evaluation.
>
> dave
Hi Dave,
I certainly agree that one has to set a standard, and it has to be firm.
And I would even agree that, generally speaking, the PTG test standards for
ET and octaves are good ones. However, where I see a problem is in the
emphasis. In the 25 years since the test appeared, what has been made
tighter? ET standards in temperament and midrange (multipliers increased).
What has become looser? Stability standards (when stability is checked, you
are no longer responsible for precisely where those notes are).
And, of course, the emphasis in a majority of articles about tuning is
toward finer and finer nit-picking of ET progression, and looking at single
octaves in isolation (whatever width they may be - rather than looking at
the piano as a whole and its entire stretch over three and four octave
spans), giving the impression that by paying closer and closer attention to
these details you will create better tunings.
In fact, I'd argue that the opposite is true. Focusing too much
attention and time on that nit-picking stuff leaves less time and attention
available for what really matters: unisons and stability. So I'd suggest
there is a second alternative to the current test, in addition to "good old
boy." Relax ET standards a bit (not more than where they were in the 1980's)
and create a much more rigorous unison and stability standard. My druthers
would be three octaves of unisons, stability tested _before_ being read.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC