Re: [tuning] what's what-DS

Dear Dan,

And I mean that with affection. Thank you for your in depth response. There
are several points that I would like to address.

1. First, I'm surprised that my "claim" is taken so powerfully by some. This
is only a boast in light of years of college-level ear training that failed
me. Because I learn differently, I went an autodidact road. My Korg tuner
and I were inseparable. It showed 5-cent increments on either side of "0."
My thumb could shift the dial to any cent value smaller than "50," which was
outlined on either side of "0" as well. I could easily make out the other
cents: I had "1" and "5" indicated exactly (quartz memory). Cent "3" was
dead in the middle and also easy to pick out. Cents "2" and "3" filled in
very perceivable visual space. For years I played every possible altered
pitch I could find on the bassoon, notating them in tablature in lists that
are available on the net, and have been published in several places. Each
time I aimed for a specific cent value...and the tuner could actually play
the sound aloud as well. I learned to hear to the cent.

A second point: when I said "Parlor trick" a single time, it was in humor.
Admittedly, it appears that humor does not travel well on this list, when
there is deep misunderstanding. This was unexpected on my part. However, if
I claim to sing an accurate 7:4 it will be the 969 cent interval that I play
on electric bassoon on the old J.C. & the Microtones record "Hey Sailor"
which opens with me doing a descending octave and a 7:4 alternation (2169
cents). I am now able to reproduce this interval in an idealized form,
vocally and instrumentally, and so can most all instruments.

And third, now that accuracy is established to the cent, and through
modulation different intervals can be combined to other intervals (in the
form of an unfixed moveable Do solfege) I am able calculate and utter
different numbers turned to pitch. Freak out! I'm as surprised by your
reaction as you are of mine! I really believe and "claim" that clarinetist
Michiyo Suzuki can do this. Also cellist Dave Eggar. But they have perfect
pitch. However, by admitting that I do this is shaking the foundations of
List Member belief systems. Wow. Do you know what the purpose of the parlor
trick is? Because you know that know one can ever tell? It's a follow up to
asking someone to split a 7/4 into 2 equal parts by singing its logarithmic
middle, and demonstrating that the sung pitch was clearly closer to the root
or the 7th. It is never a true bisection, which is a big surprise to people.
THEN, the parlor trick and there always few buyers.

Both your 2 outcomes are unacceptable to me. You are missing important
things because of an obstinacy still in reaction to how my material has been
constituted in your consciousness. What I have described is acquirable and I
have always enjoyed teaching it. However, I mainly teach my own ensemble.
Those that have worked with me are comfortable with my "claim." But as you
said to defend myself is silly.

Frankly, if you, yourself, or anyone out there cannot hear accurately to the
cent, please consider working on yourselves, as some have indeed responded.
I believe that you CAN learn this greater accuracy, in large part because I
had to learn if for myself. Secondly, if you all, and even more so people
not on this list, had learned to focus on intervals much earlier in life, you
would all have greater control and acuity of pitch.

But I play to human speech microtonality, as I vocalize it with Li Po. This
is the linear 1200. Now, it is a bitch to try to sing 1999 and then 1200.
(No one mentioned that.) That would be tough to check, as well. But that's
not music. It doesn't matter. It doesn't happen. For what does happen, I
am pleased to state for the record: it will continue to be played accurate to
the cent, all things being equal. Intent was the missing element in the
equation, and I see it is still a misunderstood concept. There is no test,
only an inside look into a performer specializing in microtonal music.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

Thanks for taking the time to further flesh this out. I think it might
be hard for you to see how much this changes the complexion of the
whole topic... how it gives it all some much needed meaningful context
to hang on.

I still see no reason why the measure and analysis of actual
performance accuracy wouldn't be a worthwhile undertaking on a couple
different levels, so long as there's some basic form of mutual
understanding between the participants.

In fact, in light of your methods and longstanding experience in
passing them on, you and your students would seem to be ideal
candidates for this in a certain sense.

--Dan Stearns