Natural Beats

[Richard Brekne]

Well Howard.... dont know what to say about the below response... except that
before you jump all over somebody for their use of language, or jump to a lot of
conclusions about what a person does or does not know about any particular
subject matter... you might take the time to at least get to know that person a
little....

I am sorry you think its wrong for someone to take up any particular subject
matter that you think is unfortunate. I for one am interested in finding out a
bit more about how this exceptional tuner does what he does, and why he
expresses  himself in the manner in which he does.

Further Howard... it was not you who brought up the initial post wondering what
Virgil was on about in his latest Journal issue... it was me. Dont believe it
check the archives....

Lastly I would ask you kindly to either not respond to a post you dont
understand... or ask for clarification. I personally dont need to read all this
acridic criticism of my language use from somebody what doesnt even know me.

In reponse to the one query you do make....namely..

"What do you mean by a "sounding base?" Are C, F, G, C
an example of   fundamental, 4th, 5th, and octave?"

Should be obvious... as I also call it a reference appeggio for judjeing a note
to be tuned against.  And yes, C,F,G,C are an example of a fundemental, 4th, 5th
and octave" sheesh...

Trying to get to the bottom of a fellow like Virgil, and his unorthedox way of
explaining what he hears is neccessarilly going to be an excercise in
clarificaton of vauge and colourful terms, at least to some degree. I am sorry
if you find other persons enquiring minds and or how they express themselves a
problem.

Please Howard.... accept that one of our most respected colleagues coined the
term "Natural Beats", and it has yet to be established whether or not the term
has any validity.



"Howard S. Rosen" wrote:

> <!--StartFragment-->- --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> Bergen, Norway
> mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:13:09 +0100
> From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
> Subject: Hunting the Natural Beat
>
> Hi list...
>
> Not being convinced that Virgil Smith is simply misusing
> established terminology, but perhaps actually trying to describe
> something most of the rest of us have missed somehow... I have
> been dinking around with some combinations of tones to sound
> while listening for octave beats.
>
> I would like to have as many of you as is possible try the
> following and let me know what you hear.
>
> Play in appeggio form  a fundemental, 4th, 5th, and octave as a
> "sounding base" for a note three octaves above the fundemental.
>
> ******I'm sorry you brought this topic up again because when I started this
> last month, I got nothing but confirmation that no one (not even Virgil)
> understands what natural beats are. It's a meaningless expression that hints
> at the fact that 'natural' beats are not the same thing as beats we hear
> emanating from 2 slightly differing tones. You, too, are hinting at
> something, using a lot of verbiage which gets nowhere because you use vague
> and meaningless terms.What do you mean by a "sounding base?" Are C, F, G, C
> an example of   fundamental, 4th, 5th, and octave?**********
>
>  Start with the triple octave note on the flat side and bring it
> up to where it sounds most "beatless" to the reference appeggio.
> Tune a whole treble this way trying to "think"  natural beats.
>
> *******You use the word "beatless". Do you not realize that you are
> listening to beats produced by coincidental partials when you do this? You
> now use a term that ___no one___ understands nor has it been defined. How do
> you expect anyone to "think natural beats" when no one knows what they are
> or from where they emanate?
> What would you say if I asked you to tune an interval and think of
> thfarviths? I'm sure your first thought would be "What the heck is a
> thfarvith?"***********
>
> Perhaps I am a bit off the wall on this one...but something
> seems to jive with this.
>
> ******* Another vague statement. I believe we must be objective and precise
> in our tuning systems. Would you suggest that a note be tuned correctly by
> using an octave below and setting it until it ' jives' just right? Or that
> it sounds 'nice'? Or that  it has a 'charming' effect to your ears etc. Or
> would you describe the tuning of a particular note as being a 2/1 octave, or
> a 4/1 double octave, or a 6/3 octave, etc. all of which can be
> scientifically determined by precisely measuring the coincidental partials.
> The terms "natural beat",  tuning until something "jives" or sounds "nice"
> are all equally vague terms.
>
> I hope I don't give the impression that we should be robotic in our tunings.
> On the contrary, I very often go against the rules and tune using musical
> judgement but if I described what I do, I could tell you very precisely in
> tech language how I tuned a particular treble, for example.  I might say
> that in this particular piano I tuned the treble such that the double octave
> has about 1 or 2 beats. I would not say I tune it until it "jives" or until
> it reminds me of "a sunny spring day in the wheat fields" or until the
> thfarviths sound as refreshing as a glass of cool lemonade.
>
> Please, Richard, when responding please use terms that we all understand. I
> think you should avoid the term "natural beats" until it is defined.
>
> Howard S. Rosen, RPT
> 7262 Angel Falls Ct.
> Boynton Beach, Fl  33437
>
> hsrosen@gate.net

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no