Bach and E.T. or W.T.

[Richard Brekne]

A440A@AOL.COM wrote:
> 
>  
>       I hope to avoid a confrontive or competitive framing of the temperament
> discussion, at least in the early laps.   That can be saved for later.  At
> the moment,  the immediate task is in creating an awareness of the
> alternatives to a single-temperament approach and making the investigation of
> the temperaments more attractive to the working technician.

Gotta say Ed... Extremely well put.

>       It is that investigation that will provide the grist for more
> meaningful discussions of what the temperaments are worth. At the moment, the
> topic is a novelty, but less so than before.  With increasing numbers of
> techs exploring the possibilities,  there will be a lot more content to
> compare and profit from.

Not only would such an investigation do the above, but it would undoubtedly
improve the skills and understandings of the tuning puzzle of any tech
embarking on that investigative journey. Not to mention increasing the
level of enjoyment and appreciation for the work that we do.


>     I am beginning to question how fast the tuners of the late 1700-1800's
> could have been persuaded to change their tuning.   Unless the tuners of
> yesteryear were a LOT more progressive and open to change than we today,  the
> changing of temperament styles was much slower than what the theorists
> writings would indicate.
> 

And I am beggining to question why it is that we require so little of
ourselves in regards to basic theory of tuning. Why is it we are not
required to display at least a basic working knowledge of some of the more
important Historical Temperaments ? Why is it we are not required to show
more then the most rudiment knowledge of the partial series, inharmonicity
in general, temperament construction, and how this fits into our work ?
Isnt it time that we move beyond this "heck we dont really need any of this
to actually tune a piano" attidude ? 

It is true that we can train piano tech to listen to a series of aural
tests, without explaining why or how these tests work, and manage to teach
them how to "acceptably" tune an ET, or for that matter any other
temperament. But is this all we want to accomplish in that teaching process
? Are we really so content to rely on personal endeavor to produce a
handfull of techs that move significantly beyond this level of
accomplishment when the ability to endow them with a much deeper
understanding is relatively easy to accomplish ?

Heck we are ten times more clever at teaching regulation related subject
matter. Classes abound. I cannot see that even a fraction of the same
"weight" is placed on an understanding of the greater spectre of tuning
theory.

I spent nearly 25 years in the dark, doing a decent enough job as a tuner.
These past 3 years have no doubt been the most exciting and only now I feel
like I am really able to think of myself truly in the light of being a
novice tuner. Actually it makes me a bit bitter when I think of the fact
that the knowledge is indeed available. Why should it be so difficult to
establish a basic ciriculum for piano tech study and require this of any
and all who would call themselves "piano technician" ??

grin... sorry... just had the urge to soapbox it for a bit..:)

-- 
Richard Brekne
Associate PTG, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway