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. > > 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 ?? > > >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. > .....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 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. 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 ?? > > 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 ! RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC