Jorgensen vs Isacoff

[Billbrpt@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 5/8/02 6:04:31 PM Central Daylight Time, 
piano@charlesneuman.net (Charles Neuman) writes:


> My only complaint about Jorgensen is that he uses a strict definition of
> ET and then applies it to other people's use of the term. It's fine for
> him to define ET as being good enough to pass the RPT tests, but I don't
> think it's fair for him to call someone "wrong" for using the term ET in a
> more general sense. In fact, Jorgensen could use his definition of ET and
> conclude that ET is not widely used in the world today because there is
> not a vast majority of tuners who can pass the RPT exams. Obviously, if
> he made that argument then "ET" would mean something different for him
> than it does most people who tune ET.
> 
> On the other hand, Isacoff seems to be reckless with the term "equal
> temperament", and I think he really means "non-restrictive temperament
> such that it wouldn't sound out of tune to an average listener". If he
> said that he defined "equal temperament" that way, then I don't think
> there would be much to argue about with his arguments. For example, he
> doesn't care whether it was possible to tune ET in Bach's time. His
> comment that "psychologically, Bach had accepted the idea of equality
> between all the keys" is really more about the movement towards less
> restrictive temperaments than it is about the actual tuning of a
> temperament. He says that ET was a "philosophical ideal" at a certain
> point in history. Again, I think that's a comment about how temperaments
> became less an less restrictive over time, and it doesn't indicate that
> Isacoff is part of a conspiracy to eliminate key color. 


Thanks for bringing this up, Charles.  I'm also surprised that no one brought 
it up sooner.  My opinion is that both Jorgensen and Isacoff have felt forced 
to equivocate at times.  Jorgensen clearly points out that many near or 
"quasi" ET's have existed, even a couple where only one note had a deviation 
of 1 cent, rendering the temperament clinically unequal.  He strictly avoids 
the issue of how ET may not have really been as well established in the 20th 
Century as most people assume and believe it has. 

If he did, many of the people who can't really tune ET would think he is 
talking about them and have a reason to take public issue and offense to what 
he says.  He officially goes along with the idea that any 20th Century music 
should be performed in ET but he privately acknowledges that it is most often 
not a requirement. 

People often cite the PTG Tuning Exam as a source of authority.  The amazing 
thing is, however that absolutely no where in the entire exam manual is the 
word "equal" ever used or even implied with regard to temperament.  It has 
always been the assumption and consensus among those conducting the exams to 
use ET.  You can still pass the Exam with 8 errors of up to 1.9 cents within 
the 13 notes of your temperament octave.  Obviously, any temperament with 8 
deviations of nearly 2 cents each would not really be "equal". 

My standards are very high, yes, but I would only consider a temperament to 
be truly equal which would score a perfect 100.  Still, you could have, even 
in such a precise temperament, some notes 0.9 cents sharp or flat of ideal 
which could produce audible irregularities which would mean that the 
temperament is not really equal.

Isacoff on the other hand "shoots his whole wad" when he says as a premise, 
that most of the music we enjoy today is the direct result of the fact that 
"...the modern keyboard is a design in perfect symmetry - each pitch is 
reliably, unequivocally equidistant from the ones that precede and follow 
it...it creates a musical universe in which the relationships between tones 
are reliably, uniformly consistent."

He also talks later about octaves having a consistent 2:1 relationship which 
disregards the idea of stretched octaves altogether.  The statement about ET 
and octaves imply that he believes in the theoretical values of Helmholtz.  
Any piano technician knows that those will not make a piano which sounds the 
best, which sounds "in tune" nor that those values are a requirement for 
producing any kind of music at all.

So, he makes a firm premise which sounds good and which admittedly most 
people really believe in.  But in his rebuttal to Jorgensen, he clearly backs 
down from this statement by allowing the idea of the Quasi ET and even says 
parenthetically, "(indeed I take the position in the book that even today, 
*absolute* ET is actually unattainable)".

If I were the cross examiner, I'd really have him in a tough spot.  "So which 
is it, Mr. Isacoff?  Is it really equal or is it not?  How unequal can it be 
before it isn't equal anymore?  Hmmmm?"

The truth is that we have not come to the *end* of the evolution of keyboard 
tuning.  We have come to greater understanding and have developed higher 
degrees of skill which allow us to do much more than our limited knowledge 
and skills of the past have permitted.  Unfortunately, there are many people 
in the tuning profession and the music industry who are at least a little if 
not way behind the times.  Isacoff's book doesn't help this much.  It tends 
to reinforce the idea that already enough is known and that low standards are 
acceptable.

Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin
 <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> 

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/af/c5/a8/4b/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--