Re: [tuning] Question for Johnny Reinhard/DS

In a message dated 6/7/01 6:30:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET writes:

> some of which would make certain degrees of accuracy a virtual
>

Which instruments are they, Dan? Do you distrust the doctor's stethoscope
reading because he or she hears thing's you do not? Just asking. Would you
mistrust Marco Polo's assertions? Do you still? How accurate is a single
frequency in a musical tone, 6 cents? It's a flatline on a tuner, no? How
could a player perform a 7/6 (276 cents) minor third 6 cents sharper or
flatter and still call it a 7/6? Shouldn't the 7/6 be accurate to the cents?
And couldn't any free pitch instrument do that?

Thought it would be fun for me to ask some questions. :)

Johnny Reinhard

Hi Johnny,

Well let's say I'm speaking of the fretless guitar primarily because
it falls in the range of my direct experience... I can write *towards*
certain ideal things that I can play very accurately pitch wise, but
other things would not be so paratacticly amenable to the same degree
of accuracy. It varies quite a bit. (And one cent accuracy in most
registers is simply impossible in all but the most opportune of
clinical type examples.)

I think you sort of say these same sorts of things sometimes, but
other times you seem to me to give the impression that anything is
playable by any free pitch instrument to an accuracy of one cent.

--Dan Stearns

Hi Dan,

Actually guitar is one of the most limited for pitch accuracy, unless while
it is electric, a master is controlling it, like Jon Catler, for example. He
circumvents the limitations of the fret by positioning his finger to where
the pitch must sound. He is not at the mercy of the instrument.

Wind instruments have no such handicap. But the question was on what I, and
some of my colleagues can "hear." This is more accurate than a cent.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

>Wind instruments have no such handicap. But the >question was on what I, and
>some of my colleagues can "hear." This is more >accurate than a cent.

>Best, Johnny Reinhard

Meaning no offense I find this highly doubtful. If this is true prove it. Have yourself,or your friends, tested by a third party and I severaly doubt that you will find you are as accurate as you think you are.

In fact I had a friend some time ago whom told me the same thing. I tested him with a computer. He THOUGHT he could do it but in reality he was just plain wrong.

Andy

Johnny,

Circumventing the limitations of the fret by positioning your finger
to where the pitch must sound is pretty much the idea, I got that
part!

But trust me, I could easily write things that no "master" would have
a snowball's chance in hell of playing to one cent accuracy on a
fretless guitar -- none.

My question never was whether you or your colleagues can hear more
accurately than a cent, it was exactly what I said...

1) what happens in actual performance

2) that you often times seem to me to give the impression that
anything is playable by any free pitch instrument to an accuracy of
one cent

These were the things I was personally asking about or questioning.

--Dan Stearns

In a message dated 6/7/01 9:12:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET writes:

>
> Johnny,
>
> Circumventing the limitations of the fret by positioning your finger
> to where the pitch must sound is pretty much the idea, I got that
> part!
>
> But trust me, I could easily write things that no "master" would have
> a snowball's chance in hell of playing to one cent accuracy on a
> fretless guitar -- none.
>

Dan, we hadn't been talking about a guitar. The fleshiness of the finger
makes it different to distinguish exact tone, let alone pitch. Not quite as
bad as a bass drum, but certainly tough to get an exact frequency. May I
suggest that just about every other sound maker escapes the guitar's
limitations? (hope so)

> My question never was whether you or your colleagues can hear more
> accurately than a cent, it was exactly what I said...
>

Thanks for this, clearly not everyone is willing to make the leap of faith.
Though people who have heard me perform would likely be more confident than
those who have not.

> 1) what happens in actual performance
>
If we can agree that I can conceptualize pitch to exact frequencies in my
head, without actually playing aloud, and I think we do, then someone can
produce just those pitches. Frankly, if you, yourself, couldn't hear less
than 6 seconds, then it's a moot point, because you'll never hear what I can
hear...or anyone else that can navigate pitch accurately.

> 2) that you often times seem to me to give the impression that
> anything is playable by any free pitch instrument to an accuracy of
> one cent
>

Well, the Theremin is a tough one, and the recorder is tough (though less so
in the hands of virtuoso Pete Rose). But a cello, a voice, a bassoon? Why
do you think you are so moved by music in the first place? Because it does
things that are beyond your immediate comprehension. Chalk this up to that.

> These were the things I was personally asking about or questioning.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
>

Fire away and I'll do my best to state a position.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny said:

>If we can agree that I can conceptualize pitch to >exact frequencies in my
>head, without actually playing aloud, and I think we >do, then someone can
>produce just those pitches. Frankly, if you, >yourself, couldn't hear less
>than 6 seconds, then it's a moot point, because you'll >never hear what I can
>hear...or anyone else that can navigate pitch >accurately.

Thats quite a claim there. I find it EXTREMELY far fetched , and saying that if you can't here less than six cents that you'll never really get it is a complete cop out, basically saying well I'm making a claim and you cant prove otheriwise cause you aren't me (or within some category of some greater ability of listening which may or may not actually exist). If you really can do that then prove it!

Andy

Hi Johnny,

Short of cold empirical data gleaned from analyzing actual
performances, I think this might be a thread to nowhere.

To my mind it's an absolute moot point whether your accuracy falls
within one cent. Close enough is a relative and context dependant
thing, not some idyllic inflexible constant. And from what I've heard
your right on in this sense.

I think you'll find that your arguing yourself into a corner with the
"one cent, or your money back" type stuff... and while what I wanted
to say next was, "because it's simply not possible without a laundry
list of qualifiers", I'll just shut up and leave the details to the
scientists rather than feed the thread to nowhere again and again.

--Dan Stearns