Re: Pitch, XB-40 & whatever - was: XB40 retuning
- Subject: Re: Pitch, XB-40 & whatever - was: XB40 retuning
- From: "Tim Moyer" <wmharps@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:33:22 -0000
Pat Missin wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > In fact, I'd argue that
> > there are instruments made specifically to exploit a slight
> > variation or "error" in pitch for the chosen notes, such as a
> > fretless bass.
> A certain degree of variation is acceptable, simply because ears and
> brains are not perfect precision measuring devices (although they
> can do a whole lot of things that fancy digital devices cannot do).
I think, though, that some pitch variation is acceptable not just
because we can't perceive it, but because it is acceptable
stylistically. I think if you're listening to Little Walter and
saying to yourslef, "Damn that F is flat," then you're not really
hearing what he's playing. Same goes with a Jaco Pastorius bass line
in a Weather Report tune, or a Stephan Grappelli violin solo.
> > If I miss a bend by 20 cents on a given note in a solo how is
> > that any more objectionable than playing a note that's tuned 20
> > cents flat on my justly intoned harmonica?
> ... but there's a huge difference here.
> Context is everything here.
This is precisely my point. I left the "context" out of this
postulation, because in some contexts there is a difference, in
> Finally, nobody is ever perfect, nothing is ever perfect. Work on
> it, but don't lose any sleep over it.
I tell my wife, "You know, you're perfect." She, of course, is
flattered, but replies, "No, I'm far from perfect," to which I
respond, "Oh, you have your flaws, but to me, that's what makes you
There is perfect, there's never flawless.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and