Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Try my quiz on narrow, wide and pure intervals.

Mark, one comment I have is the apparent assumption that all FBIs are wide. This is true of major FBIs. But minor FBIs, though not as popular in tuning, are narrow and therefore can give the wrong answers to some of your questions.

I tried to solve the quiz, but I quited. I've answered only 6 questions.

If I was your student I would also quit your lessons! I'm being honest. It's boring and tedious and tricky and mislideaing.

Pure intervals are pure.
Wide intervals are wide.
Narrow intervals are narrow.

In ET Major are wide, minor are narrow, fifths are narrow, fourths are wide, and octaves are pure, narrow or wide depending on the stretch at that point of the scale.

Compound intervals keep the character of the base interval.

In other temperaments there are no rules. Fifths can be wide, fourths can be narrow, thirds can be pure, etc. There are no rules.

So an interval is what it happens to be. If the coincident partial of the lower note is higher than the partial of the upper note the interval is narrow. If not the interval is wide. If they are equal then the interval is pure.

It's that simple.

The moves you make with your fingers as you say wa,wa,wa,wa are by far the better way to teach it.

parallel=pure
open=wide
closed=narrow

Once one understands that, it is only a matter of practice tuning and practice, and practice...

I know very well wide and narrow intervals. I have no problem with that.

You do not understand what I am saying.

I do not want to answer the quiz. I find it useless and boring. You make a big problem from a small one.

Personally, I would find it more useful if there was much more doing rather than so much talking. I sometimes wonder whether you are shooting yourself in the foot by being so passionate and wanting to go to the enth degree in your explainations ....

I know all this stuff and it comes without thought having had years of experience Mark. However, I too agree that if I were a student I would find it more a hindrance than help in attempting to digest the lengths which you appear to go to explain things. Personally, I would find it more useful if there was much more doing rather than so much talking. I sometimes wonder whether you are shooting yourself in the foot by being so passionate and wanting to go to the enth degree in your explainations .... it's not as if prospective students are wanting to complete a Masters degree in the finer principles of piano tuning, and perhaps your approach at present, may be distancing them from deciding to enrol on your courses. Best wishes.

What is worse that, all the lengthy talking can be expressed just in two sentences if not one sentence.

Gadzar put it in a rather blatant way but he was right.

Hakki, why do you care about this? Is it because you got put down in that other thread. I had nothing to do with that.

I find myself in general agreement with Johnkie.

I too applaud the effort, but find the approach too "wordy." Remember, you are attempting to describe an aural event with words...why?!? Maybe words are making the learning process happen slower...until the translation is learned by the observer. Consider using a different sensorial representation (e.g., symbols, shapes, colours, pictures, etc.) that correlate with the SAME mental process happening at the piano.

You seem to be FORCING a word connection, when in reality, the "words" aren't really all that important: we need to make a connection to the sonic event in as many ways as possible--if we are seeking to understand everything that is happening.

....that is why I felt the text "wordy" for an exercise that should probably be aural in perception and audiation.

The quiz is simple enough for a deaf person to get a full score.