This is a multipart message in MIME format ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Andre, Your description sounds like what you might have learned in= Japan? David Ilvedson ----- Original message ----------------------------------------> From: antares <antares@euronet.nl> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> Received: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:03:32 +0200 Subject: How We sense : "a total and complete ear opener". On 23-okt-04, at 4:53, Bill Ballard wrote: Both David and Andre have described listening to tuning doe a= specific way, David with respect to the bottom end of the piano= and Andre, the number of partials audible during a unison= tuning. I'd like a clarification in each case, to make sure I= understand their experience (which BTW, I don't doubt for a= minute). At 8:09 AM -0700 10/20/04, David Andersen wrote: Fascinating subject. Again, stretching the bass MUSICALLY, until= the perception of sound drops in your body from the head and neck to= the chest and stomach,and then, for the last six notes on most pianos, a= bit lower--- So the fourth above is slowly rolling against the note being= tuned---will usually satisfy most people. Interesting to have the perception of an octave described in= terms the location inside the body where its perceived. Yogic.= Californian. So what is it that's moving that location= downwards? The actual note of the keyboard as you walk down= towards the bottom, or the process of stretching it wide from= its single octave note above? I think what David means here is that he is capable of hearing= with 'other senses'. This is not so much Yogic or Californian (although our revered= friend is very much Californian (: >))), but is more a holistic= approach not everybody is able to understand nor value its= worth. (especially American Chevvy drivers have trouble with= this concept). (; grinnnn But it is true that we can perceive certain 'values' not just= with our regular senses, but also with 'the other senses',= senses all people possess, but have lost thru leading a life= which causes bluntness or a density/narrowing of the so called= "normal senses". Too sharpen those senses, we can train ourselves by doing for= instance very simple exercises like : sitting very quiet on a= bench in for instance in a big American shopping mall, and doing= a seeing/looking exercise. I do this often myself. I sit still,= I am wide awake, and I try to see as much as I can see. I am not= just looking at pretty girls but I try to take in all there is= to see. And, dear colleagues, there is so very much to see if only you= 'open' your eyes. You see the texture of the tiles, the= different kind of shoes people are wearing, the shoes that fit= perfectly with the people who wear them, the profiles of wooden= frames around shops, the building structure(s), the single= colors of every thing, and especially the combined colors of everything, the plants, the articles displayed in the shop= windows, the text and the different type of lettering, the= expressions on people's faces, man... I could go on and on. Then there is another sense we mostly use unconsciously : the= smell. Same time, same place, this time we focus on smells and odors. A= male person strolls by who had just put on his aftershave, a= female person enters 'your space' with an incredible perfume= aura which lingers after this person for sometimes a hundred= yards (!), the smells of the shops, their displayed articles, of= all people, of animals, of vehicles, of plants etc. The sense of smell is much stronger than we think, and it may= even trigger all kinds of emotions. Then we come to the sense of hearing, which I think is most= developed in people. You're still sitting on that bench in that shopping mall. You= close your eyes, you breath very deep and calmly for a minute.= This in itself will enhance your state of consciousness and= relax your body, which is necessary to "sense at all", and then= you concentrate on what you actually hear. What do we hear? We first of all hear footsteps and voices. We= hear a laugh, a cry, how many feet do we actually hear going by= (ever thought of that?), we hear echo's, we hear the= reverberation of the space we sit in, we can try to define the= bigness of that space, we can try to define how far away the= nearest wall is... in other words, we try to "hear" Then, if we think we hear everything, we can try to hear 'more'.= Hearing more is a revelation. Generally speaking, people with a= musical talent may hear music in sounds, it is an advanced way= of listening and a more subtle way of perception. In most big= hotel , there are air vents in the bath rooms. If you sit very= quiet on the toilet, you may be able to hear sounds from outside= through the little air hole, you may hear very fine high sounds= of the air that is being blown through the air channels... and= there is so much to listen to in all of the world. Now we come to 'listening' to a piano : if you strike a key, you= will hear that note. But did you hear the impact of the hammer= against the string? did you hear the impact of the key hitting= the bottom of the keybed? did you hear the combined metal of= strings, bolts and frame? Did you already find out what 'the= tone' is of the instrument? which tone sounds best? Which= register sounds best? Did you hear that the key frame rattles?= Did you hear that part the key frame is not in contact with the= keybed? Then we come to the strings: we always listen for the moment when= the beats of two strings come together, but do we actually try= to listen to the ''quality' of that sound? What kind of sound is= it really? Is it easy to hear partials? Which partials are we= able to distinguish? Do we ever take the time to listen to as= many partials as we can? And then : when we strike a note, can we in some way feel the= vibrations of that sound? can we feel those vibes with our= fingers on the key (very important for voicing!)? Can we feel= the vibrations with our feet? You see, these things David Andersen senses, are not funny, they= are dead serious and they are very important to 'sensitive'= persons. If I lie down in my bed, I always concentrate first on= my breathing. I inhale slowly, my belly stretches upward, I= exhale, my belly goes down. My state of consciousness slowly= changes from all day nervousness to the mental and physical= relaxation required for a healthy sleep. I then listen to my= heart beat, uh-uhh, uh-uhh. I feel the blood streaming through= my veins, I sense the arteries pulsing in my neck. Then I try to= feel the heart beat in my right big toe, and after only a few= seconds, my right big toe is already throbbing haha! I tell you these things to show to you that much more is possible= than we think, than we can imagine even. This is not hocus pocus= but the result of training, consciously or unconsciously, of our= senses. The result of such a training is that we 1. make optimal= use of our brain capacity and senses, and 2. that our perception= of 'things' alters and that because of this, we live a life in a= state of being more aware. It is an enrichment. Many people have= lost this 'awareness'. They live their life in a dream state, in= a dumbing down. I am not doing any Yoga, I am not religious in any way, I am not= Californian. I am just trying to learn and to become aware of= especially things related to the things I live with every day := piano's and their beautiful sounds. At 11:49 PM +0200 10/18/04, antares wrote: Let me then tell you again about that lessons I once had : my= Japanese teacher once told me that my tuning that day had come= out very nice, but he told me that I used too much force in= striking the keys. So he ordered me to re-tune one octave by keeping the middle= strings intact and re-tune the left and right string of each= unison in that octave. So I did, and he once more corrected me. saying that I was still= banging too hard. I then banged a little less, and finished the octave. Then he asked me to listen to that very octave and compare it= with the neighboring octaves. I went out of my mind! that one specific octave was so much more= beautiful than the others! That's the sound of the unisons which was being listened to after= having been redone quietly, right? Right. It has to do with the way we (unconsciously) listen to overtones= : you strike hard, you create an abundance of higher partials,= you strike less hard, you create a mix of lower partilas and= higher partials. Agreed the mix of lower and higher partials is determined by how= hard we strike, but on a hard blow, the lower partials are no= less obvious (and as measured by a sophisticated spectrum= analyzer, no smaller in comparison to the higher partials) than= on a soft blow. What changes in the sound from soft blow to= hard, is the emergence of the higher partials which feed on the= extra strength of the blow. Well, I do not entirely agree with you here. I have tested this partial stuff myself with the aid of the= spectrum analysis, built within my VT. The VT works up to, I= think, A5 with 8 partials, then with 4. 2 and 1 partial. If you strike very hard, we see that the emphasis lies indeed= much stronger on the higher partials. Where the lowest partials= react less strongly, the highest partials visibly react much= more. But there is another phenomenon at hand here : if you strike= really hard, the tone gets distorted and so does your hearing.= With a really hard bang, there is a tendency for the higher= partials to overrule, probably in combination with other= physical factors I am not familiar with. It may also be that our ears react in a much different way then= we think to a violent sound. The result is a coarse and wide sounding tone, very rich in= overtones and very long sounding. That tone is a complimentary quality an experienced and musical= tuner can use. If a given tuning is not really perfect (and I am convinced that= at least 95% of all tunings in the world are not 100% perfect)= than we can make up for the hopefully small errors by at least= creating a very rich tone. This may be true, but, being the aural tuner which I still am= after all of these years, I'm using the higher partials as a= vernier fine adjustment on the fundamental during unison tuning.= In some PTJ article it was mentioned that a "dead unison" is= best done by zero-beating the highest partial we can hear. If a= 7th partial (my favorite) beats at 1bps, I know the 1st is on a= slow roll one beat every 7 seconds. (And the 2d every 3.5 secs,= and so on.) If I slow the 7th beat rate down to 0.5bps, the= period of the 1st partial's beat rate would stretch to 14 sec.,= and the slope of its rise and fall would be so mild as to be= unusable in zero-beating that 1st partial. Much easier to slow= the 7th partial beat rate from 1/2 bps to zero, rather than the= 1st partial from 1/14 bps to zero. So it's this fine tuning knob that I would have to do without, by= tuning with a soft blow. Not that I bang my way through a= tuning. But I would have to be playing very quietly not to hear= the 7th partial even up into the 5th octave. So, Andre, a clarification: were the unisons with the softer= blow, done listening to individual partials although no higher= than the 4th, or were they done on the basis of the "whole= sound", ie, the wave envelope of the entire sound regardless of= what partials may be contributing beat rates? The notes were retuned on the basis of the "whole" sound. There= was no need to really pick out this or that partial. btw, I never really consciously tune with the aid of partials. I= just tune, I just use my basic musical talent which defines my= "ear/tone print". My musical talent and my trained ears tell me= exactly when the combination of the two or three strings is at= its most beautiful (according to my frayed nerve endings hehe). I am convinced that our eyes work the same : it is a matter of 1. the technical/physical situation with your eyes i.e. are they= healthy, are they functioning well enough? 2. How do our eyes and optical nerves perceive and especially= 'translate' the spectrum of light beams. So it must be that my green resembles your green, but is probably= fractionally different. That's why I state that all tuners have a different way of= creating unisons. I am not talking here about counting beats or= creating a temperament etc. no, this is purely related to the= way we can perceive and process sound and the combination of two= or three sounds, coming from the unisons. That is most fascinating stuff and tuners with under developed= 'ears' could highly benefit from a 'unison seminar' of maybe 1= hour. As I told before : the best example I heard of this was at the= Yamaha Academy in Japan, where a number of 'developed' students= in my class (Concert course) had to do a tuning test every day= at 8 a.m. My instructor secretly invited me to compare their unisons, and= Bill... It was a total and complete "ear opener". And then there was in particular this one Japanese lady tuner who= made the ultimate tuning, by which I mean that she was able to= tune every note on the tuning curve. It was absolutely amazing,= and she performed this incredible work of precision every day.= She was almost like a tuning machine, and a very good one too Her unisons however were of very very poor 'tonal' quality. The= best tuning maybe on Earth, but the ugliest CFIII-S I ever heard= (and it was a rather new one, with new hammers). btw... the same applies to the quality of voicing. If one doesn't= have the "right" ear, it would be better to....... dadadada= (fill in yourself) (; >)) If the latter, then we are back again to the discussion of= whether a breathless unison is a dead tone. If the former, it's= simply a matter of whether a breathless unison can be= efficiently achieved, listening to and working with the 1st 4= partials only. Thanks for the clarification, guys. I only "partially hear" you. Well Bill, I think I could describe this unison stuff best by comparing a= very rich and coarse sounding unison with a train track of which= the rails lie very wide. The louder you strike, the smaller the gauge of the tracks.= That's I think a good comparison. The best thing of course is to try this out for yourself. Most= people do not believe this story and as I told here before I= once told a famous pianist about it and he said "rubbish" don't= tell me BS stories (all this in a blunt way, so much for famous= pianists). I remained calm and polite and offered to prove it.= After I had tuned a few unisons with tremendous blows, he had to= admit that those few notes sounded very different indeed. For= punishment, I should have tuned his battered Steinway in my most= favorite tuning, called Freud 2, where all fourths are tuned= into pure fifths. This is btw a tuning, which, if not performed= with vast experience and total dedication, will drive you= completely nuts and bonkers, the tech usually ending up in a= very tight straight jacket, hence the name : Freud nr 2) There= is also another one I like very much called Jung, number 7, but= that is for advanced nuts..... Bill, I hope that "my partials" are by now a very open book to you...= (; friendly greetings from Andr=E9 Oorebeek "where Music is, no harm can be" ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/17/e2/b6/05/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC