Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum ET via Marpurg Videos Now Available

To those studying the ET via Marpurg, the rest of the sequence can now be seen on YouTube, through the PTG website or on my website at: http://www.billbremmer.com/videos/

I now know why on my second attempt at tuning the sequence, scoring revealed two, one point errors. I watched the video and I forgot to correct D4! (Step #18 in the summary sequence). That left D4 tuned pure to A3 and a beating 5th between G3 and D4. So, when you watch the video, you will see that I skipped that step and it cost me 2 points. (I was a little nervous).

However, it is interesting that when I tuned for Randy Potter during the previous hour, I scored a perfect 100. When I repeated the sequence for PTG, I made a 2 point error by omission. I got 2 points off. The scoring process divided the errors between two notes but that is the way it works. It still identified a flaw in the temperament that was legitimate.

I didn't really notice it that much when playing the intervals but when I verified the electronically score errors, I could hear a slight problem in both which is what one point errors amount to. Each point scored in the temperament section has a 2.5 multiplier, so my score was 95.

Still, as you may confirm by watching the video, the process works as intended. If I would have remembered to correct D4, I would probably have scored a perfect 100. All with no guessing, no counting of beats and no interval checks whatsoever!

ET via Marpurg works for all intents and purposes!

Thank you Bill! I'm going to give this a shot!

I a much surprised : on the fourth unison tuning demonstrations, none of the tuners deal with the energy of the unison !

Most listen only to the sustain waves

None of them tune by doublets.

Is is usual or are they particularly using new methods ?

Great videos Bill!

I mean the CM3 and ET via Marpurg videos.

I hope you will make similar videos for the EBVT III temperament tuning.

Thankyou for sharing.

Kamin,

I usually tune unisons by doublets, using two wedge mutes, but for what I've read in the Virgil Smith's book, they advice to tune open unisons with all the three strings sounding simultaneously: open strings.

In the Ron Koval videos, he uses only one wedge mute and he first tunes left string with the wedge mute placed between center and right strings, then he tunes the center string to the left string, by placing the mute between the right string and the left string of the upper unison and finally he tunes the right string to the other two open strings, placing the mute between the center and right strings of the upper unison.

I believe they don't use a strip mute, they tune all the temperament octave and the rest of the piano with open unisons, only muting the strings of the unison tuned in turn.

Personally, I can't tune that way. I must use a strip mute to tune the temperament from F3 to A4, then I tune the unisons of these notes and at that point I tune the rest of the piano using two wedge mutes by tuning the center string first to the correspondig octave, then the right string to the center string and last the left string to the center string.

Thanks Raphael,

I was instructed to tune the whole temperament unisons before going farther some 35 years ago, but I rarely see someone doing that actually.

I simply find it easier to build tone (energy dealing) with the blend of 2 doublets, and most concert tuners do that as well here. It is also necessary to check the tone with the 3 strings sounding together, but I find it not possible, or too uncomfortable, to deal with the attack energy with 3 strings sounding together.

I only learned to add the attack tuning after 15 years in the trade, so I know there is often roomm for improvment.

On the 4 examples of tuners, only the last one have some gestion of the attack (but he dont use tactile feedback in the tuning hammer for what I see)

In the end after having looked closely at many European concert tuners, I have seen they mostly (if not all) use the same technique and gesture (sitting or standing but same way to hold the lever, same way to play repeatedly and same gestion of the tactile sensation in the playing hand, that last making a huge difference for the pianist)

I did not knew Virgil Smith had wrote a book, but I recall he state that only 2 strings together can give the final pitch of a note, since then I compare always doublets when tweaking or correcting the first pass.. (so i use 2 mutes, and felt strips to begin with)

Happy new year, and the best to 2010

BTW for some reason (?) I've find that better for stability to begin with the right string when I go in the treble, and the other way for the basses.

Kamin,

you say:..."I a much surprised : on the fourth unison tuning demonstrations, none of the tuners deal with the energy of the unison !

Most listen only to the sustain waves

None of them tune by doublets.

Is is usual or are they particularly using new methods?"...

Well, you get no answer Kamin, perhaps is esoteric...

What I would say to young tuners, after whatching that unison video and long before talking about unisons quality, is:

You'd better rest your forearm on the piano (always) so to gain a firm point. Anchor your body, be it an up-right or a grand, so that you can turn the pins with your wrist, never with your arm-and-body. Do not detach your hand from the tuning lever (or hammer), never hit the tuning lever, kind of hoping for a lucky stroke. First discharge the pin by going narrow, go up then from narrow pitch evaluating the twisting (torsion) and the bending of each pin, precisely evaluate while you go pass the "right" point, then go wide and charge the pin in terms of torsion and bending, so that you can go back to the correct "point" by anticlock rotation, taking away all the unnecessary pin's torsion and bending.

This can be "one single gesture" (on well pinned pianos), without stress for the tuner nor for the pins and the pins block. I'll deepen in an other Topic.

BILL,

I start thinking that you may dislike "being told" on what you generally state and about ET tuning.

In my opinion you are doing a great job, when you help young tuners to get some satisfaction from first-year tuning.

Nevertheless, I would have many issues and reasons for telling you that Marpurg temperament, for what I have heard, does not gain the ET progression of 3rds, and that ET via Marpurg is a quasi-ET too. ET progressions are smoother and all intervals have their precise interrelation.

I would like to explain you that 12ths and 15ths opposite equal beating is more than a gimmick and that - if you manage to extend it all along the keyboard - you'll have gained the ET-EB as described by Chas Theory.

I would like to tell you in detail that ET 4ths and 5ths are not equal beating, nor they have a casual progression (as I could hear), in fact 4ths and 5ths must balance each other but 4ths, in midrange, beat always more than 5ths.

I was expecting you to take position on those recent attempts to confuse Chas Theory and tuning with your own favorite tunings, it has not happened yet.

Now, I ask you to make up your mind and decide whether you are interested in Chas ET tuning, and in discussing your statements about ET's clinical perfection, true ETs, nearly perfect ETs, not existing ETs, or not. This should result direct and simple enough.

Regards, a.c.

Thanks, Bill,

Yes, ET via Marpurg is a most excellent system - it does work for all intents and purposes. Even though I have yet to get a "perfectly equal" temperament, the results of my work thus far shows color and gives various key signatures their uniqueness, etc.

Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Unisons are key...without perfect unisons, any and all temperaments are basically useless. My focus, at least at this point, is to focusing on unisons.

Thanks for those videos - they are a HUGE help!

The learning curve continues - Happy New Year, to you and to all!

Glen

Great videos and good explanations. Seeing and hearing, and being able to replay what isn't immediately clear is a big help.

Alfredo, you have posed many questions and I am sorry I have not had the time to try to understand each of them and respond to them. The opinions I have about the use of ET as general practice have been long held and are not likely to change. I am well aware that my opinions are in the minority, just as my political opinions are in the area where I live but that does not dissuade me from voting according to my conscience.

What I believe and put into practice does in no way diminish my respect for you as a piano technician. I have seen that there is a significant language and cultural barrier between what you try to express and I take that into account as I do with Kamin and to some degree, Herr Stopper. All of you are quite fine technicians and have the right to your own opinions and to practice what you believe.

Thank you for your comments, David J. You may thank PTG for wanting to record the videos and place them for free public access. It was PTG's decision to do so, not mine. PTG has understood that such presentations are valuable and has only begun to work on a collection of them regarding virtually all aspects of piano technology. Everyone can look forward to more of this in the near future, both free and available for a very reasonable cost. That is the value and the contribution of PTG to the industry and it has been, is now and will always be the single most valuable source for continuing education that is accessible to everyone, world wide.

Bill,

Thank you very much for your reply.

While I do respect anybody’s opinion, I have to contrast a precise phenomenon, i.e. when an opinion is sold or given out as a theorem. Actually, I think I understand what your theorem is and, despite any “language and cultural barrier” I may summarize it with 9 words: tuners can happly go by with an unequal temperament (you wrote today in Topic: learning EBVT: 2nd attemp).

While I can appreciate your efforts for sharing your practical, easy and satisfactory tuning methods, I do not understand your crusade against "quality", against ET, against theories, against maths, in other words against the instruments that human being normally use for improving our standards of life. I find it moot, pointless, superfluous, when not impoverishing. What to say, I find it useless, misleading and antieduacational, somehow offensive. I would never turn an opinion into a theorem, and I do not get why you need to do so. Can you tell us?

Are you happy with your tunings? Yes? That’s good.
Are you happy to be able to share your tuning methods and techniques? Yes? Good.

Are you happy with your EBVT? Yes? For what I understand, you may soon be able to elaborate EBVT IV, V and VI. Very good indeed.

But why do you need to banalize and/or flatten other temperaments and other approaches? Why do you need to fight, with words, against theories and numbers?

To conclude, could not you share your EBVTs, your quasi-ET via Marpurg, your easy tuning methods and techniques just refraining from easy and/or superficial statements, just refraining from lines of reasoning that can not represent any truth, can not you distinguish your personal ideas from theorems, from theoretical treatments of temperamental issues, at least those that need some scientific ground? What can justify your need to indoctrinate young tuners towards fixed rate standards?

I hope you do not mind me being this sincere, as I hope you'll eventually understand that Chas ET is not an opinion.

Best regards, a.c.

.

I just want to add a comment about the need to tune with the wrist.

On that I totally agree, the wrist is sensitive, as are the fingers (particularly on a well resonant hammer handle).
But to tune (really tune, low pitched pianos) verticals, I was shown a good use of the body s weigh and the force of the legs, at last to have that damn... tuning pin moving without so much tension located only in the fore arm.
Pianists take eventually their energy from their fingers and the extension of the whole body (with the aperture of the arm to spill all that impulse in the keyboard via the wrist)
The tuner can do the same.

I tune verticals mostly standing so I dont use that often but the national music school tuners appreciate that posture most.

BTW tuning verticals as shown on the video is to me the worst way, with the less control on what happens. the only advantage to hold the lever left is to unlock immediately the tuning pin from its own place (as do left handed tuners).
But the disadvantage is that then you have the maximum pin twist and flagpole, I will only use that kind of gesture on grands with hard and , not very tactile pins, it then twist the pin to the max, kind of delaying the move of the string to the last moment (the larger "marshmallow zone", as my esteemed colleagues use to say)
Then even if the setting of the pin look natural, (the weight of the hammer and the tension from the wire put the pin back in place) in fact there is little control on what is really going on. on a piano with loose pins no way to be sure that they are holding .
At last a fixed anchor may be necessary to have more precision and tactile feedback.

As said Alfredo, until you have a very good control on what happens you may keep your hand, or at last a few fingers, on the handle at all times.

Now the last little checks for stability you may leave the handle and only gently push/bend slightly the pin with a finger while listening. On a good rendering piano, the tone may lower (pushing) a tad (begin of a moaning) the raise above justness (idem) then get back to perfect when you leave the handle.
That is the basic proof that your pin is settled (and the way to correct a note that have only moved because the pianist have played too hard, reestablishing the little tension difference between speaking length and the upper scale that is installed as a security by many tuners).


A classical posture use the lever at 13:00 (best control). Seasoned tuners can use a 15:00 posture but less control, the pin tend to crack later (that is an advantage in some situations).

In any case, put tension in the pin and wait, if the note is played enough the pin will move soon (playing more is also strangely less tiring for the ears).

While you are in that tension/torsion posture it is time to experiment to what happens if you push a little , or reverse, and does the pin move sooner or no ?

Alfredo, there is not likely to be any further progression of the EBVT beyond the EBVT III. I am satisfied with that.

I do not tune the ET via Marpurg for any of my customers although I could if I wanted to do that and it would be accepted as ET without the slightest doubt. If a backwards version of a well temperament which would not pass the PTG tuning exam is commonly accepted as ET, how could a quasi ET which would pass the PTG exam at 100% be found to be unacceptable?

What I really find amusing is that there are those who will go to any and all possible extent to perfect ET in the belief that the ultimate perfection of ET results in the very best sound from the piano. I do not believe that and I know it is not true and I have known that for 20 years. If you believe that, I respect you for your belief and I know that what you produce as a piano tuning is excellent.

However, excellence can have many forms. Your excellence is not my excellence. I do not wish to even try to learn what you do because I am firmly convinced that I have found something far better. I don't expect you to agree with that. It does not follow your logic at all. I DO NOT believe that the ultimate perfection in the equalizing of the scale results in the very best sound. I have found something else which I do believe to be an optimum compromise. It does not follow your logic; it does not satisfy your rules.

You may think of it as we are each playing a similar game but with a different set of rules. Canadian and American football are both very similar games but no Canadian team may ever play against an American team because each has their own set of rules which mutually exclude each other. Likewise, there are similarities in your ideas with mine but the differences which are also part of each of our ideas make your results different from mine and mine different from yours.

I would venture to say this: If you tuned a piano to the best of your ability (beat your brains out!) and I tuned a piano in either the ET via Marpurg (without trying to correct the known "imperfections" but deliberately keeping them) or either version of the EBVT, (the original with intervals which some technicians ((but very few musicians)) find too harsh and therefore like to "bang" on saying, "That won't fly!"), more pianists would find an ordinary effort on my part (a tuning accomplished in an hour or so) more appealing to their musical taste than if you spent an entire day tuning to what you believe to be the ultimate perfection. The EBVT or EBVT III is simply more musically appealing to most people than any version of ET, including, I dare say, the CHAS ET.

While your idea has merit, mine would be found to be far more appealing by almost any musician. Even if I were to tune the ET via Marpurg with all of its known imperfections, it would sound better to most musicians than what you do. I already know what the reason for that would be. Can you discover what that reason is? Can you dismiss what you believe and accept that there is something that does not follow your logic that is actually more musically appealing?

I knew this 11 years ago when I presented the original EBVT at the PTG convention in 1998. I answered a few people who asked me in advance how I thought I would do. I answered confidently that I would win the competition. Those who asked me the question said that my attitude was "smug" and "cocky". For your benefit, if you do not understand those words, they mean basically to have undeserved, unmerited over confidence.

Yet, I had already known for many years prior to that time that what I could do was a a winning combination. I tuned my piano in about an hour the night before. Virgil Smith was tuning his ET early that morning, finishing only shortly before the time of the meeting. When he heard my piano, he said voluntarily, "I feel that I am going to end up on the losing end of this game".

When Virgil had his chance to speak, he said that ET was here to stay and that it would always be the standard tuning. He compared other temperaments to the joy of driving a classic car on Sunday, just for fun. When real transportation is needed, the modern car would always prevail. Thus, he meant to say that ET is now and always will be in the future, the correct way to tune the piano. There were some in the audience of only technicians who agreed with him in the final round of voting which piano had the best sound. One person out of four agreed with him. Three out of every four found the EBVT with tempered octaves, exactly the way I have described them, to be the best sound. I somehow knew they would before any piano was played.

I knew it even though I had argued with many people on the Pianotech list about it beforehand. Many of those people came to that event just so they could laugh at and mock me. I was called many names. Unethical, Crazy, needing medication for my mental disorder. One person openly proclaimed that I had "delusions of grandeur". I was even prescribed the drug Lithium by one person who was not a psychiatrist but who felt confident enough in his "diagnosis" of me to write that for all to read. One person suggested that everyone employ the Amish tradition of shunning. (The Amish are a group of people in America who reject modern ways of living. If anyone in their community departs from their way of life, they will "shun" that person, meaning that they will no longer speak to that person or have any contact whatsoever). That suggestion to shun me never worked. There were always people interested in what I had to say and wanted to try what I knew how to do.

None of that ever dissuaded me. I knew I had an idea that worked and it worked very well. It is based on sound logic and historical precedents.

ET on the other hand is not based on sound logic nor historical precedents. It is only a theoretical idea but that theoretical idea was seized upon and sold to everyone a hundred or so years ago. It became a business decision, not a musical or artistic decision. All intervals completely equalized. Complete freedom of modulation. No distinction from one tonality to the other. Compatible with all forms of music. So it was represented. The idea sounded good. All other ideas were deliberately suppressed so that the business decision would be accepted and it was.

Unfortunately, very few technicians could actually do it according to the poor description there was about how to do do it. What they most often offered was a backwards version of another kind of temperament that they had never even heard of. The belief was only in ET and anything that anybody did, no matter how badly it differed from ET, it was still ET in the minds of those who tuned it. That problem is still pervasive today as I witnessed in Los Angeles last Sunday.

To me, each of those supposed advantages is actually a disadvantage except one: compatible with all forms of music. Both versions of the EBVT are compatible with all forms of music. So are many other WTs. So is reverse well. You can tune a piano in reverse well and play anything from any period and people will accept it. That has been proven far more times, millions upon millions more times than a true ET has ever proved it.

One person who was present just before the 1998 event said to me, "Temperament doesn't matter, only unisons and octaves do". I replied, "Well, then next year, you can organize the 'Temperament Doesn't Matter' Festival". "Go ahead", I said, "Have 5 pianos tuned with any random temperament errors but make sure each has perfect sounding octaves and unisons. No one will be able to distinguish one from the other". "You will prove your point". That person also took my remark as "cocky" and did not attend the event. Before the year was completed, he quit the business due to a rotator cuff injury.

In the year 2000, I suffered a severe rotator cuff injury and am still weakened by it but I managed to stay in the business. That person was tired of tuning pianos and found a good excuse to quit but he still believed in every way possible that ET was the one and only correct way to tune a piano. He was a university technician and he told me that he had sent out a memo to all of the faculty that he could now offer any historical temperament if they so desired. He said that because he had an ETD in which he could simply enter some figures to get whatever anyone would want. "Nobody ever asked me to do that", he said. He added, "They all only wanted ET" (a conclusion that he drew from no response to his memo).

Did they all really only want ET or did they all really know of ET and believe only in ET because all information about any other possibility had been suppressed during their entire music education? Was that suppression due to the deliberate misstatement in Grove's Dictionary of Music and the Braide-White book that purposefully ignores any possibility other than MEAN tone versus ET? What were these music professionals actually taught about tuning if anything at all? Did they all believe that anything but ET would have WOLVES in it that would eat them alive if their pianos were tuned that way?

While I believe that what they were served from that university tech was a reasonable ET because he was an RPT and routinely used an ETD, were the piano tunings they were exposed to during their entire lives all ET with pure octaves or were they more likely to have been reverse well with randomly sized octaves?

I have never tired of tuning pianos and find joy in each and every piano I tune, no matter how modest of a piano it is. I never get tired of hearing the customer say, "That is BEAUTIFUL!" when I finish and demonstrate the "pipe organ" effect.

So, you see, Alfredo, I have been through all of this many times over and for a very long time. I am not going to be persuaded by anyone of the merits of ET and any particular octave stretching style. If you ever do get the chance to present your very best tuning to be compared to mine, you will likely be quite humbled by the experience. I have not bought for the rest of my life the business decision and tried to improve upon it. I already did that more than 25 years ago but then I found that what had been sold to me was only a theory that could be disproved and I disproved it long ago. Very long ago. I have never tried to use what I don't believe in as general practice ever since. No theory, no mathematics, no argument will ever change my current beliefs.

That is not to say that I have not tried other temperaments which I would consider viable. I have. The EBVT and EBVT III however, still remain at the top of my list for the best way to tune the modern piano. I might add that I have also tuned harpsichords using the same method as I do for a piano and have never experienced any strange results or effects as Kamin has suggested I would.

Bil I am sure that you trust what you say, I also try to use the cultural context when listening, and I believe that the main barrier may be there.

I like what Virgil said, as it is probably the truth, it is normal that cycling thru the tonality will give some more appealing than others, that playing on a piano tuned like that is fun, but is not for every use.

Then , I believe we did not grow listening to the same music, nor the same instrument, and that make a sufficient difference for our taste to differ.

Also, your practical way to tune and work on pianos is mostly a self taught method developed by numerous tuners, hence the high number of variants that are proposed.

We are lucky here to be nearer many factories yet producing instruments (for how long ?), that is putting us nearer the original culture of the instrument, different continent, different music, different musical approach.

I feel we are not generally speaking in the "big is beautiful" mood, hence our pleasure with moderate things (while I dont find your temperament to be so extreme, aint the question, I guess you stay within the natural resonance of the piano with your method to temper the octave and fifth, that may help the global resonance.
I did not exactly understand what is about Alfredo tuning, I will also give a check to yours. I also understand this is a business question visibly.
Hopefully for me I also knows how to regulate, change parts, keep instruments in shape, so I dont have to purely rely on tuning to earn a living (even if I guess my tuning is good I like to arrange the instruments by other means, often more appropriate than a temperament question, hence more useful to the pianist)


When I see the hammers of some concert piano from the STeinway concert rental service of NY in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HzBiiux7vo&feature=PlayList&p=298774062FBC8E5F&index=1 , I know we live in 2 different words when it come to pianos.
But I will try to understand yours.

I wish you the best and I congratulate you for your "obstinateness" and ability to defend your point (even if it may be as boring sometime as my kilometer long posts !!) Having opinions and defending them is a must !

Best wishes for 2010 !




.

Kamin, I'm getting some strange feelings from this forum...to often I can only agree with you...it’s a kind of relieve...

You say:...“Now the last little checks for stability you may leave the handle and only gently push/bend slightly the pin with a finger while listening. On a good rendering piano, the tone may lower (pushing) a tad (begin of a moaning) the raise above justness (idem) then get back to perfect when you leave the handle.”...

Yes, that is my “pins charge” checking way too, I use my small finger. Actually, I check for a 70% pushing load (anticlock) and a 30% pulling, I think this can counterbalance the string’s energy when playing the piano. So, also for pins and tone stability, I would talk about “propensity”. Nothing scientific but, in my opinion, the sound energy also may be better delivered if the whole pins block is coherently charged. All the best for a lovely NEW YEAR, Alfredo Capurso.

Bill, thank you, I think I understand you better. Let’s hope we manage to meet and compare our evidences, and I really hope Kent will be able to confirm his offer in real terms. For me anytime would be fine, both for the conference and our tunings compareson. Best Wishes for a great 2010, Alfredo Capurso.

.

I called that "pin knot" the premises are that the string tension is locking the pin in place, and that if eventually the extra tension is delivered, it will raise a tad the pitch , which is hardly noticeable, while when it lower it is more audible. Not real checks on that but it is fairly possible.

To get there I tune with enough pressure on the handle to install that difference when the pitch is good and the pin in its place.

Nothing fancy, actually I guess every (European) tuner does that on grand pianos for the final move (using the springness of the pin)

On verticals I use less tension differences, because not enough friction on the bearing to hold that securely.

I've seen a friend demonstrating his pin setting on verticals : she very quickly put the hammer on every tuning pin and pull it toward the keyboard. If not a real method to set the pin, (and it can disturb the pin setting in fact) at last it is a good educational test.

What you say about pinblock "charged" make sense, and to me it is the reason for the absence of plate bushings on Steinways.

Best wishes.


BTW the last plain wire plucked by Bill is too low, in the video ! the second tuner have a reasonable way but no deal of the attack so when the treble occurs the job is more difficult.

it would be better to give real explanations , then some money could be asked for the videos, I'll be pleased to give some to the PTG if they wish to have some "European like" way.

Learning tuning is difficult enough, no need to have learners loosing time or learning half of the process.

That said, it is so simple in the end that I understand the "secret" around the tuning method.

Thanks Kamin and Alfredo and Happy New Year to you both. Kamin, I don't know where you got the idea that I only tune pianos. As an RPT, one must also have a broad knowledge of all aspects of piano technology to pass the written exam. One must also have a solid set of repair and regulation skills to pass the technical exam.

When I picked up the orders yesterday for work that I do for a local dealer, there was a note attached that said a customer who owns a Steinway model L had called to say how thoroughly pleased he was with the regulation and voicing I had done on his piano December 22. I am grateful for the opportunity I had in 1986 and 1991 to study at the Steinway factory in New York. The factory training seminars did not accept novices. I had already been an RPT for nearly 4 years at that time in 1986 and had already been a piano technician since 1969 and working full time, self employed since 1978. The skills I was taught at Steinway were refinements to what I already knew and specific to Steinway pianos.

I had also received training at the Kimball factory in 1992 for which I was equally grateful. In fact, I learned more there than I did at Steinway. So, whenever I see a post like the current one where someone enjoys hating Kimball pianos, it only says to me how much they really don't know how to do and also how ignorant they must be about how solidly built and durable those pianos actually are. For every person who would prefer to cremate one of those instruments, they should keep in mind that the piano they hate so much will still be in someone's home, perhaps even the home of a professional musician, serving as the primary musical instrument long after after they, themselves have been cremated.

I would also say that I had a rebuilding shop for a period of 7 years in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I replaced pinblocks, entire actions, rescaled and strung countless pianos. Many of those pianos I still tune and service today.

Today, I will see only two pianos but that is because for both of them, I will not only tune them but also clean, voice and regulate them. One this morning, one this afternoon. One is a Steinway, one is a Baldwin, both built in this country, of course. I received knowledge specific to Baldwin pianos through instruction provided through PTG. I really can't think of any techniques I will use today that I taught myself. How could I teach myself something I don't know?

The way I tune the pianos, the way I always tune pianos, for every purpose, not just for Sunday afternoon casual exploration of some different style which will then be converted BACK to the only truly useful way to tune, I did not "invent" entirely on my own. It is a combination of ideas learned from many sources. Yes, I have often been told that I could not just "go around" doing that. I have had fingers pointed at me (on ma bien montré le doit) saying, "You will get yourself into a lot of trouble if you keep on doing that!" "You will face lawsuits if you ever try to do that on a concert stage!"

Obviously, I never paid any attention to those warnings. The Steinway customer who was so pleased with the way his instrument sounded did not play intervals and exclaim, "These thirds are all uneven!" "These octaves are all of a different size!" He sat down and played from his book of Beethoven sonatas that I saw there when I came to the piano. He enjoyed the music from his piano as I had prepared it for him.

Today, another technician asked specifically if he could be present to watch what I do with the Steinway. I said, "Yes, of course, you may come to watch and ask any questions you like." I have always believed in the sharing of knowledge and skills. That is what PTG is all about as opposed to keeping trade secrets. Whatever knowledge and skills that technician may learn from me will never take any business away from me but will more than likely bring more business to me from both the customer and the technician. I know that from experience too.

Ironically, I have learned more by teaching other technicians what I know how to do than they have learned from me. For example, I have learned just why so many tuners have failed when they tried to tune using a traditional 4ths & 5ths temperament sequence. I learned why they offer reverse well as a product but firmly believe it to be ET. I learned what they actually can do consistently well and what they cannot do consistently well. The ET via Marpurg was then the solution to that problem. If so many people fail when trying one method, then there must be another way to tune which would work for them. That method is for them, those who are trying to learn, not for people who already know how.

I must go now and practice general piano technology with my own signature placed upon it.