HT Experience

[Billbrpt@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/22/00 9:27:22 AM Central Daylight Time, 
cedel@supernet.com (Clyde Hollinger) writes:

<< I know my next sentence is likely to fuel the flame of a fire I'm getting 
tired
 of reading about, but I think it was Bill Bremmer who said something like:  A
 lot of aural tuners *think* they are tuning ET when in fact they are probably
 tuning (I forget what).  I often think about that.  Bill, I hope I didn't
 misquote you; feel free to respond. >>

Yes, Clyde, you are right about that.  Back in 1980, I learned to use some of 
the aural techniques which took my own aural tuning from below the current 
RPT standards to a high enough standard to not only qualify as an RPT but to 
train as an Examiner.  It was another 10 years before I actually became 
certified, mostly because until I got an SAT and learned how to use it, I 
could not administer the Exam efficiently.

Over the years, I have listened to the results of many, many tuners.  It is 
rare that anyone scores a perfect 100 on the temperament.  Even one error of 
1 cent produces an audible *inequality* in the temperament.  This makes the 
temperament *almost* or "Quasi" equal, as the class of temperaments which are 
very close to, but not quite equal are called.  In Owen Jorgensen's big red 
book, there is, in fact, a temperament which is exactly the same as ET except 
that one note, the "C" is sharpened by 1 cent.  This makes the Ab-C 3rd beat 
faster and the C-E 3rd beat more gently.  There are others which have only 2 
or 3 one-cent deviations.

Now, for the people who complain that this discussion is endless and 
repetitive, it still seems necessary to answer these questions and clarify 
points continuously.  I am not the one who brought this up.  Each time I do, 
however, I immediately get the response that if such an error is made with an 
HT, then it must have the same altering and nullifying effect.  Each time, 
that assertion has been answered and the fact is that small errors of the 
kind which nullify the state of equality do *not* alter the basic idea and 
sound produced by a typical Meantone or Well-Tempered Tuning.

Having been trained by PTG itself to examen other people's tuning, it became 
my usual practice to listen to what is on a piano before I begin to tune it.  
Now, of course, I expect the piano I am tuning not to be in good tune, 
otherwise I would not be asked to do it and taking that into account, I still 
have found and continue to find, nearly every day, a remarkably high 
incidence of temperaments which are roughly or even quite exactly the 
opposite of a typical Well-Tempered Tuning.

Although I did not coin the term, Reverse Well, it is the term I use to 
identify this common error.  I have encountered it nearly every where I go.  
The tuner who is the house tuner (a non-Member) for the Civic Center here in 
Madison and who tunes for the many prominent artists who come here to perform 
*always* and consistently tunes in Reverse Well and has done so for a good 20 
years.  In my estimation, his tuning would not qualify at RPT level both in 
temperament and octaves but he does tune good unisons.  Who knows if the 
artists are really satisfied with these tunings or not?  I suspect they 
largely are because they probably hear much the same thing in many other 
places and just accept it as being within the normal range of what they 
encounter.  It is not ET but it is considered to be and is certainly 
*believed* to be by the person who does it.

I frequently get as new cutomers and listen to new pianos which come from 
stores in Milwaukee and Chicago as well as from other areas.  They are 
*always* in Reverse Well.  I often know who the tuner is and it is often an 
RPT.  It is entirely possible to pass the RPT Exam while tuning a Reverse 
Well Temperament.  You don't have to really tune ET to pass that exam.  You 
can have as much as 8 cents worth of errors and still pass.  With 8 cents to 
work with, you can really get pretty *unequal* and still pass.  In fact, it 
is even possible to pass at a score of a perfect 100 and still produce a 
mildly unequal temperament and yes, even one which is the opposite of a 
Well-Tempered Tuning, Reverse Well.

So, I have come to regard the idea of ET as Standard Practice and the only 
worthy goal in tuning as merely ideology.  In other words, it's only a 
concept, it only works on paper. It's really only theoretical and not very 
practical at all.  So, all of those who get up in arms about what they 
consider to be Standard Practice or questions of ethical practices seem about 
as ridiculous and offbeat to me as those who espouse some offbeat religious 
or political philosophy.

I don't believe the subject of Temperament is going to go away.  To address 
points made in a couple of other posts, brass and wind instruments made today 
are capable of ET about as closely as today's typical tuners are.  Yes, ET 
may be the intent and the goal, but the *lip* has to take over where other 
limitations fall short.  ET is not the *end* of the evolutionary process of 
temperament.  People who do not want to read what is in these discussions 
should simply delete them.  Saying that you are tired of reading about HT's 
but copying these remarks to the very list that was formed as a way of 
escaping this discussion does not make sense.

There were lots of topics and repetition of ideas that I used to see repeated 
by those who left to join the MPT list that I disliked reading too.  I do not 
like to see the term "PSO" and for nearly every piano ever made to be 
condemned as unworthy of existence.  I do not like to see personal opinions 
represented dogmatically as fact.  So, we all have our preferences, our likes 
and dislikes.  This is a free and open list, so I think it can be expected 
that people will express their opinions and back them up with their knowledge 
and experience.  Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to 
believe and to reject ideas which do not support their set of beliefs.

Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin