Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum ET - Ok, I'll come right out and say it

Yup, that makes sense... when an interval is Just, it is in tune. Easy to describe and understand. Everything else you've been trying to do is to take a system you like (ET) and then come up with reasons that all about it must be called "in tune" - nothing objective about it at all!

Ron Koval

Obviously not everybody will agree on this, and that is a good thing. It keeps us thinking, and no progress is made in any field if someone doesn't challenge the accepted norm. In the end, it is our job to give the customer what they want. In many cases, the temperament used is the tuner's choice, as many, if not most,pianists don't know what the differences are, and don't care-they want the piano to sound good to their own ears. In college situations such as mine, some people will ask for a WT for various reasons, and it it is my job to give that to them, no matter what I think of that temperament. All of us need to keep an open mind, and not criticize those who don't agree with us.

Ron:

Tying in what I am saying with any percieved preference for ET or any other temperment is making a straw man for you to knock down. Couldn't I do the same with a preference for WT? Couldn't I say that because you have a preference for WT then you simply dismiss the idea of there being such a thing as in-tune on a piano, so that you need not look at the fact that UTs are by designed to be out-of-tune? (Actually, I am not so sure this would be a straw man...)

But this sort of thing does not get to the point that I am making. It would be just another cheap shot like the one you continue to take, Ron.

It is fine if you think that only just intervals can be in-tune (which means only the simplest music can be in-tune). That is an appropriate point to make, and one that can be discussed and countered.

And when the idea of only just intonation being in-tune is countered with the fact that we do have complex music that is performed in-tune, we have to ask what objective criteria could be used to define this quality.

Or we can dismiss the idea that complex is performed in-tune so as not to have consider the matter at all.

And that is what I see your position to be, Ron. It reminds me of an ostrich with his head in the sand.

I again listened and have the impression I have lost my time.
5I had ordered the first CD "Beethoven in temperaments with simimar results)

Do anyone find some elegance in that harmony at 3:30 ?

DO the modulmation Fmin to A maj6 inversion sound pleasing ?

Sound unstable and desordoned to me.

The piano also sound as if the hammers are covered with cotton balls, so the tone is so short, indeed with that kind of dynamics expressibility is reduced, for the pianist the tone simply does not sing enough.

Anything that can add some surprise, tonally speaking, may be welcome.

Then, possibly the too modern tone of the piano (despite that strange voicing) is not helping me to accept that, and I would have be pleased more on a forte piana or another historical instrument.

However, if it please some of you lets be it.
I for sure dont trust much about the justness of the historical reasoning behind, but Ok I did not push my thinking much there, just try to accept quietly what was proposed.

Anyway nobody can sell that tuning to me as being "in tune" even if I am supposed to accept strange harmonies.

The quality of the piano is better than on the other record, so is the tuning, but this is not pushing me to experiment in that direction, not yet (I'll wait when my ears begin to hear less )

I apologize and hope my comments dont look too aggressive... I am just deceived.

Jeff, you may have read and understood me wrong... While I'm currently tuning mostly mild WT tunings, I also go through long ET tuning times. It keeps it interesting for me, and working with WTs has certainly sharpened my ear for tuning in ET. I can enjoy music with a variety of tunings, including ET. There are some magical moments in WT tunings that are impossible to experience in ET, but ET offers a semblance of the "blank slate" that many chromatic composers and musicians appreciate.

Yes, WT tunings are out of tune, just as all ET tunings are also out of tune - after all that's what tempering means! As a performer both vocally and in orchestral settings I'm well aware of the limitations of fixed pitch instruments.

My protest in this long discussion continues to be your insistence on re-labeling out of tune (tempered) tuning as in tune, and then by extension calling all intervals in that same tuning in tune... If that wasn't bad enough, you then use this same re-label to then bash other temperaments as out of tune. All the tunings take the comma and distribute it in some logical way... The only tunings with some in tune intervals can be really restrictive, as you've pointed out - that's not really being argued here.

Musicians and piano owner preferences are my top priority. How can we know their preference without us educating them? (What a cop-out to simply say that no one has ever requested a WT!! How many owners request ET by name, unless a tuner has told them to request it - often without ever showing the possible benefits of a WT?) As I've said before, most don't care, or can't tell the difference until a temperament gets pretty strong. Very few prefer ET (one or two so far in a decade or so of educating) and some prefer some level of a WT, and I'm happy to help them in the discovery process!

Ron Koval

Ron:

Thanks for the response, really. There are those that have posted on this Topic that understand what I am saying and agree with it, but so what? What is to be gained? But others, like you, take exception to what I say and a productive, lively dialog can be the result.

For instance, I have mulled over what you have said about me taking the stand that ET is in-tune because I like ET. This is a claim of circular logic, and I wonder about this type of argument. After all, if someone is truly objective on a subject, there is a logical path to follow, and discounts other possibilities because they are logically flawed, they can’t be guilty of circular logic. In fact they could only be guilty of circular logic if they came up with some other conclusion.

But back to the specific subject at hand. As I have said before, the real difference between what I believe and what you believe is whether a piano can be in-tune or not. That is the real difference, not what temperment you, I or anyone else actually tune or prefer.

Now consider the actual act of tuning a piano. Of course most intervals are tempered from just intonation, and the tempering of these intervals are compared to each other. Using beatrates is one way to compare them. The timbre of intervals, and even chords, are another.

And I can understand that a tuner might strive for all intervals being equally out-of-tune from just intonation in order to arrive at ET. And I can understand that a tuner might strive for some intervals being less out-of-tune from just intonation in order to arrive at a UT. But can you understand that a tuner could strive for intervals being in-tune with each other to arrive at ET, or a tuner could strive for intervals being out-of-tune with each other to arrive at a UT?

When I started tuning, I also thought in terms of ET being when everything is equally out-of-tune. And it was fun to say to someone, “A piano cannot be perfectly in-tune. It can only be perfectly out-of-tune.” just to see their consternation. Yeah, it made me feel superior knowing that what they thought was in-tune actually wasn’t. But who was the fool…?

No, when nothing sticks out in a tuning, the piano sounds in-tune. Beats no longer matter. Just intonation no longer matters. Temperament no longer matters. In that Mr. Foote, and others, are correct. And that brings up the question of what do you call a tuning that deliberately makes some keys sound different than others?

Pianos can and do sound out-of-tune or in-tune depending on whether something in the tuning sticks out or not.

Good points Jeff, and can you also understand that in an unequal temperament one can strive for intervals to be in tune with each other (equal beating), where in ET those intervals are out of tune with each other? (progressive beat rates?)

Once again, the sticking point is not only the in tune/out of tune language, but the connotations that piggyback along with the discussion; in tune is better, where out of tune must be inferior... That's also the reason why I've shifted my own language most of the time to call UTs tonal temperaments and ET as the atonal temperament... Language DOES matter in the emotional influence of discussing the range of tunings available for pianos.

Ron Koval

Ron:

Language nuances matter only when subjective connotations are considered. However, misdirection always matters. Don't you deliberately try to misdirect with your tonal/atonal diversion, as if ET makes tonal music sound as if it was atonal music?

However, this is not the case with how I use in-tune and out-of-tune. Otherwise you would simply say that it is a misapplication of the term rather than trying to use the term in ways that work for UTs but not for ET. You do this when trying to hold fast to either just intervals being in-tune or equal beating intervals being in-tune, but disregard equally tempered intervals being in-tune! (And by the way, striving for RBIs to beat equally in a UT is kind of silly. If they don't all beat differently, as in ET, some will beat virtually the same. Well, perhaps not in some really wild UTs.)

But what if there was a temperment sequence that specified that an interval was equally tempered AND beat the same? I think first of pure 5ths, 12ths and 19ths, but suddenly remembered another one that is well thought of. It is the Baldrassin/Sanderson temperment sequence. It is ET, so the intervals are all tempered equally. It also specifies 4ths that beat at the same bps.

How Now, Brown Cow?

Kamin,

I try to read all of your posts because you do have some very interesting things to say at times, even though I often disagree with them personally. I am actively teaching a student French this Summer, so some things that you write, I can figure out because I know both languages but others may be puzzled by them. Perhaps you may want to make a note of these, so that you can communicate more effectively.



« J'ai perdu mon temps» in English is, "I wasted my time".



«désorganisé» in English is "disorganized". You meant to say in this phrase, "It sounds unstable and disorganized to me"




Here, you meant, "expressiveness". Please keep in mind, however that the European and Asian preferences for voicing are generally quite different from those in North America. With the exception of some popular music and "Country" music recordings, North Americans prefer a much softer tone than most Europeans and Asians do.



«Que ça soit» in English is either, "So it be" or "Let it be". North Americans prefer a softer tone, so, let it be understood that you will generally find that to be the case.



Here, you used a classic "false cognate" («un faux ami entre l'anglais et le français»). «Je suis déçu» in English is, "I am disappointed". If you say, "I am deceived", it means, «Je suis trompé».

Also, remember to put the apostrophe in the word, "don't". It would be just as well to write, "do not" as the contraction is used in informal speech.

If I were to write the above phrase, I would write, "I apologize in advance if my comments appear too aggressive. I am simply disappointed in what I heard".

I agree with this. Certainly to some, any dissonance beyond a 14 cent wide M3 may sound out of tune and a M3 with less beating may sound unpleasantly "dead". Any more tempering than 2 cents narrow in a 5th may also sound, "not solid" as I have often heard people say.

On the other hand, the very lack of distinction between one tonality and the other is what displeases some people about ET.

It seems odd to me that people would aspire to have perfect Just Intonation if they could have it. It is possible on some advanced synthesizers. Imagine if every Major triad had a pure 5th and a pure M3 and every minor triad had a pure 5th and a pure minor third. The music would sound very dull and uninteresting, if you ask me but it would surely all sound, "in tune".

I had a CD of Wendy Carlos from 1997 called, "Switched on Bach 2000" where she did some of this. I must have loaned that CD to someone who never gave it back because I searched my entire collection twice over and could not find it. I searched on You Tube for some examples by Wendy Carlos but apparently, she guards her material and does not want it disseminated in any public way. You want it, you pay for it. So, even if I could find that CD, I should probably not post any sample on here.

I did find some interesting posts under "Just Intonation" on You Tube, however. The first sample I offer is that from Michael Harrison who is well known for this. I believe it was this anecdote about charging some $700 to tune a Steinway piano "back" to ET after a live concert that people talk about. Certainly, if one were to re-tune either mine or Ron's temperaments to ET, it would not be any more of a problem than one usually encounters when tuning a piano under any normal circumstances.

Here is Michael Harrisons, "Bells", music written for a piano in Just Intonation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6TtE7HbbhM

I found one quote from a listener to be interesting:



Another did as well:



There are some more that I found very intriguing. This example of Shubert's Impromptu #4 Op. 29 (if my memory serves me correctly) starts out in ET but goes to Just Intonation midway through it. Instead of very odd sounding intervals as were heard in the Michael Harrison piece, the music seems brighter and clearer in Just Intonation. (It must be Just Intonation adjusted for the key of A-flat).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg1__oHjpIA

Here is the same piece in its entirety that was recorded by a live pianist (not the player system) at Grandpianoman's house a year ago. If you ask me, the sound that I get which so many of my customers describe as "pure", "even" and very much "in tune" is because I strike a delicate balance between slightly more consonant and slightly more dissonant M3's, a mix of sizes among the 5ths from pure to slightly more tempered than in ET and some very careful but deliberate manipulation of the octaves.

I have used that "recipe" for many years now and it works for me. I got this unsolicited message from a piano owner in NYC over the weekend:



Those who want to criticize what I do have often said that while the more consonant intervals may be pleasing, it is the more dissonant ones which would make it intolerable. Yet, it seems that I get more compliments about it when people play music that is not supposed to work as in the above example.

Here is Schubert's piece, in A-flat Major, a key that is supposedly more dissonant than would be tolerable and that many believe would only work in ET or would only sound, "in tune" in ET:

https://www.box.com/s/21f5b6a2cc913170f55f

There was also a post of Pachelbel's Canon in D played on a synthesizer first in Just Intonation, then in Meantone, then in ET. Frankly, I could hear very little distinction between the three since it is an early piece that does not modulate. The Just Intonation and Meantone were adjusted for the key of D (which one would not usually do on a piano). The Just Intonation sounded the clearest and most "in tune" the Meantone sounded the "warmest" and the ET sounded slightly "out of tune" to me compared to the two others.

Hi Bill,

Your "translation" of Kamin's ESL writing is very helpful to all of us. I enjoy Kamin's comments, but am often confused by the usage employed (no offense to Kamin intended). Translation of idomatic speech is very difficult and takes advanced understanding of a language which is a skill that you posess.

In the above quote, I am confused by the phrase you submitted as a substitution. It is just a typo, but I am trying to figure out which typo occured leading to two different meanings.

... in advance if my comments ... (or)
... in advance as my comments ...

If the second is correct, would the inclusion of "in advance" be appropriate with the sentence structure in French?

Bill:

Ron got me onto a "kick". He focused on how I was saying what I am saying, so I am trying the same thing on others. After all it is an election year...

Your latest post talked about what you hear as in-tune and out-of-tune. But an earlier post on this Topic mentioned that you do not even consider what is in-tune or out-of-tune. If you insist, I will try to find and quote it.

Do you want syrup with your waffle?

Thanks for your comment, Marty. I mistyped the word, "if" as "is". (I fixed the mistake). I do try to take the time to proof read all of my posts but I am not perfect at doing that. I don't claim to be an expert in English either, as having any advanced degree in it but it is my language.

I have studied French for more than 40 years, (as long, in fact as I have studied piano technology). French and English are actually very closely related languages. A thousand years ago, the ancient Anglo-Saxon language was assaulted by French and left behind a curious corruption of Low German and even Lower French. So, even though many words look similar, the way that English and French speakers think about things often does not connect. One can study the false cognates from a book but it takes many years of experience to be able to turn an idiomatic expression from French to English and vice-versa.

Like piano technology, it is a never ending process.

I just meant what I heard in those You tube examples I looked up. Normally, I don't think about one kind of tuning sounding more or less "in tune" than another because I know they are all out of tune in one way or another.

Off-topic, but connected to Bill's comments on Isaac's English:

Isaac, I've often noticed that you use the word "yet" when you probably intend to say "already". I'm not sure whether French has two separate words in this instance?

I too am very interested in your posts, so please keep them coming, in spite of any language barriers.

(By the way, being a native German speaker, I had to look up the meaning of "ESL". )

The cow is fine, thanks.

Language matters in all discussions, especially when trying to remain objective. Sloppyness and using loaded terms slants the conversation.

I try for honesty.... tonal temperaments have some sort of yin/yang built-in based on the Western system of music tonality. ET, as the "blank slate" tuning strives to be atonal, not imparting any flavor to the music based on the Western system of tonality.

I would appreciate if you would also strive for honesty and not radically re-define terms already in use. Sure, it's convenient and sounds great to tell an owner that the piano is perfectly in tune now that I'VE finished tuning, but these kinds of statements just perpetuate ignorance of the subject. If owners ask, I may take the time to demonstrate the challenges of fixed pitch instruments that require tempering to tune - giving them a little to think about and increase their knowledge - that everything is a balancing act, while it can't be perfectly in tune, it can be perfectly balanced... (in theory, anyway!)

Tempered means changed from in just, or in tune... I think in your tuning style, only unisons and 12ths are untempered? Hardly a mark of a tuning that you could claim all intervals to be "in tune". Even the octaves will tend to be tempered with that approach.

Ron Koval

After thinking about ET/UT, Atonal/Tonal labels, I see the point of not wanting to use UN- or A- to describe a tuning. I will try to change my use of language; equal temperament and tonal temperaments will be my preferred descriptive terms... ET/TT

Ron Koval

I cannot think of objective, alternate labels for in-tune and out-of-tune. Just and unjust simply are not practical. Obviously I think that in-tune and not-in-tune are synonymous with ET and UT. And most of the music world does too. (Huh! It reminds me of the redefinition of "marriage"... How did marriage ever become other than what we grew up knowing it to be, and the same for ET being in-tune?)

And yes I tune pure unisons and twelfths. The 12ths automatically select the correct octaves and fifths. The tempering of the rest of the intervals depends on the scaling, including jumps in scaling. So if the fifths and octaves are appropriate for the scaling, what more could you want? And as you know, octaves are always tempered in one way or another because of iH.

So two temperaments, ET and UT, can create both a positive and negative effect in music for different listeners. A "tuning" is put on the piano to create either one.

The disagreements about whether one or the other temperament is out of tune relates to dispositional qualities we see in each other...not really an accoustic attribute of either temperament. The term to describe this disparity is called Fundamental Attribution Error.

Both quotes from Wikipedia...

"...fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors".

"As a simple example, if Alice saw Bob trip over a rock and fall, Alice might consider Bob to be clumsy or careless (dispositional). If Alice tripped over the same rock herself, she would be more likely to blame the placement of the rock (situational)."

People filter out many of the differences between the temperaments to suit their own taste in the listening or playing experience. What we choose to filter (our disposition) dictates what we find "in tune".

I cannot imagine three more untrue sentences cobbled together in one statement about the subject of tempering... (the one where you write what you think? That's probably true.)

Ron Koval