Imbalance

[SidewaysWell1713@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 9/14/02 6:01:38 AM Central Daylight Time, A440A@aol.com 
writes:


> :
>   
>     The cent figures of the ebvt came from the author's website.  They were 
> posted as a technical description of his creation and were listed to the 
> tenth of a cent(though,in truth, the E-G# was listed as 19.46, which is 
> even 
> a worse imbalance).  They describe an atypical temperament and as soon as 
> attention was called to this, a variety of "fudges"  were used in an 
> attempt 
> to lessen these differences, while a simultaneous personal assault was 
> mounted.  
>     

I did not come up with those figures, the maker of the graph did.  As I have 
said before, I like the graph, most of it is correct and so it stays as it is 
until I have the chance to figure out what the numbers really should be.

I gave you the chance to recant your obvious attempt to discredit my work and 
I said I would leave the list if you did, yet you persist in trying to do so. 
 You've always done this.  Go ahead to the Ethics Committee and try to tell 
them that you are being harmed.  You'll find out first that you made the 
wrong phone call.

The EBVT has never substantially changed, never.  There has always been the 
"according to personal taste" factor (which you finally, at last mentioned in 
a recent post) available.  The exact chosen speed of the initial 3rd affects 
the layout of the rest of the temperament.  It is there as a *range* of 
option which does not exist in ET , cannot exist and thus is not available.  
How can a variety of interval sizes ever constitute equality?

And therein lies one of the core issues: having it both ways and all ways.  
It is "equal" if I say it is and mean it to be,  just don't bug be with 
trivial data.  I've tried to show the fallacy of this kind of thinking and 
the way out of it.  You offer nothing but numbers copied out of a book.

And yes, you did *lie* when you wrote that post and you knew you were 
misrepresenting what I do.  I have never once tuned the EBVT so that E-G# was 
19.46 and F#-A# 13.7.  That, in fact would be Reverse Well.  I never once 
claimed the EBVT to be "authentic" to anyone but myself.  No, there is no 
other Victorian era temperament which has 4 pure 5ths and specified sets of 
equal beating 3rds.

So, in order to satisfy you, I am supposed to *ruin* it and do what you do?  
Never.  When you get off your high horse about this, I will.  Until then, you 
are as I have said, a liar who has spewed out your own nonsense to try to 
discredit what I do.

Why don't you do a little experimenting and come up with your own idea about 
how to make the best compromise in tuning possible?  Do it for 10 years, work 
it, perfect it, get a website and publish it, teach it in a class at the 
Convention.  Until you do, all you're doing is copying numbers out of books 
and off lists, telling everyone else they should do the same.  When the ET 
only crowd breathes down your neck, you Uncle Tom your way out of it.

Lastly, you did use the word "JUNK", spelled that way, in all caps on 
Pianotech.  You acknowledged that the FAC program may not quite work if "you 
tune JUNK".  You didn't say which pianos you meant but did imply that any 
piano with scaling compromises or irregularities would fall into this 
category.  By using the word "JUNK" alone, you sullied the entire profession. 
 Nothing I have ever written anywhere, any time is as bad as using that one 
word the way you used it.

You make it seem OK for newer techs to have the same attitude about the 
pianos they work on every day.  This is JUNK, Ed Foote used that word.  I'll 
just dial in some numbers and tune this JUNK with a rotten attitude about the 
whole thing until maybe I will get to tune a real piano someday.  The 
attitude spreads to the other aspects of a technician's work, maintenance, 
regulation, voicing, all are reduced to the lowest common denominator because 
Ed Foote (and others like Antares) called them JUNK.  The same goes for the 
infamous "PSO".

So now, I throw it back in your face.  I am compiling lists of interval sizes 
while tuning what you call "JUNK" to show that what you say and have always 
said have never had any foundation.  You don't have enough experience to even 
know how to interpret lists of cents deviations and interval sizes because 
you haven't done that kind of work yet.  You've only looked in books.

You go ahead and tune the way you usually do, then take the enormous amount 
of time it takes to measure all of the results by direct interval and see for 
yourself that all of the charts you make will vary from one to the other.  
Then look at what you just said in your last post, hold those charts up to a 
mirror and look at your self, the biggest, lying, self promoting hypocrite in 
the business.

Until you've done that, you have no basis whatsoever in even commenting on 
what I do and you remain in the position of having spewed out in an angry 
diatribe, the kind which I am always accused of perpetrating, defamtion and 
misrepresentation.  You of all people should realize by now that tuning is an 
art which can be defined numerically only to a certain point.  Once 
constrained to rigid sets of figures, it becomes unnecessarily compromised.  
Your entire approach is elementary and overly simplistic.  You still have a 
lot to learn.  It is amazing to me how quickly you jumped from the Gosh, 
Golly, Gee beginner to Guru.  Once again, when you get off your high horse 
and back down, so will I.

"Sideways Well":  the pit Ed Foote dug for himself to wallow in the day he 
knowingly published false data for the EBVT on Pianotech. 

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/df/20/e8/65/attachment.htm

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