Beat Rates in music

[Richard Brekne]

David Andersen wrote:
> 
> >I think is generally aggreed upon the the more stretch in
> >general there is, the more tense the general sound of the
> >tuning is.
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by "tense?"
> 

Tenseness in this sense refers I guess to the relative beat
rates found in any given interval. For example a pure major
third sounds nearly alarmingly .... round, lazy, sleepy...
whatever words you find appropriate... where as a ET
sounding 3rd sounds reasonable to most modern ears, and a
double speed 3rd sounds icy, chilly, cold, tense... if you
will. Interesting enough this seems to be the case
regardless of where the interval is on the piano. A C5 - E5
major third in ET beats approximatly twice as fast as the C4
- E4 major third, yet both sound "correct" in this context.
Yet if you speed up either or both significantly.. they will
sound too fast.. or too tense. 

Tense is a word I like to use as it is also used to describe
the same kinds of things in music theory, and I suppose
really the relation between these two usages of the word are
much closer alligned then we perhaps we consider.

> 
> Please explain....."where the temperament and stretch are very
> compressed...."

Same kind of thing.... the distance between an octave (or
any other interval for that matter) determines its stretch,
no ??

> 
>  >Perhaps it is
> >possible to colour a musical piece through the general
> >tenseness of the tuning ?
> 
> I know it's possible to radically alter a player's perception of his or
> her own piano by doing a fine aural tuning.
> 
> This opens up a whole subject that I'm fascinated to talk to other techs
> about who consider themselves fine aural tuners:
> to me, science, intuition, my musical ears, and 25 years of tuning mostly
> fabulous pianos have shown me that every piano can sound as good as it
> possibly can in equal temperament by allowing every fourth on the piano
> to beat in pretty much in the same slow, lazy way. 

Ahhh... here we have this "there is an optimal" idea again.
Many seem to have this and again I do not by any means
discount it... its really quite an interesting thought...
but it needs / demands an explanation. And I dont think such
an explanation can be found (if it can be at all) by
breaking a tuning down into its partials componets.

> .....It takes patience, and
> a very acute ear, and some practice, but using the fourths as my basic
> tuning check, rather then thirds and sixths, has allowed my tunings to be
> a LOT more precise and a lot more "musical" to my ear.
> Using and refining this method will automatically stretch the octaves to
> where a 5-octave test will sound perfectly in tune, and all the overtones
> seem to "line up" and amplify the piano's resonance.

Now its my turn.... can you clarify what you mean by a 5
octave test ?

> I have actually done an entire performance tuning, just to challenge
> myself, and not once used a 3rd or a 6th as a check, only 4ths, 5ths and
> octaves.  Once the slow beat of a fourth is made familiar to you, and
> you're willing to let the roll develop over several seconds, octave
> tuning becomes incredibly precise in the low bass and high treble.

My first teacher taught me to tune with just 4ths and 5ths.
I tuned this way for years and the first complaint I ever
had was taking the Norwegian Tuning exam nearly 25 years
later. And 15 of those years I had been tuning for a major
international jazz festival where virtually every big name
pianist came through. 

Does that echo with Don Mannino's comments about the
importance of temperament visa vi octave stretch ??
> 
> As you've perhaps figured out, one of my heroes is Virgil Smith, modern
> father of "whole tone" or "natural" aural tuning.

Yes.... this makes perfect sense in light of your comments.
Go for it !

> 
> I'd love to hear feedback about this; tuning is a huge love of mine; I
> give every one my all.
> 
> David Andersen
> Malibu, CA

Cheers !

RicB