A440A@AOL.COM wrote: > > In > >> As far as my view that choosing a WT over ET imposes one's personal taste, >> here I observe a philosophical difference in what I consider to be my role >> as a piano technician. Choosing a style of tuning which gives each key a >> distinct character, like it or not, places greater interpretive importance >> on the technician than should be there. > > Says who? If a technician feels that way, then ET is the perfect > choice for them. It doesn't require decision making from a musical > standpoint, at all. It is (or has been) a safe refuge from critique. But at > a cost that is becoming known to an increasing number of pianists. Good or > bad, this is progress. > Choosing a style of tuning that we know wasn't available to the author > is, in effect, creating a transcription. Removing the tonal contrasts that > Beethoven decided upon when he used the key of E is a lot closer to > "re-interpreting" than using a tuning of his time. > > Ed Foote > This basic argument has come up several times now, and the reply seem equally justified each time. One simply has to remember that ET on the piano was just not available at the time, certainly not like we know it today. Thus "choosing" the style of tuning that is ET is tantamount to taking in hand that exact "interpretive importance" the debatant says should not be there. The arguemenation is made much more difficult by the fact, and I think Bill B harps a lot on this point and rightly so, that this particular "ET" choice is made from a standpoint of temperament ignorance (not meant as a negative loaded expression) Ergo... one makes an unconcious interpretive temperament decision that is both inappropriate and exceeds the authority of interpretive license a tuner is given.... gets difficult at best to make all these ends meet... No ... methinks Ed, Bill, and company are closer to the right on this one. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC