> If a Valotti/Young is not perfectly >accurate but can still function satisfactorily, so can an ET with the same >level of error, I think. > >Bob Davis What do we mean by accurate in HT's? No one KNOWS what a Valotti/Young sounded like in its day. After all, all we have (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) are some fairly loosely worded instructions from the period, that don't approach the accuracy available with VTD's and advanced aural tests. The instructions have been meticulously interpreted for us by Dr. Jorgensen, whose scholarship cannot be assailed, but in the end, what most of us would call a Valotti/Young, is based on this one 20th century interpretation, and tuned by methods not available when the tuning was in wide use. (I believe that may be the longest sentence I've ever written) Please understand that I am a fan of both Owen Jorgensen, and of HT's. I also see advantages to standardization of HT's so that when a performer asks for "Young", he/she gets something that is pretty close to the same in every venue. If we have standard rules for HT's and they are consistently applied with the same accuracy as ET, then we might find less resistance in the marketplace. That being said, its seems to me that we should be aware that we are using 20th century methodologies to attempt a 17th/18th/19th century craft. So I guess the gist of all this is that by "accurate" you mean "accurate to the Jorgensen standard" Just some random thoughts... John McKone, RPT St. louis Park, Minnesota (612) 280-8375 mckonejw@skypoint.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC