Leslie, the whole point of the aural component of the exam is because the machine, no matter how good it is today, is still not good enough. Three very well trained ears can almost without fail pick up a few notes in the bass, a wild card here and there that can be improved upon. The discrepancy you mention is exactly because of this process. Even Dr Colemans ETD tuning that I mentioned the other day had a couple notes adjusted, and he tuned to begin with using both his ears and his SAT. So you are right, a pure ETD tuning will not give the same result as an ear checked tuning.....ETD assisted or not. But as far as the future and what is percieved as being a good tuning or not. I suspect it will get much worse then you prophesis below. I suspect there will be only a hand full of piano makers left, most people using keyboards, and the tuning proffession.... well for the few who are left I think they will be well versed in most all aspects of tuning... or they wont be able to compete with the few artists left who insist on acoustic instruments. MO Leslie W Bartlett wrote: > That's a significant issue, though. If I chose to take my exam with a > machine, then an aurally tuned piano would not completely agree with my > machine, even if I stopped lights completely. There is a discrepancy > which I first noticed when I participated in giving an exam. It seems > unfair to tune a piano aurally and then grade off if a person's ETD gives > different readings. I cannot imagine an ETD giving exactly the same > tuning as an aural one. I would even suspect there will grow up a whole > electronic tuning vocabulary as more and more people turn to them. It's > possible that twenty years from now, electronics will become standard > and thus alter perceptions of what a "good tuning" is. > JMO > les bartlett -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC