Wow. Thanks, Jim. Clarity is precious. I have deliberately stayed back in this maglollis of wackiness, but all of these words can be put to rest when you watch somebody who tunes with those natural beats do their thing. I'm working on getting a situation in Grand Rapids where we'll have a time when people who want to can watch me tune, all the way through. and then play and listen to the result, and debrief away. This whole-tone, natural-beat, open-string tuning is a powerful, incredibly valuable tool. "He or she who tunes the best---makes the piano sing---wins." DA On Mar 10, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Jim Moy wrote: > I happen to have read recently, and have in front of me, a copy of > Virgil Smith's "New Techniques For Superior Aural Tuning," 2nd Ed. > (Available at the PTG store, BTW) Thought it might be useful to have > a few excerpts: > > Ch.1 > > "...it is not necessary to hear the pitch of single matching partials > to hear beats for aural tuning, because of the ability of the ear to > combine all the partials of a note into one pitch. > ... > "When an interval is expanded or contracted to produce beats, the ear > (when listening to the two notes normally) combines all the partials > of both notes into two single pitches, just like it does with one note > alone. In addition, it combines all the beats between the partials > into one beat. The beat then comes from all the partials instead of > one set of partials. > ... > "This beat can be tuned to the desired speed or eliminated completely. > This means that beats can be heard two different ways: between single > matching partials, and between notes as the ear hears them naturally > with all the partials of each note sounding. > ... > "For clarity, one will be referred to as 'partial beats,' and the > other as 'natural beats.' It is important that every tuner clearly > understand this, for failure to understand this has lead to much > confusion in the past. ... The finest quality aural tuning can be > accomplished by dealing only with natural beats. > ... > "In some cases, the beat at the single matching partial level is > different when all the partials are contributing to the one beat." > > I hope I have not mis-represented Virgil's intent, by not quoting in > its entirety. I am still striving to grok in fullness what I have > read in his book. I experience what he is describing when I play and > listen. But when I go to put it in practice tuning, I still feel as > if I am encountering a Zen puzzle of sorts. > > Jim Moy > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Richard Brekne > <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote: >> Hi William and others. >> >> Nice stuff... sorry bout the rest.... seems to never go away.. but >> let go. >> I have to agree with the below... I like to think in terms of >> coincident >> partials when trying to describe things tuning wise... phrases like >> beatless >> octave and aurally perfect octaves require me to think out of my own >> box...which I can do... but its clear that a lot of confusion gets >> stirred >> up as too many start mixing vocabularies. >> >> So what do we call what Virgil refers to as the beatless octave and >> now >> surfaces anew in the term aurally pure ? Can we put a name on it... >> or do we >> have to use phrases like you touch on below ? >> >> Cheers >> RicB >> >> >> No problem with any of this. I agree wholeheartedly. And, as long >> as you continue to phrase things such: "sense of beatlessness", or, >> "perceived beatlessness," I could accept it. But I think it would >> be better phrased with regards to cleanliness than beat speeds, >> e.g. >> trying to tune an octave or dbl octave so that the combination of >> coincident partials sound "as clean as possible." >> >> >> >> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC