>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. Tense is a good word.....a lot of tunings that I follow up on (in a store, usually done 1-3 weeks earlier) would call tense.....not soaring.......some major triads (as you go up chromatically) too "tense" or sharp; and the temperament fairly distorted. In my opinion, a well-tuned piano should accentuate the "bloom" or increase in amplitude that happens when you pluck a string on a good grand and listen to it. > >> >> 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 ?? Yes....thanks. > >> >> >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. I don't understand what you mean here....... > >> .....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 mean that C2-C7 sounds beatless and pure.......this takes a very precise stretch, and a stretch that means the octaves in the top of the piano are not "beatless," but when the piano is played as an instrument, as the player will hear it, ALL the octaves give the illusion of being perfectly in tune. > >> 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. I'm interested to know why that happened; in my experience, if you get the 4ths right, all the other tests you can possibly come up with are right on the money. >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 ?? Great question-----I believe both are crucially important; I believe, at least to my ears and sensibilities, there is an ideal "optimal" tuning for each piano, and all the components need to be in place: the temperament , the slight "extra stretch" in the upper tenor/lower capo area to compensate for the "Virgil Smith phenomenon," the pitch of one string going slightly, slightly flat when the other two are tuned to it; the octave stretches in the bass and treble; and, finally, the purity of the unisons. It's a deep, deep craft. >> >> 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 ! Right back at you...... :--) > >RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC