Long post to Bill, was Re: Computers gaining ever bigger role in making music

[Farrell]

Hi Wim.

You are very kind, thoughful and caring to even try to get through to this guy. As I'm sure you suspect, it will not likely do much good, but you sure are a peach for trying - and to do it so constructively. My hat is off to you Wim. Maybe it will get him to at least pause for a moment. I really just can't believe some of his posts. Geesh!

Good to see there are some level heads and big hearts in this group.

Terry Farrell
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Wimblees@AOL.COM>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: Long post to Bill, was Re: Computers gaining ever bigger role in making music 


> In a message dated 3/17/02 1:47:26 PM Central Standard Time, Billbrpt@AOL.COM 
> writes:
> 
> Bill, I don't know how a posting about electronic advances in music 
> production wound up to be another one of your sermons on historical 
> temperaments, but allow me to respond to some of your comments. 
> 
> > Subscribers to this list continually misread and misinterpret what I have to 
> > say. 
> 
> As I have stated, the concepts you have are great. What many people have 
> trouble with is the way you say it. 
> 
>  My point is that tuning is still taught and thought of as having only one 
> correct 
> > method and outcome. 
> 
> When I took my first music theory course, I made many mistakes. When I told 
> my instructor that there is lots of music with parallel fifths and octaves, 
> he said, "When you learn to do it right, then you have the right to do it 
> wrong." Before you can learn to do a historical temperament, you need to be 
> able to an equal temperament. Not because a HT is right, but that is what is 
> needed to pass the RPT exam. Once that has been established, then there is 
> nothing wrong with experimenting with HT's. 
> 
>  Historical Temperaments, refinements such as different types of octaves and 
> other 
> > alternatives such as newly designed temperaments are scoffed at, downplayed 
> > and even viciously opposed.  Often, the greatest resistance comes from the 
> > people who don't want to even see such a thing on the Convention or seminar 
> > schedule and who know virtually nothing about these ideas. 
> 
> In most cases, Bill, it wasn't the concept that these people were opposed to. 
> It was the person who was asking that these concepts be used. At the Central 
> West Regional last year, both Ed and Skip's classes were very well attended. 
> I have been to many other classes by these two people, and others, where 
> attendance was very good. But not everyone at the seminar wanted to attend 
> those classes, because HT's are not the only way to tune a piano. Not 
> everyone is wants to do it that way. If you could only accept that, and quit 
> trying to cram it down our throat, perhaps we would be more willing to listen 
> to you. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > PTG has been great for me, it's where I learned everything I know.  It 
> > provided me with the foundation to take what I learned and create something 
> > new, not just regurgitate what I had been taught.  But at this point, from 
> > what I have heard from the Institute Director, it has little more to offer. 
> >  I'm not the only one who sees little or no value in attending the 
> > Convention.  As I see it, I would only be contributing to and affirming the 
> > quest for the lowest common denominator.   
> 
> The PTG has been great for me to. It is still great for me. But just because 
> you don't see enough HT classes offered at the convention, you decided not to 
> attend. You don't think there are any other classes offered from which you 
> could learn something? I'm sorry, Bill, but I just don't buy that. I have 
> been to 24 conventions and probably three times as many seminars, and by 
> golly, I learn something new every time. And most of the new things I learn 
> are in classes where I thought I knew it all.  
> 
> > As I see it, some of these, maybe most of those who just wish I would go 
> > away and shut up are the ones who seek the "dumbing down" of the 
> > profession.  The advice offered is often poor and misguided, the 
> > information is often just plain wrong.  
> 
> Now that is an awful strong statement to make. Please explain what you are 
> talking about. If there are classes or subjects taught that are just plain 
> wrong, I hope you let that person know he/she about it. 
> 
> To criticize or offer a counter opinion is viewed as a "personal attack" yet 
> some of 
> > those individuals feel the right to do the very same thing: the old "pecking 
> > order". 
> > 
> > 
> "To criticize or offer a counter opinion." Now that says it all. Bill, as I, 
> and many others have said, there is nothing wrong with offering a counter 
> opinion. But why do you have to criticize the opinions of others? That is 
> where your problem lies. Yes, you have the right to disagree with me, and 
> offer a million other opinions. I am even willing to accept you egotistical 
> way of telling me how great you are. But don't criticize my opinion, or my 
> way of setting a temperament, or my way of dealing with customers. 
> 
> In spite of what you might think, I really do appreciate your talents. What I 
> don't appreciate is your condescending attitude, not just to me, but to 
> others on this list.
> Offer suggestions and different opinions. Explain how your temperament works. 
> But don't criticize the people on this list, and above all, don't attack 
> someone personally for their attitudes or opinions. Because, as you can 
> attest to, we will bite back. 
> 
> Bill, you have apologized time and again. But as I said earlier, I will wait 
> to accept your apology until I can see you really mean it. With your recent 
> comments to the Institute Committee, that wait is going to be very long. 
> 
> Wim 
> 
> 
>