Thank you for responding Tom,
How about calling ETD's Visual Tuning Aids? Or just Visual Aids? Calculator doesn't seem as precise a name for the purpose of your argument. Taking hard a science as math as a comparison with tuning could be misleading. The calculator does the math for you. Does the ETD tune for you? Let's take that argument to its logical conclusion, seeing you are leaving the math to the machine; now you probably will claim you are entering the numbers.
"I have no idea as to what you are arguing for, or against."
- The ability of piano technicians, both ear and eye tuners, to work together, at the same institution, and in the same guild, peacefully coexisting.
- From a conceptual posture, to obviate the risks inherent in contending for speed as a justification for anything, including aural tuning, i.e., a historical, artistic, and philosophical perspective, as addressed, in futurism, the manifesto of which was reproduced Nov. 7, in CAUT, under the rubric, "Rain & Pour, another take." For the sake of argument aural tuning was identified as potentially faster, but at bottom, this is a spurious argument to make, made, for the sake of those who stoop so low. No contractor who rushes does the job right in any profession, unless absolutely necessary. Maximizing, not minimizing the time devoted to the client is our ethical responsibility as piano technicians. I am for caution at every step, and not falling off a cliff in the process.
- In addition to this, pragmatism is not a legitimate basis for truth, nor does it make doing something right. Racial hygiene works for some. Does that make it right? Is it therefore, justified? Genocide, as a rule, works for the race that sponsors it. Should we then be all for it? As acknowledged, ETDs work for some, just fine. I know, too philosophical...
- An honest acknowledgement that when ETD users pitch raise they do not gain the stability that can be gained in two passes tuning aurally.
"I feel like I'm being forced to read a Philosophy 101 textbook..."
There are many philosophical, political, and artistic movements that overlap. Music History classes and literature accompanying them neglect these relationships, that may have a great impact on why we do what we do, and its justifications or lack of it. If we don't know why, then how do we know what we do? So much of the discussion on the Brahms temperament proves more informative than one cares to admit, and I am immensely grateful for the contributions of Fred Sturm, Paul Poletti, David Pinnegar, and others on the subject, but still have a philosophical understanding as a source of information taxed by a lack of understanding in languages envied far greater than you English creative writing skills. However, it is clear from that fantastic discussion specialism alienates us from that Zeitgeist in a way that only can be rectified by a philosophical understanding of Romanticism, Classicism, and the like; not only artistic implications, but philosophical, political, and historical, for all decisions, tuning and otherwise, are most of all affected by the age. Grappling with the contradictions in that can be frustrating, but this must happen to determine, thoroughly, the answer.
No one observes that historical temperaments if at all were most of all chosen autocratically by aristocrats, with whom and with that most of all privilege, not rights, governed tuning decisions, not scholarship, certainly, not democracy, at the heart of Romanticism, i.e., Rousseau.[1] Furthermore, the individualism of Romanticism, in fact would far less encourage an effort to identify equal temperament, something much more suitable to the Classical age; alternatives in Romanticism, would be encouraged, and embraced, not scorned. Providing a ubiquitous method like equal temperament would be much closer to the spirit of what precluded Romanticism. Progress does not necessarily take place in chronological order, and depends on how it is defined.
Tuning remains a right to this day; more than ever, thanks to ETDs; it doesn't matter if you can't tune, or do not own a piano. Calculator? Who could add and subtract without it? Terrifying though it might be to identify through the lens of Fascism a philosophical and political revolt against nature, and Romanticism, not something concatenated with it, and with the destruction of nature, itself, in Futurism, find Hitler, and Mussolini, with the mechanization of war, the ETD cannot give us reasons for why it tunes the way it tunes, and like Futurism, is a revolt against the library, the school, and learning, to tune. Calculator? No. Fascists hated Romanticism, Revival, God, notwithstanding a resemblance to Milton's Satan. So how can those that use ETDs, those that have a right to tune, not a privilege, begin to understand those who were entitled, not enfranchised to do so? As Romanticism revolted against the social structure of Classicism, reason, and the ancient regime, with individualism, imagination, emotion, and democracy, Futurists revolted against schools and education, with technology, and the mechanization of society. The arbitrary and indolent fashion aristocrats - playing with thirds like naked Mediterraneans plucking fruit from a tree with one hand and a lute with the other - demonstrated the sensuality that possibly gave Schubert syphilis, the tuning of these aristocrats and the last vestiges of the ancient regime, still powerful enough to have had Schubert and friends arrested by the Austrian police for fear of revolutionary activities in his time, must have at some level been an embarrassment. Whether or not Schubert could be called a Romantic, music did not give Schubert a home selling tickets, the career Liszt had by popular acclaim, well as and more so, than patronage. Tuning came by whim, and fancy, most of all, to those rich enough to own a keyboard. Who among these had the energy to pitch raise or fix strings breaking doing so? Yet the clarity, order, and balance, quintessential to the Classical age, left far greater a desire, for something like equal temperament, than the age that followed, still.
It should not be neglected to be observed, that another revolutionary, Thomas Jefferson, lived in Paris, and mingled with these men inundated with a decadence that provoked the rabble. Jefferson, "While right at home in the intellectual swirl of Paris," it is observed, "was at times less comfortable with the social milieu. He professed to be scandalized by the lack of domestic morality among French aristocrats,"[2] who were nothing if not lazy. Pitch raise? And by ear? A lot better things to do when one does not need to work a day in their life. In the states, also, a strong a cappella tradition in choral music from the church grew out of the state of both the organ and fortepiano as status symbols.
How does, though, after all, scholarship, outside of this milieu, reveal how those fortunate enough to own the latest manufacturer's design, these aristocrats, used any method to tune other than their own, or in the end, move them to rely on others, or more so, orders? Philosophy, with history, reveals other possibilities, however misguided, than internationally known standardized mean tone temperaments; the Classicists were far more ordered than that a lot. Or has it deceived me? Perhaps it sounds like I have too vivid an imagination. But I think we may make the mistake of assuming aristocratic harpsichord and fortepiano owners cared how the mechanics who designed and constructed them thought they should be tuned a great deal.
Far as whole tone tuning, some do just that aurally to pitch raise. It certainly may be employed in the second pass if not the first.
Who's Getting Cheated?
In the virtual museum that is classical music, tuning aurally is part of a performance, to some. As a spectator one may feel cheated by an ETD as one would feel by a disklavier. So there are a number of answers to your query, "Who's getting cheated?" Are we really trying to duplicate the baroque performance with period tunings and historical instruments, by employing ETDs? The serendipity of human involvement could be considered much as a part of the performance on the part of the tuner as the pianist, historical or not, and it is too bad that the inadequacies of piano technicians have convinced so many musicians they are better off leaving the tuner out of the performance. The saddest thing is with all this electronic tuning going on, we aren't getting any better at it.
Other things have changed. Cadenzas are discouraged, not required. Memorizing the music of another is required, not discouraged. Perhaps the acceptance of ETDs by musicians is an acknowledgement that times have changed.
-------------------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2013 05:32
From: Thomas Servinsky
Subject: Tuning passes vs Tuning visits
-------------------------------------------
Tom Servinsky
-------------------------------------------
Ben,
First of all, I'm envious of your writing skills. The sentences flow, the metaphors illustrate beautiful traits of thought, but after that I have no idea as to what you are arguing for, or against. I feel like I'm being forced to read a Philosophy 101 textbook where the author laboriously debates the never ending the topic " what is...is?"
So lets cut to the chase. I'm an aural tuner with about 80% of mine day spent on the concert stage, recording studios, and working privately for some of the better touring artists. I am also delighted to have a Sanderson Accu-tuner III working constantly along with my ears. I've learned to use it wisely. I've learned to use it like a good accountant with a turbor-charged calculator. The accountant understands the rules, applies those rules, but is also wise enough to realize that when doing gazillion hours worth of adding figures, mistakes can happen. The calculator takes a lot of risk off of doing continuous calculations and allows the freedom to do more.
The ETD is my calculator...and quite frankly a very good teacher. It has taught be so many wonderful lessons in advanced listening techniques. It has taught me to understand inharmonicity with absolute clarity and application. I've learned how use it to not only watch for false beats, but where the false beats are most likely coming from. It has taken a very tricky issue of doing gross pitch raises and making it into a very easy process...and with pretty good accuracy I might add. And the biggest lesson is that I've adjusted my tuning procedure to a single mute, which if you've followed David Anderson's posts on the benefits of that approach, you would understand the scope of how that approach augments the whole level tuning. But that's a whole another debate for another day.
Look at this way: the ETD has afforded me the opportunity to diminish the amount of valuable time needed on the tuning end of the business and then creates time to towards touching up action or tonal regulation issues. And in the turbulent concert world environment, being able to work at a blazing speed with excellent accuracy (in very tight time frame) is what separates the men from the boys. That whole package is what determines your worth to the artist and venue. In the time that most are struggle with getting a temperament set, then doing one string per note the whole way through, I'm wrapping up the entire tuning. And I've cleaned up false beats along the way, corrected string leveling issues, cleaned up voicing issues, and not to mention making the piano sound a whole lot better.
Granted there are many who have been introduced to the tuning business with only a ETD from the start. Maybe the argument is that they came into the business at the wrong time. Maybe the argument can be made that they can't fully appreciate the aural process. And without a doubt, I would argue developing the aural skills first makes one appreciate the beautiful end result that much better.
But I have to say having a good ETD added to my bag of tricks has made the whole process that much better. that I would never go back to be only an aural tuner ever again. Bottom line is that the customer is getting a lot more bang for the buck. So to your argument....who's getting cheated?
Tom Servinsky
Original Message:
Sent: 05-18-2013 10:47
From: Benjamin Sloane
Subject: Tuning passes vs Tuning visits
Bill Fritz and Paul Williams,
What courtesy is there in closing a discussion to a few in what is to be an open forum? Tune lab will work fine for concert tuning. Why are practice rooms considered most suitable? You neglect to observe many use ETDs for concert tuning 100% of the time, and succeed in doing so, and on the other hand, many aural tune in practice rooms with great success. Are ETD users afraid to admit this because somehow they get less credit in doing so? Why haven't any in this discussion, admit what many have witnessed with their own eyes?
Having experience with the Sanderson Accutuner, RCT, and tune lab, just has not been rewarding as for others, amazing as the computer technology revolution has been in so many ways, that provides us such an open forum. More call backs were generated by aural tuning. Great and neglected friends and referrals have had different experiences; this doesn't mean working together is impossible. I respect the work of many ETD users no less than my own. Their success is due to so much more than ETDs, and never did it occur to be anything but happy for it. Piano technicians should succeed, not fail, and their techniques embraced by all, whether or not, shared. This discussion, carrying on under multiple rubrics now, though, has raised more questions than it has answered. In response, this remonstrates against falsehood in the argument, cultivated from both sides, in two basic areas.
The Faster Argument
It's faster. This is the most common justification. But what kind of business model, or ethics, is that? It is so self-serving, not client serving. Ethical business practice demands maximizing, not minimizing the time spent serving a client. Are you glad when your doctor can only see you for 5 minutes? Do you say thank God that is over, after spending 45 minutes in the waiting room? So a client is stuck at home waiting for you; not to deny some want you to finish quickly as possible. If it will help, go back, visit again, if possible. Saving people money is not ethical if it means providing inferior service.
Is it possible to pitch raise and tune aurally for an orchestra in 45 minutes if necessary, and be tuning for them years later, during which for the final 15 minutes they ask questions while others warm up? Yes. Been there, still doing that with the same orchestra, with the necessary time, years later. But to serve clients best, and put them, first, the piano technician needs to think about maximizing time, not minimizing it. Provide as much time is necessary, not as little, rush when absolutely necessary. That seems to me the obligation, not fast as possible. Perhaps when hiring a tuner it will make sense? Never used anyone for anything but shop work; i.e. basement.
Salaried institutional techs need to budget time in other ways, yes, but it does not occur to an ETD user nearly as self-evidently to do anything but tune a whole piano in so many cases when a few strings can be moved in half a dozen or so minutes, and the tuning be not only as adequate for the space, but gain the stability of being for the most part left alone. The myth of computer precision and the removal of human error in the machines they program galvanizes anxieties that prevent compromise with deficient staffing and budgets. Computers malfunction as well; when ETDs do, the results can be too bad to tune the piano again any other way but aurally. Been there, done that.
It is the difference between having a dozen pianos bearable, or one piano in tune, and 11 dreadful. It is not faster to tune a whole piano, electronic or aurally, than a few strings, and experience with both reveals the plain inclination to do more than necessary with the ETD, and waste the time and energy everyone claims it saves, only to have 1 piano sound good, and 11, bad, instead of 12, acceptable.
The Not Really Claiming it is a One Pass Pitch Raise Argument
This, frankly, is denied far too much as being the pro ETD pitch. It is usually mixed with deception; what is claimed to be a two pass pitch raise is just one; it elaborates the faster argument, and not congruent with its purpose. It displays ignorance as to the way the software functions and as to multiple reasons that aural tuners may or may not pitch raise in two passes. Ignored, is the fact that overtones, or the harmonic series, will not be nearly as prominent until the piano is generally at pitch, not tuned. This is a big reason aural tuners use an extra pass - some claim to only need one - not stability, though that is part of it. Why a program designed to calculate necessary overpull on the basis of cents flat, not dim overtones, would require an extra pass, I do not know; its comparison with aural pitch raising systems is also invalid because it moves by note, A0 to C88, not staggered. It cannot be denied that redistribution of tension evenly across the scale is better for the piano, if not the string.
The first pass is, again, not intended to be accurate with aural tuning, unless considered the final pass, for the most part the case with ETD tuning, though it tends to get more accurate with practice, and again the intent could be as much thought to make overtones more prominent, as is often claimed: "The string does not make a sound, it produces a vibration," so then, the refined and informed equal temperament, as that everything in the piano, esp. the strings not being struck by the hammer, requires that those vibrating in the region of the piano in which natural harmonics are being identified and used as reference points for tuning in the strings struck, must be moderately in tune in order to tune aurally at all. This is apples and oranges, two entirely different systems for pitch raise that are so unrelated that it is difficult to compare them, having disparate justifications. A first pass could even be considered just warming up, stretching, scales, preparation for the real thing. Nevertheless, aural tuners pitch raise and tune in one pass.
People call back more when tuning aurally. Just seems to make people happier. The proof is in the pudding.
-------------------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2013 08:31
From: Bill Fritz
Subject: Tuning passes vs Tuning visits
Actually Paul, I enjoy listening to both Ron & David "discuss" topics. There are nuggets of info there, each & every time. Except for esoteric Piano Techs, many of us readers enjoy hearing both sides of a discussion, formulating agreement and new ideas for our own improvement. And Ron's & David's expertise & differences shine thru some of the other "stuff".
If you don't want to read about it, there's a scroll button on your mouse (or a finger on your iPhone).
PS I for one could care less about whether you have vacation saved up or not.
-------------------------------------------
Bill Fritz, St Louis Chapter Newsletter Editor
pianofritz50@aol.com
www.billfritzpianotuning.com
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2013 17:15
From: Paul Williams
Subject: Tuning passes vs Tuning visits
David: Ron is Ron: Ron: David is David! Can we please move along?.
The tuned piano is the goal, dammit! I'm a bit tired of this banter. Take it off line if you all want to keep on arguing. I've been an aural tuner for 20+ years. but just got an ipad mini with tune-lab. I really love it in the practice rooms here, but haven't tried it for a concert tuning. Nothing here is more that 5-10 cents sharp or flat if I can help it, but that's because I'm here all day 365 days a year. (yes, i got the message from HR saying I have 7 weeks of vacation and is maxed out!!) I'm leaving Memorial Day Weekend for 5 days.
Can we put this to rest? Each to his own, I say! As long as the piano and owner are happy is all we should care about. Quit it!!
Best,
Paul
.
-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Piano Technician
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588-0100
pwilliams4@unl.edu
-------------------------------------------