Hello---how did the class go? Any epiphanic moments for anybody? Best, DA On Mar 12, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Kent Swafford wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2009, at 1:49 PM, paulrevenkojones at aol.com wrote: > >> Virgil has posited the existence of "natural" beats as theological >> principle, not a scientific one. He would as surely reject your >> representation of his perception as he has rejected all >> representations that do not partake of his modality of hearing. It >> is a totally circularly intertwined form of "secret knowledge" >> argument, no argument at all when you come down to it, since who >> can argue with "secret knowledge"? I speak from direct personal >> experience here, since Virgil did at one time in our conversation >> claim that god told him what to hear. It stopped me cold then, and >> stops me cold now. > > I've been thinking about this. I went to my first Virgil Smith class > over 25 years ago. My reaction was not so different from yours. > > However, that was then and this is now. For those who have read > Virgil's book, they know that Virgil has written up his ideas in a > slim volume without the religion and with a conscious attempt to not > conflict with scientific principles. > > I was drawn to the idea that tuners need not listen to beats at > their specific pitch levels, since I am one the tuners who has never > heard coincident partials at a their actual pitches. > > Whole sound tuning is where it's at. It is not secret knowledge. > I'll be attempting to demonstrate next week at the Central-West > Regional Seminar in Wichita. > > > > > Kent > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090414/a764a64a/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC