Delwin D Fandrich wrote: > > The major problem I have with this whole tuned backscale discussion is that > it requires thinking of each string (or unison) and its associated bridge > segment as a series of mono-chords (mono-unisons?) acting independently of > each other. Hmm... interesting... Why ? > The do not, of course, what happens to one unison happens also > to the adjacent unisons for some distance up and down the bridge. In other > words, when the strings of, say, C-64 are vibrating and causing the bridge > to move it is not just the backscale strings of C-64 that are set in motion > in response. The backscale strings of all of the unisons for some distance on > either side of C-64 are also set in motion. Yes, but isnt it reasonable to assume that the backlength of a string set in motion has "more in common" with its speaking length then the adjacent backlengths do ? And even if one assumes that only transverse bridge motion is relevant wouldn't that necessarily be most predominant at exactly the backlength whose speaking length is excited ? > Del -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC