Hi- Well, if the point is to demonstrate that only recently have we been able "perfect" some super subtleties of our tuning craft that may not be "authentic", other than maybe in spirit- I don't have any problem with that at all. If we are trying to make an overall aesthetic value judgment on the merit of doing that- (how we do what we do)- then go ahead but personally I think that is not the right approach. If there is art at work here, then this bit is an example. Are players stopped because the majority of the audience may not pick up all the subtleties of their interpretation? Top chefs do not much talk about the clever and subtle ingredients that go into their work, but that makes the whole experience what it is. I really don't care much to the degree that my customers notice subtle differences between my work and someone else. Some know, most don't. What I do care is that I'm happy with what I do and am convinced that I did my best in my judgment for that instrument. That's all. Same as you. It's simple. Considering, and understanding the subtleties, I can still say that sometimes we over rate our significance. It's only tuning. Like I said before there is only good tuning and bad tuning. The differences make it interesting. Anyway, I didn't know it was a controversial or "passionate" statement that an 80% temperament score is a poor representation of ET. Doesn't take a lot of exam experience to confirm that. This is a starting point that we have decided is the minimum acceptable in order to join our organization as an RPT, and hopefully continue to improve over years- in part with seminars and conventions. I was intimate with the Ellis tunings maybe 12 years ago. Haven't looked at them now for a long time, I can't remember some of those details. I would have to review. The interesting point to me is any patterns that develop, and I think we agree on that. That makes sense. Now I'm late for my big job of the day- gotta run, thanks, Dennis Johnson ______________________ On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:04 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote: > > Interesting story..... but aside from all that, scoring 80% or better on >> the exam is really no good measure of ET. Sorry. Bill Bremmer and I did >> this a long time ago at one of the Conventions, can't remember which, but >> our Victorian Tunings all came in at around 85%. I wish I could remember >> more of the specific details, but this is easily confirmed. I enjoyed the >> read anyway. >> > > > Hi Dennis, > Yes, I am certainly aware that most "Victorian Tunings" would pass > the PTG test, and, indeed, that most of those supposed "quasi-equal" > temperaments that Jorgensen so painstakingly calculates and emulates would > pass in the 90% and above range. > Passionate true believers in the VT (or mild WT, or whatever flavor > is preferred) are convinced that the differences between those patterns and > ET are significant, even very significant. And yet, all such true believers > and practitioners I have talked to or corresponded with is also "sorry to > state" that the majority of their customers can not tell the difference. For > a small minority it is apparently important, but for most it is > imperceptible. > So we run up against the question, once again, of where the limits > of significance actually lie. Is it, in fact, significant that some small > minority can hear the difference and values it? (Well, it is significant for > those people, assuming they are actually that acute and sensitive in their > hearing and that suggestibility is not a part of the phenomenon). An open > question. I certainly have an open mind about the possibility that these > differences are significant, but it has not proven true in my own > experience, either for myself or for any of my customers. And many > colleagues who have been interested have told a similar tale - they offer > this wonderful thing, and the customer yawns. > Much of the VT style is predicated on "equal-beating" intervals. I > believe that is the case with Bill Bremmer and with yourself. Let us > remember that "equal-beating" is, without question, the invention of Owen > Jorgensen. It was initially a method to come up with approximate aural > instructions for temperaments that were really, in practical terms, > impossible to achieve. So if the effect of the VT depends on these > equal-beating relationships, we are talking about a 20th century creation, > not about history. > Going back to history and evidence, I am willing to state that the > Ellis tunings suggest the possible survival of UET traditions of tuning, > specifically narrower fifths on the diatonic keys to produce narrower > thirds. "Suggest" and "possible" are key words here. They do not, repeat, do > not demonstrate a refined and extraordinarily subtle pattern. They are > obviously rough, and it is equally possible to suggest that in such a small > sampling the "errors" compared to ET are random. > Is 80% on the tuning test a good measure of ET? A very controversial > subject, and one in which arguments are almost always based far more on > passion than on demonstrable facts. We all like to think of ourselves as > more perfect than everyone else, and that our tunings (which are always at > 100% of what we aim for <g>) are far better than a mere 80% tuning. But who > has actually investigated the question? All I ever see or hear are > unverifiable anecdotes, and often when I ask probing questions, they end up > being far less conclusive than they appeared. > > Regards, > Fred Sturm > fssturm at unm.edu > http://www.createculture.org/profile/FredSturm > http://www.youtube.com/fredsturm > http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/FredSturm > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100422/f86a9144/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC