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/20090312/0ab515b4/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC