Jerry to Paul

To my post:
>
>>Does this avoidance of my simple statement mean that you _don't think that
>>singers are more likely than string players to be influenced by keyboards?
>>My concern here is not that I disagree with your paragraph, but that my
>>statement is not concerned with anything other than the difference in the
>>way singers and string player learn tuning. That's all.

Paul insisted:
>
> I think that the way both string players and singers learn tuning is a far
> more complex issue than simply the degree to which they are directly
> influenced by keyboards. They may primarily be influenced by string players
> and singers they heard while growing up, by the structural characteristics
> of the style of music they play/sing, and perhaps less strongly by their
> experience hearing other instruments.

Paul, you're beating a dead horse here. I've seen singers all my life
banging out their pitches on a keyboard, or even hiring "vocal coaches" who
do the banging for them. How many violinists do that while "practicing"
their "notes."

--------------------

Paul said:

> The point I was trying to make with
> the Arabic bit was that each culture establishes its own norms for
> intonation and it is through cultural experience that a feeling of
> certainty, or "naturalness" if you will, is attained by musicians. The fact
> is that today, the third of a pure 4:5:6 sounds "flat" to most musicians (it
> even did to you in some of the examples).

But then I have "culturized" ears. I can sing a 5/4 third in a triad if I
want to. It sounds nice and mellow. In most contexts, however, I prefer the
high third.

Some of the students who come to college to "study voice" have established a
sense of "rightness" regarding tuning, but most are still searching for
something close to "acceptable." Most teachers lead them into the vicinity
of keyboard tuning. Only the lunatic fringe like me would even think about
demonstrating to them that there is a "better" way.

> To me, that (combined with the
> best historical documentation we have) is evidence that tastes have changed
> and tuning is not simply a matter of acoustical or physiological
> "universals".

I never said it was. I simply said that ears are _physically_ the same
everywhere and would therefore process raw sound in a similar manner. That,
dear friend, has nothing to do with style, taste, or keyboards. It may, as
you suggested earlier, have to do with selective perception through learned
"concepts," but here again, realize that many of my beginning students can't
even tune to the piano (gee, I wonder why) and find their _first_ success at
tuning when they learn to listen to each other. Something tells me this
would happen in any part of the world, regardless of the musical culture.

--------------

Regarding the use of "tonal," Paul said:

> Why don't we say "common practice" instead and
> move on.

Sounds like a good move. Viva "progress."

----------------

Paul clarified:
>
> By the way, Jerry, the post of Margo's that I was anticipating was not the
> one you liked so much (which I liked too), but the following one
> ("Keyboards, polyphony, and intonation (850-1640)"). Give that one a good
> read if you find the time.

I have, Paul, and found it most interesting. I didn't see anything that
relates to our discussion, however. If your point had to do with the
influence of keyboards on singers, I think it might be best just to forget
it. I'm not buying the notion that raw "acoustic" tuning by singers has
anything to do with keyboards, styles, trends, or anything else of the like.

If you have further thoughts on that, it might be better to email me
directly. I think our colleagues here have had enough of that stalemate.

------------

As always, thanks for your continued interest.

Jerry