[pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

[Allan]

I love reading you all. This discussion about the "Analytical" vs "Whole"
reminds me of my own struggle as a piano student. I had returned to school
after having my 2 children, at 30, at Université de Montréal, where I got my
last diploma in 1989. My teacher was Gilles Manny, who had to be so patient
with me because of my stubbornness in trying to explain and understand
everything he was trying to teach me regarding quality of tone, my own way.
My mechanical abilities, my intelligence of physics and my rationale
inclination got in the way of what eventually happened, happily: When I
finally let go, when I took the "Leap of Faith", a whole new world of sounds
and colours and expression was suddenly mine. It was a revelation. I am
still driven not only by that discovery, but by the conviction that exists
still much more to be discovered by me. 

That's my own experience, for what it is worth to anyone else. 

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, a psychologist, introduced the notion of "Flow" as
"the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what
he or she is doing by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and
success in the process of the activity" (This is taken from Wikipedia
article.)

That's what you are talking about, Ed. I look forward to seeing David or
someone else work in this state of "Flow" this summer.

This state I know from performing on stage afterwards, as the most
exhilarating experience I have ever known. Having used Tunelab for 6 years,
I tune in a more "ordinary" state, then enjoy the beauty and "perfection" I
recognize in the result, almost on every piano.

Allan Sutton


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ed Sutton
Sent: 13 mars 2009 15:01
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

David, Scott and David!!!!

Yes to all of what you wrote!
In the May Editorial Perspective, which I just sent to layout, I call for 
"new ways to learn." In April, at the end of the NAMM review, another call 
for "new ways to hear."
Amazingly, I suddenly feel like we're all hearing one another!

When I used the term "Modes of Perception" I was refering to the amazingly 
complex situaton of having a body/brain and learning how to use it at a 
virtuoso level. This involves a lot more than calculating inharmonicity and 
tuning curves or beat rates. It involves an intimate, intensely focused 
approach to work.

David Anderson talks a lot about believing in yourself totally when tuning, 
and talks of tuning as meditation. Virgil Smith tunes, using a way of 
hearing he believes is a gift from God, and his work is a demonstration of 
his faith. At my best, when I am tuning I am ecstatic that I can hear all 
those partials vibrating; I feel connected to a core truth of the universe. 
What matters is not the literal truth of these thoughts, but the way they 
allow us to direct our energies to attain better results. Thoughts like this

are magic because they empower us to exceed our self-expectations.

Dave P. yes, I hadn't thought through the visual connection. Closing my eyes

enables me to hear more fully. I can set unisons better with my eyes closed,

for instance. I should practice closing my eyes intentionally when tuning 
octaves, too. I have felt that one of the costs of staring at an ETD screen 
is a real reduction in the ability of the brain to process aural input. In 
our world, vision trumps sound. What I hadn't realized until you mentioned 
looking at the orchestra is that when I'm intentionally seeking to hear 
higher partials, I look at the keyboard, at the key for the pitch I'm tryimg

to hear, so I use a visual reference to direct and limit my hearing.

Scott- Yes, I think we haven't even begun to create an ear-training program 
for piano tuning. The programed learning courses in music theory, such as 
Practica Musica, provide excellent examples of how easy it can be when a 
computer provides carefully structured challenges in ear training. Because 
the market is small, I don't know if anyone will ever produce a commercial 
product. I have some hopes that something will come of our discussions, 
perhaps through PTG, and I'll be talking it up as best I can.

Ed Sutton [I may be wacky, but now I know I'm not alone.]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Helms, RPT" <tuner at helmsmusic.net>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves


> Ed -
>
> I hear things exactly the same way you describe, and interestingly enough,
> I've used the same terminology you used ("musical" listening vs.
> "analytical" listening). I see this as akin to listening to an orchestra
> live; you can listen to the whole sound, or you can "zone in" on a
> specific section or even sometimes a specific player. I've also noticed in
> that situation that I tend to be more aurally aware of whatever section of
> the orchestra I'm looking at - there's a visual connection for me. I hear
> the totality of the sound better if I close my eyes. In thinking about
> this phenomenon, it made me wonder if, for those people who are learning
> to hear specific partials, it would be helpful to have some sort of visual
> aid training program (maybe computer-based?) that shows the fundamental
> and all its partials, and highlights where the coincident partials are
> beating. There could be a whole ear training program designed with this
> principle in mind. I taught undergraduate aural comrehension (ear
> training) classes for years and was always trying to think of new ways to
> help students hear things they struggled with, so I guess that gray matter
> hasn't gone completely defunct yet!  :)   Would this be something worth
> developing for beginning (and maybe all?) technicians as a learning tool?
> -- 
> Scott Helms, Registered Piano Technician
> www.helmsmusic.net
>
>
>> This thread is getting really good now: describing HOW we hear. This
>> is crucial: I love that Ed calls listening to coincident partials
>> "analytic;' that's what it feels like---a different part of my
>> consciousness is matching partials than listening to the blend of
>> partials that is the "whole-tone." I can do both, but it seems more
>> thorough and "feels better" to me to listen to everything that's
>> happening when I play two notes; I like I can serve the tuning, and
>> the piano, better.
>>
>> I maintain an upright Kawai piano in the studio of a famous film
>> composer that is tuned so that every string is one octave lower than
>> normal (A440 is tuned to A220.) It's a huge challenge due to the
>> massive inharmonicity with the wire at such low tension. None of the
>> usual hearing rules apply. It's the purest experience of listening to
>> the whole tone---watery and boinky as it is---to try to hear and
>> achieve the most musical relationships between the notes. I realized
>> yesterday that the way I tune is the only way you could possibly do
>> this work. ETD? Forget it. the sucker would blow a circuit. Partial
>> matching? Good luck; that way lies madness; there be dragons.
>> Listening to the whole tone is the only way. To hear this piano in all
>> its glory, listen to the opening minute of the soundtrack of "3:10 to
>> Yuma," starring Russell Crowe. Spooky.
>> DA
>>
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2009, at 4:38 AM, William Monroe wrote:
>>
>>> Ed,
>>>
>>> Thank you for responding.  I had a suspicion that this is what was
>>> happening.  Your experience pretty much mirrors mine.  Though at
>>> this stage of my career, being able to focus on partials at a
>>> multiple locations, or, particularly locations, is not
>>> instantaneous, I certainly do that, as well as listen "musically".
>>> I think when I first started I listened "musically" because it was
>>> the most obvious for me, then with training, learned to isolate
>>> partials.  I suppose over time I've come to think of musical
>>> listening as undesireable, unfocused.  Perhaps it would serve me
>>> well to revisit that idea.
>>>
>>> Do you think in your experience that MOST technicians can isolate
>>> partials at different levels?  It would seem likely to me.  And it
>>> also seems likely that we are all capable of listening "musically,"
>>> too; we probably all first hear intervals that way.  For me, I think
>>> it's harder to listen "musically."  My brain is just drawn to the
>>> partials.  I'll fiddle around with it a bit.  Thanks again for
>>> taking time to respond.
>>>
>>> William R. Monroe
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Ed Sutton <ed440 at mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> William-
>>>
>>> Since I can do both, I'll explain:
>>>
>>> When I listen "musically" to a Major third, say F3-A3, the beating
>>> sounds like its a vibrato happening at the pitch level of the
>>> thirds; imagine, say, a violin playing the third with vibrato.
>>>
>>> When I listen "analytically," I let my hearing scan up the overtones
>>> until I hear the co-incident partials where the beating is
>>> occurring. Now I can recognize that the beating that I first heard
>>> at the fundamental level is really happening at the 5/4 level and
>>> that there is no beat at the fundamental level.
>>>
>>> As long as I can remember I have been able to listen to a tone and
>>> consciously isolate many of the partials of the tone. I thought
>>> everyone could do this, but in teaching I've learned that not
>>> everyone can. I've also seen people who could not hear the partials
>>> of a tone suddenly become able to hear them.
>>>
>>> When I talk of different modes of perception, I am referring to
>>> these two different ways of hearing which I can usually effect at
>>> will by just imagining how I want to hear.
>>>
>>> Ed Sutton
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: William Monroe
>>> To: pianotech at ptg.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Kent,
>>>
>>> Can you explain this more clearly?  I know it's been (re)hashed many
>>> times and, recently, but, where DO you hear the coincident partials
>>> if not at their specific pitches?  I'm more than open to learning/
>>> experiencing this technique, and I've no doubt standing behind you
>>> (Virgil, DA, etc.) would be far more instructive, and I intend to do
>>> that at GR if DA gets it going; but for now,   are you just
>>> listening to "everything presented" at once?  Or is it something
>>> different, specific to partials, but with a slightly different focus?
>>>
>>> William R. Monroe
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1995 - Release Date: 03/13/09
05:59:00