In a message dated 98-02-13 08:10:07 EST, you write: << I was really hoping that Bill Bremmer was still on and would give his answer if he has had a chance to sample the digital pianos with their version of the historical temperaments and what his opinion would be on their accuracy. Yes, I really would like to know his opinion on this subject, so if you are still there, Bill? >> Thank you for the question. I am happy to respond although I am not a subscriber at present and will not have time to partcipate actively for a few weeks, at the least. I have not seen or heard the newest Electronic Keyboards (EK) that Les Smith spoke of. However, I have seen others that offered HT's. I and other Madison Chapter Members have noted that while the temperaments offered were unequal and differed from thne ET mode, they were questionable as to what they really were. This leads only to more questions and I hope that someone on the List will find a way to inquire with the manufacturers (Kurzweil & others) about where they got the information on HT's and how it may have been adapted to the EK. You would think that if the EK in question were state-of-the-art and top- of-the-line, that every effort would have been made to present the real "Mc Coy". But this leads back to the discussion of HT's on modern pianos. In all of the literature there is on HT's, Jorgensen's et al, the only topic addressed is the temperament itself. There are two very important questions remaining if the temperament is to be properly effected on the modern piano: inharmonicity and octave stretching (the two being related problems). One of the problems that was immediately noticed with the early EK's was the fact that each key was merely tuned to a theoretical ET frequency. They also had artificial or synthesized sounds and cheap, crummy little speakers. This made them easy to scoff at as being clearly inferior to a real piano. They also did not have a full 88 key keyboard and the touch was that springy, electronic organ type that offered no mechanical interaction to the player. While these could serve as a substitute for a real piano, they actually made people appreciate a real piano more than anything else. They also replaced, to a large degree, the pianos that truly were poorly made. There were manufacturers who were trying to make a low cost piano that they really expected to only last about 15 years. The public did not want these. For one thing, they could not be tuned to standard pitch and hold on to it with any realistic expectation. The EK's, obviously did not have that problem. This is one reason why I have strongly defended certain very ordinary pianos on this List. I feel it is imortant to distinguish between those which are well-built and serviceable and those which are not. Many of those which were really no good are already gone. If a piano can hold up for 20 years or more and can still be tuned to standard pitch, it has been well-made. It may well need cleaning, action tightening, alignment, regulation and voicing along with repairs and some possible correction of original defective workmanship but these activities are our business. We need to learn and know how to handle these kinds of service requirements with ease and efficiency and be able to do them for a price the customer can afford and still make a good living for ourselves. That is our challenge. If we continually badmouth the Kimballs, Wurlitzers, Acrosonics, etc. and have the attitude that there is no good way to tune them, that they are too much trouble to take apart and routinely service, and we show that attitude to the customer by our words and our body language and by telling them "it's not worth the cost of..." and by quoting prices for services that are way beyond that of being realistic, the public will increasingly turn to the EK's, no matter what their limitations are. As EK's developed, they added the Digitally Recorded Sampled Sound (DRSS) of real pianos like the Steinway and Bösendorfer. They also added the so- called "stretch tuning". I went to a demonstration at a Dealer's a good 10 years ago where he was saying that these would be used in TV commercials. He proclaimed that no one would be able to tell the difference between the EK and a real piano when used in this situation. The commercial's sound is all packaged up and compressed and you hear it over your TV's sound system, whatever that is. I remarked at that time that I thought I'd still be able to tell the difference. The dealer said to me directly, "Well, maybe YOU would, Bill, after all you're a little different than most people". Most of the general public probably doesn't think about or care if the music they hear on a TV commercial is a real piano or not. I might not have ever paid attention either but ever since that dealer said that to me, I always notice the sound of a keyboard, real piano or otherwise over TV or radio whether I want to or not. Most of these studios that produce these commercials have long ago gotten rid of their real pianos. Why pay a tuner all the time for a tuning that doesn't last on an instrument which is difficult to properly record when they can just plug in to this EK and get something they can at least depend on? The longer that kind of sound is the only thing ever heard, the more the public accepts it as the norm. EK's have come a long way but they still produce a clearly artificial, imitation sound that is clearly distinguishable. If we don't support quality piano sound on all pianos, large and expensive, and small and ordinary alike, the public will gradually accept that imitation sound and forget the real one. They may even learn to prefer it as people seemingly have learned to prefer the smooth, rounded off sound of ET over the powerful, vibrant and emotional sounds that the HT's can have. There has been a lot of discussion lately about octave stretching and how much is appropriate. I have realized in my own work that the amount of inharmonicity a piano has and the situation the piano is being used in can both affect the decision. I wonder what criteria the EK manufacturers use? Is it some kind of average? Are there simply some mathematical multiples or arbitrary percentages? With regard to the HT's: Where was this information obtained? Were deviations from ET that were published in a book the source used? How, if at all were any compensations made for octave stretching? Several years ago, Wendy Carlos produced a sequel to the original "Switched On Bach" recording called "Switched on Bach 2000". In the liner notes she describes the discovery of the effect that the HT's can have on the synthesized music. It is the most extensive, laudatory and elaborate discussion of the merits of HT's I have ever seen in a commercially produced recording. Carlos recognized that ET was not providing the shades of color that performing musicians provide when they play their instruments expressively using vibrato and other techniques. She discovered that the HT's provided a facsimile of these shades principally by the varied speeds of the Rapidly Beating Intervals (RBI). This is a point that I have been trying to make. Some seem to feel that the emotion in music can come from other sources and it surely can but to ignore the potential that lies in the HT's is to really ignore a great number of possibilities. Yes, you can have a I-IV-V7 structure and leave it unresolved in ET and it will still leave the listener "hanging" much the same as it would if the piano were tuned in an HT and as it would if the piano were simply out-of-tune. It would do it in Reverse-Well too. That's not really the point. The harmonic structure of music is essentially unaffected by the temperament, but the kind and quality of temperament you apply to it will act as a spice does to a recipe. Some of these national chain restaurants all have certain recipes that their cooks (not chefs) must follow. Everything has been pre-determined to offend no one. These places are of course a dependable source for a good meal. But when you want something distinctive, individual, prepared by a chef who has his own ideas about what will titilate the palate, you go to an individually owned and operated restaurant. Some will say "that food is too hot and spicey for me". Others will say, "I don't go there, everything is so bland". It's all a matter of taste and preference. But if the only thing available is that which has been pre-determined by those who control the industry, the public is not even aware of that which might interest them. They might be so used to that which is ordinary and bland that they find anything else strange and shocking. I hope everyone on the List will buy Ed Foote's CD. It really is quite good. But if I had to summarize my personal feelings about it in just a few words, I'd say, "Too smooth! A little rougher next time, please!" From what Ed has said here on the List and in the way he tuned the piano in the recording, Ed is very consciously concerned about offending anyone with something they just might find to sound out-of-tune. He produced a sound for the piano that has crystal-like clarity. But this is only one of the virtually infinite possibilities. He could have, for example, used the same temperament but stretched his 6th & 7th octaves quite a bit more for a different sound. This might have been more appropriate if it were a concert hall recording rather than a studio one. While I have never heard Beethoven sound better in a commercial CD, I know that there are other temperaments which can bring out far more color than that which was used. This is not really a criticism of Ed's choice as much as it is of the status quo that forces him to be so constrained. The pianist might not have liked anything any stronger. Why? She simply has never experienced anything stronger. She might be shocked by it and instantly demand, "Back to ET!". Even though the tempering was so mild, there were still technicians on the List who thought they heard sounds which were "out-of-tune" to their ears. This is because they have trained themselves to think and respond to a very narrow band of tolerance. While exacting standards are good, the narrow range of what is acceptable and not becomes much like the standardized recipes in the chain restaurants. The tuning is rounded off and equalized to the point where there is no longer any texture to it. Nothing stands out. It offends no one, supposedly. People come to accept that sound whether they ever stated a preference for it or not. It was served to them without their consent. Yes, there may have been people who stated a preference for ET in the early part of the 20th Century just like there were taste tests that made the determinations about what combinations would offend no one, the choice of ET was made back then and more or less forced upon the general public. The public has forgotten to a large degree that there could be anything else. When given the choice between any two alternatives, it is easy to influence the outcome. "Regular or MEANtone?" So, in my view, serving up ET as the only offering is in itself imposing an individual technician's idea of what is right or making an assumption of what the customer wants without asking, even if this is what the majority of the tuning profession does and believes to be proper. The problem is complicated and complex because there is so little common knowledge and understanding about what the alternatives may be. I am influenced by this as well for I feel that most of the time if I am going to do an HT, I have to do what Ed did and tune something that will offend no one. I really get a distinct pleasure out of tuning a stronger temperament for a customer who knows the difference, understands it and asks for it by name. We need to keep ahead of the EK competion by being able to provide something which they can never successfully duplicate with the artificial, imitation sounds that their products offer. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC