Natural Beats

[David Ilvedson]

Here we go again...;-[

David I.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 2/10/01 at 12:05 PM Richard Brekne wrote:

>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