Couple thoughts on the excellent email below.
The facts regarding science, proofs, experimentation, protocols testing hypothesis
As discussed below are true , NEVERLESS, I somewhat disagree with it Insomuch
As adding a whole dimension that is missing.
Music is art. We work for artists. We are technicians, and tend to analyze everything technically. Our discipline Crosses over between art and science, in a space preloaded with a long history of tradition And discovery based on human intuition, human creativity and antidotal evidence. The whole evolution of music itself is an has been largely powered by human creativity and inspiration and "experimentation" that has mixed standing on the shoulders of those that came before and mixing in something that comes from "inside", from " the space" from "the gut"
Yes, analysis and critical thinking is often part of the process, but I think the majority of musical
Evolution is far beyond that. A little story to illustrate. Charlie Parker along with "Dizzy" basicly invented the bebop style. Charlie did not have much to say about it, and their are no books and articles put out by the inventors. The only thing he ever had to say in an interview when asked about his thinking as he developed the gendre was this. " one night I was playing around with the upper tensions of the cords, and suddenly I found that I could finally play what I was hearing in my head." Thanks for the lesson Charlie. Bill Evans I think was just playing with passing tones, and leading chromaticism between cords and instinctively as well as intellectually experimented untill it worked and became a whole school of playing unto itself.....
Things are not so black and white all over. Even the stament below is just not true.
---------------------------------
It seems to me that much of what we hear when we hear music, is what we EXPECT to hear – that is, we have absorbed a 12-tone equal-temperament scale from the time we were little babies, so that is what we hear
--------------------------------
Every orchestral piece, every sound trax to every movie that has real orchestra Is not in
Equal temperment. String players can put it where they want. The pitch breaths a bit as well.
I have sat in a professional national orchestra with the conductor yelling out to the strings
"lower those thirds, lower them more, I'm old fashioned" " raise that leading tone more, more tension" etc. etc. They can and do have their way with the color of the cord dependent on its function and color of the moment. An orchestra can have many placements of a C natural
Varying from cord to cord, moment to moment defendant on harmonic function and color.
It is a "variable breathing temperment" and often quite far from equal,
We are exposed to this all the time. Orchestral scores like " lord of the rings" and
Thousands of others we have been exposed to. We hear unequal breathing temperaments
All the time.
So I am happy to try to respect both the science and art together, and when they appear to be in Conflict , respect the fact the great artists we serve have evolved this great medium we swim in, music, largely through discovery of what is there by instinctive creative human trial and error, being satisfied with antidotal results enough to persist through it untill they get something
That works for them. There remains something intangible about music. Unlike science, more like love, commitment, trust, faith, human qualities that defy quantification, music touches into the human soul and invites this sort of loose "experimenting" in the unknown.
We are technicians, and all analysis is good, all is profitable, but there is more to the medium, there remains a subjective human eliment that is real, illusive, and intangible.
Such is the ocean we swim in, they are deep waters.
Cheers
Dave Renaud
Sent from my iPad
On 2012-05-01, at 7:13 AM, Joseph Giandalone <rufy at rcn.com> wrote:
>
> You guys,
>
> Granted that it's "fun to experiment," I need to point out that what you describe here would not be considered a legitimate (scientific) experiment in any psychology lab or course in the world. You need truly controlled conditions, randomized selection and assignment of subjects, and DOUBLE BLIND ADMINISTRATION. Controlled conditions would include having 2 identical pianos, or perhaps the same piano tuned 2 diffrerent ways. In any case, the piano teacher (in your example) would not be permitted to know which piano had which tuning (nor would the students).
>
> If this criticism seems nonsensical to you, I kind of agree – there are too many variables and terms are too loosely defined in the kinds of situations we live and work in. Nevertheless, if you want to think about REALLY TESTING some of your theories about temperaments, etc., you should begin by taking a Psych 101 course, or reading a book on experimental design (related to the Social Sciences and/or the measurement of perception.)
>
> Speaking for myself, I think a lot of what passes as Gospel in our trade has little solid basis in experimentation – given that the object of our work is basically just to help other people to get what they need out of their pianos. You can take all kinds of fancy measuring implements and split hairs to the Nth degree, but what do the users of the piano hear? Like the folks who market audio reproduction equipment: yes, you can sell "the specs" to the self-identified "Audiophiles" who bother with that stuff, but most of what you're selling is beyond human powers of perception.
>
> It seems to me that much of what we hear when we hear music, is what we EXPECT to hear – that is, we have absorbed a 12-tone equal-temperament scale from the time we were little babies, so that is what we hear. Many people play happily away on out-of-tune pianos (or crappy flutes, or whatever) and enjoy themselves just fine because what they're HEARING are just the regular old notes and tonalities that we all know and love. (Adepts of different musics, eg. Classical Indian with its micro-tones, would react differently.)
>
> Just listen to any fine Opera singer. What do you really hear? Because of their vibrato, their pitch is actually wavering all over the place (some way too much for my liking). Our ears adapt though, and kind of "average it out" to hear one pitch. Same thing with groups of tones: listen to a community chorus of amateurs – individual voices may be all over the place pitchwise, but it "blends" and if you listen to the whole group it (can, if you're lucky) sound just fine.
>
> Music is more in the mind than anyplace else.
>
> And seriously, I'd be curious to know if ever there were legitimate scientific experiments done around things like piano tone. I swear half the stuff I have been peddled about Voicing is a bunch of bull.
>
> Respectfully
>
> Joseph Giandalone, RPT
> Conway, MA
>
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Bill Fritz wrote:
>
>> As the old cereal commercial said "Try it, you'll like it!".
>>
>> I have a piano teacher who has 2 grands side by side. As an experiment & for her students' education, we tuned one at ET and the other the Vallotti-Young. (I use an ETD, so that would eliminate any "prejudice" on my part.) http://www.rollingball.com/images/HT5.htm http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/scale_vallotti_young.html http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html
>>
>> After 3 months, about half of her students liked the V-Y temperament better. They claimed it was easier to play their pieces (Mozart, Chopin, etc) on the V-Y piano. There was even a comment that the runs were easier. (The other half didn't seem to care either way. No one hated the V-Y.)
>>
>> Our next experiment will be when there's a Music Teachers' meeting at this lady's house... and we'll tune the differences again, and have them play their favorite pieces.
>>
>> It's fun to experiment... Bill Fritz, StLouis
>>
>>
>> From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net>
>> To: pianotech at ptg.org
>> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stealth temperaments
>> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:24:05 -0500
>> On 4/29/2012 9:31 PM, Ron Koval wrote:
>> > Well fer sure, I don't think I ever wrote that I tuned at that
>> > resolution.
>>
>> Nope, you didn't, or even hint it.
>>
>> >It just makes sense to set the target
>> > up at a specific location based on the math - there's gonna be some +/-
>> > going on in the real world...
>>
>> Obviously, and also obviously in varied perceptions of where the real world starts. While I'm not an alternate temperamenter, I appreciate someone like you and Jason who care enough about your interests to explore them and report your findings for others of like interest.
>>
>> Good job,
>> Ron N
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120501/edcb8552/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC