Since the whole thread is getting old and, yes, I sort of started it. However, there are certain points that I will be making in the interspersed comments. On 02/01/2011 12:19 AM, Susan Kline wrote: > Interspersed comments > > On 1/31/2011 5:38 PM, David Love wrote: >> No, I have not bought into the tuning test as the ultimate reality >> for tuning quality. Please don’t be insulting, I’d like to think it’s >> beneath you. > Strange that you thought it an insult (which I didn't intend), yet you > harped on the test standards and percentage of the test standards as > the sole criterion of tuning quality, in your examples. If it's all about "tuning quality", then what the hell difference does it make if I tune by ETD, you tune aurally and others tune hybrid. Since it all boils down to stability tuning, hammer technique, clean unisons, etc. I would take the test tomorrow if I could you my ETD and be tested on the points above. >> I bring up the PTG tuning test because we hold that as a standard by >> which we measure some level of aural skill and base the highest level >> of classification we have on passing that test. > Yes, and that, I believe, should give us pause. Note that the test was > set up because only technically measurable numbers can be graded > consistently and fairly. I see the problem with setting up any other > kind of test, because any other standards are vague and > non-reproducible; yet the danger of the present situation is that > since the test contains measurable numbers, people start to think that > the measurements are the only important things in tuning. B.S. Other standards can and should be substituted and put in place: - how clean of the unisons (how in unison are they - do they sound like one string) - how well can you tune, strings that have bad false beats in them. (That is a challenge for me) - how stable of the tuned notes (figure some sort of timing for how long a note - stays - in tune) (In other words, if the note holds for less than so many seconds, it's graded down) - possibly speed and accuracy of finding the "target" pitch (in the case of using an ETD) (Meaning, hammer technique - do you have the feel of how far to "jerk" the string up to pitch on the first pull to get it a close as possible to the target pitch) (I'm finding this is an ever learning challenge for me) - how accurate can you tune those high (tenor?) notes that have no dampers. (In my tuning practicing at home, I had a devil of a time trying to hear the note various all the rest of the "noise" of the strings around it. I'm sure there are others but that is all I can think of now. TO ME, THAT TELLS ME WHETHER YOU A GOOD TUNER OR NOT - AND THAT SHOULD BE THE DAMN TEST. >> If it has no meaning in terms of quality or if tuning quality is >> simply a matter of personal taste then why bother to try and set a >> standard? > The whole reason for the test is to provide a professional credential. > The aim, therefore, is probably to provide an aid in marketing our > skills to the general public (at which it largely fails), or to give > us status with each other, which seems to have caught on like like a > house afire. Again, Professional Credential to WHO. Based on my 11 years, and in my area, customers don't give a rats a$$ about these credentials. The only question I get asked all the time is, can I play the piano. When I say "I play at playing", their like "you don't play and yet you tune" and that's when I say "I learned the first to pages of the Maple Leaf Rag and the first page of House of David Blues but they are fading fast because I can never seem to find the time to practice or it is so hard for me to read the right hand and the left hand together and play at the same time." And I grew up with a player piano. >> Your other recent comment about the unimportance of temperament >> accuracy also flies in the face of this standard. > I mentioned that because of the considerable popularity of historical > and/or non-equal temperaments. Obviously a lot of the musical public > feel that strict equal temperament is not crucial for their own > musical enjoyment. I have always used ET, myself. I feel that very > minor discrepancies of equal temperament are probably not noticed by > most musicians. Again, to me, keeping mind what I said earlier about what should be tested, being able to set an equal temperament, it completely unnecessary and useless. Now, if you prefer historical temperaments, then "yes" you should be tested. Because they are historical (no pun intended) and not - anyone - is going to remember what they sound like. >> If such variation in temperament tuning is common and to you >> acceptable, then why is that the most critically judged part and, in >> fact, the part that prevents most people from attempting or passing >> the test to begin with. > I think this is because it can be strictly graded, using digital > measurements. Variety in temperaments seems to constitute a > sub-culture of piano technology now. It includes those who provide the > non-equal temperaments straight from their ETDs. However, it would be > quite a nightmare trying to evaluate mastery of them and to determine > a standard for tuning them which people would have to attain. ET is > much easier to grade, and accepted by musicians, so ET is on the test. > For the test to act as a gate between status levels, it has to be at > least reasonably hard. There would be no point in a slack sort of test > which 99% of applicants could easily pass. So they set it up to be > possible, but challenging. I was challenged by it, for that matter, > but got through on my first try, but not with a score I was proud of. Again, to me, keeping mind what I said earlier about what should be tested, being able to set an equal temperament, it completely unnecessary and useless. > >> Perhaps a note to the examining committee suggesting a reevaluation >> of these standards is in order. (Something tells me you’ll be hearing >> from Duaine on this soon.) > While I eventually complied with the Guild requirements, took the > tests, got the credential, and so on, setting and enforcing objective > standards is not my normal way of approaching life. I keep high > standards for myself, but those don't have to be uniform with all the > rest of the piano technology world, and they have nothing to do with > credentials. Those who wish objective uniform standards will have to > take care of the testing process. So long as what they decide isn't > too big an annoyance or expense, I'll do what they wish. I am glad, > though, that the tests were a one-time obligation. > > When dealing with concert pianists, credentials printed on cards are > pretty nonsensical. They can sit down at our newly-tuned and prepped > pianos, play some chords, some passage work, and in less than a minute > know all about us which they need to know. BUT, according to the organization, if the concert pianists have - not - taken the tuning test - how would they know whether your tuning is good ? So I'll answer that question for you. All they can do is play what they know and "perceive" that the tuning is good - in - their - minds then tell you it's good. Now, assume that was tuned aurally. So you repeat the process and get the exact same outcome - they some they know and "perceive" that tuning is good in their minds and tell you it's good. So what's the "real" outcome. That just proves that no matter how you get their and as long as the "client" is happy, what difference does it make on how you got there. > > Why would you presume that **any** etd users would lose their sense of > the voice of the piano. > > I watched a tuning. It went from note 1 straight to note 88 as single > notes with muting strips in, and then the unisons were tuned fairly > quickly. There were no intervals, there was no time to savor the > sound. There were no checks of octaves to hear stretch. Afterwards, > the piano did sound in tune, and not unmusical. But the tuning itself > seemed an exercise in avoiding contact with the instrument. If these > ETD users retain their sense of the voice of the piano, when are they > doing it? This was just one tuning, and I've only seen little > fragments of other ETD tuning. Perhaps it was not typical? Sh*t Susan, I am interested in tuning the piano, not caressing it, not falling in love with, not going to kiss it - I'm going to get the piano in it's most pleasant-able sound that I can and move on. I leave the pianists to caress it, fall in love with it, and probably even kiss it. > > And if you consider the RPT exam to be meaningless, why would you > think that any aural tuner would have any sense of the “voice” of the > piano. > > As far as I can tell, the exam has nothing at all to do with the voice > of the piano. It's about accuracy in setting pitch, which is about the > only thing which can be graded by rules. An aural tuning doesn't > automatically impart musical sensibility to the practitioner, but at > least it allows hours of connection to the instrument, which would > allow one to develop the neural connections and associations needed. > The other critical requirement, of course, is to hear the piano > played, by recording or even better in person. Best of all, to hear > pianists -- they are SO good! -- making music of one's own tunings. > What a wealth of information about our work! How many people who have > too much tuning work to get through in a day end up with the leisure > and desire to savor a concert, whether they tune ETD or aural? A very > unfortunate necessity for so many, that work load. That sounds like stuff out of the hippie generation - having a connection with the instrument - okay - don't tune it, just have a "sit in" or "love in" with it and it will - magically - tune itself. sheeesh Duaine -- Duaine Hechler Piano, Player Piano, Pump Organ Tuning, Servicing & Rebuilding Reed Organ Society Member Florissant, MO 63034 (314) 838-5587 dahechler at att.net www.hechlerpianoandorgan.com -- Home & Business user of Linux - 11 years
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC