Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Boston Symphony Orchestra pitch
431 views
Skip to first unread message
Dontait...@aol.com
Jan 4, 2012, 4:57:09 PM1/4/12
to
A couple of months ago there was a controversy of sorts here about
the pitch of the BSO with Serge Koussevitzky (music director
1924-1949). It had to do with a transfer of his 1947 recording of
Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which the producer said he had pitched to
A=440. I replied that Koussevitzky's BSO tuned to an A of 444 or 445,
and that to lower the recording to A=440 was to falsify the
orchestra's sound. That led to his protest of my statement, and a
minor uproar.
I want to write two things about the issue here.
First, from the new biography of Charles Munch by D. Kern Holoman
(Oxford University Press, 2011). On page 95 Holoman writes about
Munch's first meeting with the press as the BSO's new music director
("Munch Arrives in Boston," New York Times, September 21, 1949): "He
[Munch] told the press he expected only one change in orchestral
personnel and that -- for the moment -- there would be no change in
the seating plan or *pitch standard A=444.*" Holoman adds: "An assault
upon the abnormally high pitch standard (favored mostly, it would
appear, by Mr. Burgin [Richard, the concertmaster since 1920 and a
close Koussevitzky confidante] and Koussevitzky himself) began during
the third season." (I.e. Munch's third season, 1952-3. Perhaps
significantly after Koussevitzky had died in June 1951.).
Second about the BSO's pitch: Robert C. Marsh in "Toscanini and the
Art of Orchestral Performance" (Lippincott, 1956), page 73:
"Two skills contributing to Toscanini's success which have received
less attention than they might are his ear and his baton technique. So-
called 'absolute pitch' is often overestimated by conservatory
professors. It is not a prerequisite for a brilliant musical career
(Koussevitzky, for example, lacked it) or, of itself, evidence of
particular musical gifts. Toscanini, however, has a remarkable sense
of pitch (so acute, in fact, that the high 445 tuning of A in the
Boston Symphony made him uncomfortable while listening to its
playting, Walter Toscanini reports)." Marsh repeated that in his
second 1960s edition of the book, "Toscanini and the Art of
Conducting," but omitted Walter Toscanini's name.
I asked a friend who was an Associate Conductor of the Chicago
Symphony and has done many transfers about various As. He said that
the difference between 444 and 445 wouldn't be noticeable but that
between them and 440 would be, and could affect the sound of the
orchestra.
Whether Koussevitzky had absolute pitch or not strikes me as less
important than the statement that Richard Burgin, the BSO
concertmaster, might well have played a role in the orchestra's 444 or
445 tuning to A. Koussevitzky and Burgin were very close, as various
sources (Moses Smith, Dickson etc.) show.
Long, long. But: A=440 has been a pitch standard of sorts for many
years, but I think it is erroneous to assume that it's been THE pitch
everywhere and at all times and for all new transfers. It's true that
we don't know when 444 or 445 became standard in Boston. But given
that Richard Burgin was there from 1920 and Koussevitzky from 1924,
and this came up in 1949, I'd be willing to bet that A=444 is what the
pitch should be for Koussevitzky/BSO and Munch/BSO through 1952.
Thanks for wading through this.
Don Tait
the pitch of the BSO with Serge Koussevitzky (music director
1924-1949). It had to do with a transfer of his 1947 recording of
Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which the producer said he had pitched to
A=440. I replied that Koussevitzky's BSO tuned to an A of 444 or 445,
and that to lower the recording to A=440 was to falsify the
orchestra's sound. That led to his protest of my statement, and a
minor uproar.
I want to write two things about the issue here.
First, from the new biography of Charles Munch by D. Kern Holoman
(Oxford University Press, 2011). On page 95 Holoman writes about
Munch's first meeting with the press as the BSO's new music director
("Munch Arrives in Boston," New York Times, September 21, 1949): "He
[Munch] told the press he expected only one change in orchestral
personnel and that -- for the moment -- there would be no change in
the seating plan or *pitch standard A=444.*" Holoman adds: "An assault
upon the abnormally high pitch standard (favored mostly, it would
appear, by Mr. Burgin [Richard, the concertmaster since 1920 and a
close Koussevitzky confidante] and Koussevitzky himself) began during
the third season." (I.e. Munch's third season, 1952-3. Perhaps
significantly after Koussevitzky had died in June 1951.).
Second about the BSO's pitch: Robert C. Marsh in "Toscanini and the
Art of Orchestral Performance" (Lippincott, 1956), page 73:
"Two skills contributing to Toscanini's success which have received
less attention than they might are his ear and his baton technique. So-
called 'absolute pitch' is often overestimated by conservatory
professors. It is not a prerequisite for a brilliant musical career
(Koussevitzky, for example, lacked it) or, of itself, evidence of
particular musical gifts. Toscanini, however, has a remarkable sense
of pitch (so acute, in fact, that the high 445 tuning of A in the
Boston Symphony made him uncomfortable while listening to its
playting, Walter Toscanini reports)." Marsh repeated that in his
second 1960s edition of the book, "Toscanini and the Art of
Conducting," but omitted Walter Toscanini's name.
I asked a friend who was an Associate Conductor of the Chicago
Symphony and has done many transfers about various As. He said that
the difference between 444 and 445 wouldn't be noticeable but that
between them and 440 would be, and could affect the sound of the
orchestra.
Whether Koussevitzky had absolute pitch or not strikes me as less
important than the statement that Richard Burgin, the BSO
concertmaster, might well have played a role in the orchestra's 444 or
445 tuning to A. Koussevitzky and Burgin were very close, as various
sources (Moses Smith, Dickson etc.) show.
Long, long. But: A=440 has been a pitch standard of sorts for many
years, but I think it is erroneous to assume that it's been THE pitch
everywhere and at all times and for all new transfers. It's true that
we don't know when 444 or 445 became standard in Boston. But given
that Richard Burgin was there from 1920 and Koussevitzky from 1924,
and this came up in 1949, I'd be willing to bet that A=444 is what the
pitch should be for Koussevitzky/BSO and Munch/BSO through 1952.
Thanks for wading through this.
Don Tait
wanwan
Jan 4, 2012, 7:18:25 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 11:57 am, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
Wasn't there a machine backstage at Symphony hall that the BSO tuned
to prior to going on stage. I seem to recall reading somewhere that
the machine would play a constant 444 or whatever the BSO's pitch
during Koussy's time.
I've also read that the former east german bands like the Dresden
Staatskapelle tuned at 444.
Professional wind/brass musician friends have said that the higher A
made it harder to stay in tune especially during warmer days. On top
of that, what did it do when having to play with fixed pitch
instruments like the Symphony Hall organ or keyboard instruments.
---------
Eric
wrote:
to prior to going on stage. I seem to recall reading somewhere that
the machine would play a constant 444 or whatever the BSO's pitch
during Koussy's time.
I've also read that the former east german bands like the Dresden
Staatskapelle tuned at 444.
Professional wind/brass musician friends have said that the higher A
made it harder to stay in tune especially during warmer days. On top
of that, what did it do when having to play with fixed pitch
instruments like the Symphony Hall organ or keyboard instruments.
---------
Eric
Wadeworks
Jan 4, 2012, 7:02:27 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 1:57 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
Don -
Wouldnt this pitch question be answered if some line hum could be
identified and isolated in the recorded signal and then brought into
correct pitch? That should be a constant factor underlying the
music?
wrote:
Wouldnt this pitch question be answered if some line hum could be
identified and isolated in the recorded signal and then brought into
correct pitch? That should be a constant factor underlying the
music?
M forever
Jan 4, 2012, 7:54:21 PM1/4/12
to
while, but I can't tell you since when.
Romy the Cat
Jan 4, 2012, 9:01:40 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 7:18 pm, wanwan <chibikon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't there a machine backstage at Symphony hall that the BSO tuned
> to prior to going on stage. I seem to recall reading somewhere that
> the machine would play a constant 444 or whatever the BSO's pitch
> during Koussy's time.
Eric,
> to prior to going on stage. I seem to recall reading somewhere that
> the machine would play a constant 444 or whatever the BSO's pitch
> during Koussy's time.
The “machine”, the tuning box was introduced later on during the
Ozawa’s times
The Cat
Polluter Politika
Jan 4, 2012, 9:14:28 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 4:57 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
Don, I doubt that anyone in RMCR could notice the difference.
Really.
More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa
years up to the present?
wrote:
Really.
More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa
years up to the present?
Jenn
Jan 4, 2012, 9:17:48 PM1/4/12
to
In article
<8922e3cb-82db-4a8a...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
The difference between 440 and 445 is quite apparent.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<8922e3cb-82db-4a8a...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Polluter Politika
Jan 4, 2012, 9:42:44 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 9:17 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8922e3cb-82db-4a8a-80b0-ebfb2bb93...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
LOL Oh common now. Stop puffing yourself up here. It won't work
> In article
> <8922e3cb-82db-4a8a-80b0-ebfb2bb93...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Jenn
Jan 4, 2012, 10:01:18 PM1/4/12
to
In article
<1217d6e9-7929-4d72...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Boring. I'm not doing that. Why do you think that ensembles sometimes
do that?
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<1217d6e9-7929-4d72...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
do that?
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Heck51
Jan 4, 2012, 10:38:26 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 9:14 pm, Polluter Politika <polluterpolit...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa years up to the present>>
During Ozawa years - c.1990 - A = 442
wrote:
>> More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa years up to the present>>
O
Jan 5, 2012, 9:31:34 AM1/5/12
to
In article
<375f74f0-b261-4f59...@x20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
tune a piano to 444 or 445.
-Owen
<375f74f0-b261-4f59...@x20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
wanwan <chibi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Professional wind/brass musician friends have said that the higher A
> made it harder to stay in tune especially during warmer days. On top
> of that, what did it do when having to play with fixed pitch
> instruments like the Symphony Hall organ or keyboard instruments.
It would not be all that difficult for a professional piano tuner to
>
> Professional wind/brass musician friends have said that the higher A
> made it harder to stay in tune especially during warmer days. On top
> of that, what did it do when having to play with fixed pitch
> instruments like the Symphony Hall organ or keyboard instruments.
tune a piano to 444 or 445.
-Owen
Kip Williams
Jan 5, 2012, 10:22:02 AM1/5/12
to
O wrote:
> It would not be all that difficult for a professional piano tuner to
> tune a piano to 444 or 445.
I'd like to see a concert where everybody tunes to the A, including the
> It would not be all that difficult for a professional piano tuner to
> tune a piano to 444 or 445.
pianist.
Kip W
Greg Whitaker
Jan 5, 2012, 12:49:59 PM1/5/12
to
I started playing extra with the BSO c. 1980, and clearly remember in
the tuning room at Symphony Hall a tuning bar that was stamped A=442.
So Heck51 is correct. Don Tait is also correct, as I recall talking to
senior members of the orchestra at that time, saying that the
orchestra used to tune to A=444. Not sure when they started to lower
their pitch.
the tuning room at Symphony Hall a tuning bar that was stamped A=442.
So Heck51 is correct. Don Tait is also correct, as I recall talking to
senior members of the orchestra at that time, saying that the
orchestra used to tune to A=444. Not sure when they started to lower
their pitch.
M forever
Jan 5, 2012, 1:41:33 PM1/5/12
to
difference between 444, 442, or 440 Hz for you from a technical point
of view? Is that something you can easily adjust to with the tuning
slides? When do you get to the point where you would actually need a
different instrument?
Jenn
Jan 5, 2012, 1:54:49 PM1/5/12
to
In article
<e34170c0-e0d5-4402...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Not to answer for Greg, but from a trombonist's point of view, it's not
really a big deal. It's trickier for woodwinds. Then, of course, there
are the fixed pitch percussion (orch. bells, chimes, etc.).
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<e34170c0-e0d5-4402...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
really a big deal. It's trickier for woodwinds. Then, of course, there
are the fixed pitch percussion (orch. bells, chimes, etc.).
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Dontait...@aol.com
Jan 5, 2012, 5:18:57 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 4, 8:14 pm, Polluter Politika <polluterpolit...@gmail.com>
wrote:
the orchestra's sonority. Really. I own the original recordings as
well as the recent CD transfers and can testify that lowering the
pitch from A=444 or =445 to A=440 alters the orchestra's unique upper
string sonority. Plus boasting about altering the BSO's pitch
erroneously while selling one's transfers of a transfer. Evidently
withoutknowledge of the BSO's correct pitch when the recording was
made. Whether anyone in RMCR could notice the difference is a matter
of individual decision. They'd need the 78, 45, or LP RCA Victor
originals for comparison, of course.
The A with Ozawa is a totally different topic from Koussevitzky and
Munch. And a different era.
Don Tait
Thanks.
Don Tait
Don Tait
wrote:
> On Jan 4, 4:57 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A couple of months ago there was a controversy of sorts here about
> > the pitch of the BSO with Serge Koussevitzky (music director
> > 1924-1949). It had to do with a transfer of his 1947 recording of
> > Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which the producer said he had pitched to
> > A=440. I replied that Koussevitzky's BSO tuned to an A of 444 or 445,
> > and that to lower the recording to A=440 was to falsify the
> > orchestra's sound. That led to his protest of my statement, and a
> > minor uproar.
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A couple of months ago there was a controversy of sorts here about
> > the pitch of the BSO with Serge Koussevitzky (music director
> > 1924-1949). It had to do with a transfer of his 1947 recording of
> > Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which the producer said he had pitched to
> > A=440. I replied that Koussevitzky's BSO tuned to an A of 444 or 445,
> > and that to lower the recording to A=440 was to falsify the
> > orchestra's sound. That led to his protest of my statement, and a
> > minor uproar.
> Don, I doubt that anyone in RMCR could notice the difference.
> Really.
> More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa
> years up to the present?
Sorry. The difference in pitch in Koussevitzky recordings affected
> Really.
> More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa
> years up to the present?
the orchestra's sonority. Really. I own the original recordings as
well as the recent CD transfers and can testify that lowering the
pitch from A=444 or =445 to A=440 alters the orchestra's unique upper
string sonority. Plus boasting about altering the BSO's pitch
erroneously while selling one's transfers of a transfer. Evidently
withoutknowledge of the BSO's correct pitch when the recording was
made. Whether anyone in RMCR could notice the difference is a matter
of individual decision. They'd need the 78, 45, or LP RCA Victor
originals for comparison, of course.
The A with Ozawa is a totally different topic from Koussevitzky and
Munch. And a different era.
Don Tait
Thanks.
Don Tait
Don Tait
Romy the Cat
Jan 5, 2012, 5:41:01 PM1/5/12
to
Don, your quest for the “original” pitch is not real reasonable as you
look at the pitch via a prism of recording. Generally controlling the
RPM you can control pitch and it “look” like setting A to the target
pitch you get reference tune. The really is a bit more complicated as
there were many discrepancies during recording, particularly in end of
40s, that uselessly override this logic. Recording is not a reflection
of performing even but own reality. Use own hearing and own reference
point to set the pinch that you feel comfortable in respect to many
others criteria that you might recognize.
look at the pitch via a prism of recording. Generally controlling the
RPM you can control pitch and it “look” like setting A to the target
pitch you get reference tune. The really is a bit more complicated as
there were many discrepancies during recording, particularly in end of
40s, that uselessly override this logic. Recording is not a reflection
of performing even but own reality. Use own hearing and own reference
point to set the pinch that you feel comfortable in respect to many
others criteria that you might recognize.
Dontait...@aol.com
Jan 5, 2012, 5:47:35 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 5, 4:18 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apologies for the repetitions of my name at the end of this. My
errors and oversights.
Don T.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apologies for the repetitions of my name at the end of this. My
errors and oversights.
Don T.
Dontait...@aol.com
Jan 5, 2012, 6:28:07 PM1/5/12
to
"original" pitch. It's the pitch in use by the orchestra at the time
the orchestra the recordings were made and reproducing the recordings
accurately now. OK? Understand? If you prefer changing that pitch, be
my guest in fraudulence. And don't bother lecturing me about
recordings at the end of the '40s. I know more about it than you can
imagine. I have no more to bother with concerning you.
Don Tait
M forever
Jan 5, 2012, 6:29:45 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 5, 5:18 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
string instruments that up or down that little, while the slight
difference in pitch is audible to the sensitive ear, doesn't change
the overall sonority of the instrument, much less that of a whole
section. The way the overtones speak isn't affected much if at all by
that very slight difference in string tension.
wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:14 pm, Polluter Politika <polluterpolit...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:57 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > A couple of months ago there was a controversy of sorts here about
> > > the pitch of the BSO with Serge Koussevitzky (music director
> > > 1924-1949). It had to do with a transfer of his 1947 recording of
> > > Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which the producer said he had pitched to
> > > A=440. I replied that Koussevitzky's BSO tuned to an A of 444 or 445,
> > > and that to lower the recording to A=440 was to falsify the
> > > orchestra's sound. That led to his protest of my statement, and a
> > > minor uproar.
> > Don, I doubt that anyone in RMCR could notice the difference.
> > Really.
> > More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa
> > years up to the present?
>
> Sorry. The difference in pitch in Koussevitzky recordings affected
> the orchestra's sonority. Really. I own the original recordings as
> well as the recent CD transfers and can testify that lowering the
> pitch from A=444 or =445 to A=440 alters the orchestra's unique upper
> string sonority.
I hope this won't start another flame war, but changing the tuning of
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:57 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > A couple of months ago there was a controversy of sorts here about
> > > the pitch of the BSO with Serge Koussevitzky (music director
> > > 1924-1949). It had to do with a transfer of his 1947 recording of
> > > Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which the producer said he had pitched to
> > > A=440. I replied that Koussevitzky's BSO tuned to an A of 444 or 445,
> > > and that to lower the recording to A=440 was to falsify the
> > > orchestra's sound. That led to his protest of my statement, and a
> > > minor uproar.
> > Don, I doubt that anyone in RMCR could notice the difference.
> > Really.
> > More imprtant: What is the A of the BSO during the dreadful Ozawa
> > years up to the present?
>
> Sorry. The difference in pitch in Koussevitzky recordings affected
> the orchestra's sonority. Really. I own the original recordings as
> well as the recent CD transfers and can testify that lowering the
> pitch from A=444 or =445 to A=440 alters the orchestra's unique upper
> string sonority.
string instruments that up or down that little, while the slight
difference in pitch is audible to the sensitive ear, doesn't change
the overall sonority of the instrument, much less that of a whole
section. The way the overtones speak isn't affected much if at all by
that very slight difference in string tension.
M forever
Jan 5, 2012, 6:26:16 PM1/5/12
to
> <e34170c0-e0d5-4402-8c0b-b6f845e63...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
I can imagine it should be very easy to adjust a trombone and I guess
it doesn't really change all that much about where the slide positions
are either - the difference between 444 and 440 Hz is about 0.9%
anyway. Unless I am completely mistaken, the actual physical lengths
involved (overall length of the instruments, the exact positions where
the slide has to stop) shouldn't be affected more than that either. So
I guess it isn't a big problem for instruments with valves either. But
I never thought about it before.
it doesn't really change all that much about where the slide positions
are either - the difference between 444 and 440 Hz is about 0.9%
anyway. Unless I am completely mistaken, the actual physical lengths
involved (overall length of the instruments, the exact positions where
the slide has to stop) shouldn't be affected more than that either. So
I guess it isn't a big problem for instruments with valves either. But
I never thought about it before.
Greg Whitaker
Jan 5, 2012, 6:59:22 PM1/5/12
to
issue in mind. A tuning slide pulled out 3/4 of an inch is generally
440, so there is room for adjustment. The difference in playing within
the 440 - 445 range is not as bad as it appears, as the ear will
quickly adjust. Extreme cases usually involve playing with church
organs. Most are around 440, but I've played with organs ranging from
435 up to 450! In each case, I have special tuning slides built to
deal with this issue.
M forever
Jan 5, 2012, 7:28:05 PM1/5/12
to
frequencies between 444 and 440 Hz is less that 0.9%, I would imagine
that you would have to move the tuning slide only by that amount in
relationship to the overall length of the trumpet, according to Wiki a
Bb trumpet is around 148 cm long, so that would be a difference of
roughly 1.35 cm, a little more than half an inch. Does that make sense
or am I confusing something here?
Romy the Cat
Jan 5, 2012, 9:28:17 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 5, 6:59 pm, Greg Whitaker <gwhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it's fairly significant. Trumpets are usually built with this
> issue in mind. A tuning slide pulled out 3/4 of an inch is generally
> 440, so there is room for adjustment. The difference in playing within
> the 440 - 445 range is not as bad as it appears, as the ear will
> quickly adjust. Extreme cases usually involve playing with church
> organs. Most are around 440, but I've played with organs ranging from
> 435 up to 450! In each case, I have special tuning slides built to
> deal with this issue.
Greg, this is all correct for live sound. In recordings were have many
> Well, it's fairly significant. Trumpets are usually built with this
> issue in mind. A tuning slide pulled out 3/4 of an inch is generally
> 440, so there is room for adjustment. The difference in playing within
> the 440 - 445 range is not as bad as it appears, as the ear will
> quickly adjust. Extreme cases usually involve playing with church
> organs. Most are around 440, but I've played with organs ranging from
> 435 up to 450! In each case, I have special tuning slides built to
> deal with this issue.
other aspects: artificial cross-modulations, non-linearity of harmonic
distortions, dynamic non-linearitys and many other aspects that create
an environment where 440 that you took at your trumpet will not be
440. Well, it might be 440 measurably but it not always need to be
440 in order to get for a person like you an auditable subjective
experience that it is was 440. It is known phenomena but the subject
how different playback topologies re-interpret the pitch is a bit a
above the heads of the audio level of this forum. Generally it has to
do now with the pinch itself but with the parabola with witch tone
rolls to its max amplitude, which is got much screwed in audio. So,
do not be surprised if some audio would need to play let say 440.7
where you, the person who deal with live sound, would like to hear
from recording 440.
Romy the Cat
Jan 5, 2012, 9:43:16 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 5, 6:28 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 6:28 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:
Hm, I did post a reply to it informing you that you have no idea what
you are talking about but it looks like Google ate it. Well, to feed
similar to yourself Audio-Morons on this site is your level - it is
well beneath me to educate pompous idiots.
wrote:
wrote:
you are talking about but it looks like Google ate it. Well, to feed
similar to yourself Audio-Morons on this site is your level - it is
well beneath me to educate pompous idiots.
Heck51
Jan 5, 2012, 9:56:25 PM1/5/12
to
> You play the trumpet, right? How significant (or not) is the
> difference between 444, 442, or 440 Hz for you from a technical point
> of view? Is that something you can easily adjust to with the tuning
> slides? When do you get to the point where you would actually need a
> different instrument?>>
That's a good question - it is quite critical for woodwinds, for
> difference between 444, 442, or 440 Hz for you from a technical point
> of view? Is that something you can easily adjust to with the tuning
> slides? When do you get to the point where you would actually need a
> different instrument?>>
example - Heckel bassoons are made to play between A= 439 and A - 443
= or at least that's how they used to tune them into the 80s at least,
TMK...
When you get out of this range, then extreme bocal lengths must be
used, but these do not affect the pitch uniformly, and the instruments
start to "play out of tune with themselves" - the local distortions of
the vibrating air column are not evenly distributed. it's like
reducing/expanding a photograph by say 20% - and taking the entrie 20%
from just the torso, not the head, or the arms or legs...the image is
going to be very unbalanced and and incompatible with itself...
also - when woodwinds are forced to play at higher than intended
pirches - they begin to lose harmonics, esp the lower ones, and the
tone takes on a rather harsh, shrill quality. the sound is very thin,
bright, and even strident...
of course, if the instruments are originally constructed to play at
these extreme pitches, then it won't be a problem...but for standard
orchestral instruments, it presents a real problem.
supposedly the strings sound "more brilliant", but I've never really
bought into that, and many string players have told me that this is
actualy detrimental to the instruments......
Romy the Cat
Jan 5, 2012, 9:11:33 PM1/5/12
to
> You're a fool, as you've proven here time and again. It's not the
> "original" pitch. It's the pitch in use by the orchestra at the time
> the orchestra the recordings were made and reproducing the recordings
> accurately now. OK? Understand? If you prefer changing that pitch, be
> my guest in fraudulence. And don't bother lecturing me about
> recordings at the end of the '40s. I know more about it than you can
> imagine. I have no more to bother with concerning you.
Relax, generalissimos!
> "original" pitch. It's the pitch in use by the orchestra at the time
> the orchestra the recordings were made and reproducing the recordings
> accurately now. OK? Understand? If you prefer changing that pitch, be
> my guest in fraudulence. And don't bother lecturing me about
> recordings at the end of the '40s. I know more about it than you can
> imagine. I have no more to bother with concerning you.
If you have no own brain to understand what I said then be my guest –
keep entertaining the audio white trash you keep entertaining at this
site. I said what I said and it is obvious above your pompoms head. If
you concerned ONLY about the abstract authenticity of you master then
it is fine but it is absolutely irrelevant. There are zillion reasons
why 440Hz might or might not be presented by 440Hz in AUDIO. This is
not live sound but audio and it has slightly different rules of game.
Well, obviously it is well above your head, go fuck yourself and have
a good day, fieldmartial.
Bob Harper
Jan 5, 2012, 10:27:03 PM1/5/12
to
Someone once said about a second-rate athlete who had criticized a bona
fide superstar that 'he wasn't fit to pick up (the other fellow's)
jockstrap'. Well, turn it into whatever audio terms you wish, and the
same applies to you.
Bob Harper
Romy the Cat
Jan 5, 2012, 10:42:47 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 5, 10:27 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Don Tait has forgotten much more about recordings than you'll ever know.
> Someone once said about a second-rate athlete who had criticized a bona
> fide superstar that 'he wasn't fit to pick up (the other fellow's)
> jockstrap'. Well, turn it into whatever audio terms you wish, and the
> same applies to you.
I have no idea or care that he is, what he does and what kind
> Don Tait has forgotten much more about recordings than you'll ever know.
> Someone once said about a second-rate athlete who had criticized a bona
> fide superstar that 'he wasn't fit to pick up (the other fellow's)
> jockstrap'. Well, turn it into whatever audio terms you wish, and the
> same applies to you.
reputation he made up among the local audio –dirt. If you insist that
he use to run show in audio then it is perfect explanation why the
show is ruined nowadays. I also do not need anybody advocate idiots; I
have my own capacity and rights to recognize them.
Sol L. Siegel
Jan 5, 2012, 11:14:06 PM1/5/12
to
Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in news:dStNq.225322$034.42527
@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com:
> Don Tait has forgotten much more about recordings than you'll ever know.
I tend to doubt that Don has forgotten much of anything.
Which leads me to a question: how accurate are my Pearl and Biddulph and
Naxos Koussevitzky transfers?
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com:
> Don Tait has forgotten much more about recordings than you'll ever know.
Which leads me to a question: how accurate are my Pearl and Biddulph and
Naxos Koussevitzky transfers?
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Bob Harper
Jan 5, 2012, 11:32:15 PM1/5/12
to
Bob Harper
Romy the Cat
Jan 6, 2012, 7:06:23 AM1/6/12
to
each other asses in order to mutually stimulate themselves, apparently
they need it. All that I know about your Don Tait that he came to my
horizon as a supporter of Matthew Tepper - in my scale of values any
person who do not feel that the dirt Tepper has to be run over with
asphalt roller perfectly deserve to lay right next to Tepper. His
behavior this there only prove how ignorant and ill-mannered another
“full of himself” Tepper’s friends is. If you Bob instead of
respecting the subject of matter has a need to flash loyalty to your
local tribe instincts then you can go to hell right along with the
rest of local hoodlums.
HAYDN HOUSE
Jan 6, 2012, 3:43:37 PM1/6/12
to
Hey Kip!
*See* a concert ....tuned to A? You could come over here and view a
concert if you'd like by watching it on a big 102" diagonal screen by way of
Pro Tools wave display. Should the concert be in 7.1 I can display all 7
tracks and many many more more if you wish. .................. ;)
Pierre
--
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
"Kip Williams" <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qejNq.65876$_H.5...@newsfe16.iad...
*See* a concert ....tuned to A? You could come over here and view a
concert if you'd like by watching it on a big 102" diagonal screen by way of
Pro Tools wave display. Should the concert be in 7.1 I can display all 7
tracks and many many more more if you wish. .................. ;)
Pierre
--
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
"Kip Williams" <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qejNq.65876$_H.5...@newsfe16.iad...
HAYDN HOUSE
Jan 6, 2012, 3:46:55 PM1/6/12
to
What did Voisin do to?
Pierre
P.S. Haydn rules!
--
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
"Greg Whitaker" <gwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c0dbd20-d12c-4789...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Pierre
P.S. Haydn rules!
--
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
news:0c0dbd20-d12c-4789...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
O
Jan 6, 2012, 4:24:02 PM1/6/12
to
In article <1KydnTwUd95dwJrS...@supernews.com>, HAYDN
under 1%, and from a mathematical standpoint, that is correct, but
possibly meaningless, because a change of 100% would be an entire
octave (440 => 880). Thus, I think the range has to be taken into
account, or at least considered.
A better measure might be to find the frequency of the next half tone
up, B flat, which I believe is 466.16, and I think we can all
reasonably say that going from A to B flat represents a substantial
difference in pitch, that would be fairly noticeable by many people.
So given the difference is only 26.16 cycles (466.16 - 440 = 26.16),
the actual amount of shift from A by playing at 445 would shift A
towards B flat an amount of 19.11 % (445- 440 = 5 and 5/26.16 = 19.11)
over the range from A to B flat, which I think might be enough to be
noticeable by some, but imperceptible to many. Likewise, all other
notes would have been tuned to the 445, so the pitch is about 20%
closer to the next halftone. In my opinion, this number is probably
more representative of the effect in change of pitch as it effects the
outcome.
-Owen
HOUSE <Haydn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Well, it's fairly significant. Trumpets are usually built with this
> issue in mind. A tuning slide pulled out 3/4 of an inch is generally
> 440, so there is room for adjustment. The difference in playing within
> the 440 - 445 range is not as bad as it appears, as the ear will
> quickly adjust. Extreme cases usually involve playing with church
> organs. Most are around 440, but I've played with organs ranging from
> 435 up to 450! In each case, I have special tuning slides built to
> deal with this issue.
>
I believe M Forever posted that the shift from 440 to 445 was just
> Well, it's fairly significant. Trumpets are usually built with this
> issue in mind. A tuning slide pulled out 3/4 of an inch is generally
> 440, so there is room for adjustment. The difference in playing within
> the 440 - 445 range is not as bad as it appears, as the ear will
> quickly adjust. Extreme cases usually involve playing with church
> organs. Most are around 440, but I've played with organs ranging from
> 435 up to 450! In each case, I have special tuning slides built to
> deal with this issue.
>
under 1%, and from a mathematical standpoint, that is correct, but
possibly meaningless, because a change of 100% would be an entire
octave (440 => 880). Thus, I think the range has to be taken into
account, or at least considered.
A better measure might be to find the frequency of the next half tone
up, B flat, which I believe is 466.16, and I think we can all
reasonably say that going from A to B flat represents a substantial
difference in pitch, that would be fairly noticeable by many people.
So given the difference is only 26.16 cycles (466.16 - 440 = 26.16),
the actual amount of shift from A by playing at 445 would shift A
towards B flat an amount of 19.11 % (445- 440 = 5 and 5/26.16 = 19.11)
over the range from A to B flat, which I think might be enough to be
noticeable by some, but imperceptible to many. Likewise, all other
notes would have been tuned to the 445, so the pitch is about 20%
closer to the next halftone. In my opinion, this number is probably
more representative of the effect in change of pitch as it effects the
outcome.
-Owen
Pierre P.
Jan 6, 2012, 9:15:14 PM1/6/12
to
"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dStNq.225322$034....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
I usually say: "The small finger of my left hand has FORGOTTEN more music
than you'll ever learn in a lifetime."
Yet one mustalways kee this context in mind when writing back to Roman
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Playback/MyPlayback.aspx
I like his quest in the electronics and the TTs and arms, but the speakers
are just too much. If there is a wife around she earned her ticket to
heaven quite a while ago. If not, then no woman, man or beast of any size
can be found within a 100 mile radius of his sonic "headquarters". ;)
Pedro Paquino
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
over 2,600 hours of listening last month
news:dStNq.225322$034....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
than you'll ever learn in a lifetime."
Yet one mustalways kee this context in mind when writing back to Roman
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Playback/MyPlayback.aspx
I like his quest in the electronics and the TTs and arms, but the speakers
are just too much. If there is a wife around she earned her ticket to
heaven quite a while ago. If not, then no woman, man or beast of any size
can be found within a 100 mile radius of his sonic "headquarters". ;)
Pedro Paquino
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
dropped to over 1,600 hours
Pierre P.
Jan 6, 2012, 9:25:39 PM1/6/12
to
I can think of only one person who did outdo Roman some 30 years ago. Dick
Burwen. Nothinglike having the cahs to build a beautiful NE colonial home
around your music system with a dumb waiter lowering expesnsive drinks from
upstairs down to the massive listening area, ceiling was at least 15 ft.
high . I will always be grateful to him. He lost it for a moment when he
played my then new DG LP of the Pittsburgh Overture with Hunsberger. The
piano stroke set him off. The pics of the speakers in the 3 horns at this
link http://www.burwenaudio.com/Sound_System.html have changed quite a bit
since I was there to listen in trhe mid 70s.
P.
--
news:vNadnQyD9MguN5rS...@supernews.com...
Burwen. Nothinglike having the cahs to build a beautiful NE colonial home
around your music system with a dumb waiter lowering expesnsive drinks from
upstairs down to the massive listening area, ceiling was at least 15 ft.
high . I will always be grateful to him. He lost it for a moment when he
played my then new DG LP of the Pittsburgh Overture with Hunsberger. The
piano stroke set him off. The pics of the speakers in the 3 horns at this
link http://www.burwenaudio.com/Sound_System.html have changed quite a bit
since I was there to listen in trhe mid 70s.
P.
--
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
"Pierre P." <Haydn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vNadnQyD9MguN5rS...@supernews.com...
> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:dStNq.225322$034....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 1/5/12 6:11 PM, Romy the Cat wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 6:28 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com"<Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're a fool, as you've proven here time and again. It's not the
>>>> "original" pitch. It's the pitch in use by the orchestra at the time
>>>> the orchestra the recordings were made and reproducing the recordings
>>>> accurately now. OK? Understand? If you prefer changing that pitch, be
>>>> my guest in fraudulence. And don't bother lecturing me about
>>>> recordings at the end of the '40s. I know more about it than you can
>>>> imagine. I have no more to bother with concerning you.
>>>
>>> Relax, generalissimos!
>>>
>>> If you have no own brain to understand what I said then be my guest -
> news:dStNq.225322$034....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 1/5/12 6:11 PM, Romy the Cat wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 6:28 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com"<Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're a fool, as you've proven here time and again. It's not the
>>>> "original" pitch. It's the pitch in use by the orchestra at the time
>>>> the orchestra the recordings were made and reproducing the recordings
>>>> accurately now. OK? Understand? If you prefer changing that pitch, be
>>>> my guest in fraudulence. And don't bother lecturing me about
>>>> recordings at the end of the '40s. I know more about it than you can
>>>> imagine. I have no more to bother with concerning you.
>>>
>>> Relax, generalissimos!
>>>
Message has been deleted
Romy the Cat
Jan 8, 2012, 1:09:01 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 6, 9:15 pm, "Pierre P." <HaydnHo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bob Harper" <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Yet one mustalways kee this context in mind when writing back to Romanhttp://www.goodsoundclub.com/Playback/MyPlayback.aspx
you until you have any frame of reference regarding what I do, what I
am trying to accomplish and what I have accomplished to without your
comments as something that is irrelevant.
> "Bob Harper" <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> I like his quest in the electronics and the TTs and arms, but the speakers
> are just too much. If there is a wife around she earned her ticket to
> heaven quite a while ago. If not, then no woman, man or beast of any size
> can be found within a 100 mile radius of his sonic "headquarters". ;)
> Pedro Paquino
Pierre, you true have no idea what you are deal with. I would advise
> are just too much. If there is a wife around she earned her ticket to
> heaven quite a while ago. If not, then no woman, man or beast of any size
> can be found within a 100 mile radius of his sonic "headquarters". ;)
> Pedro Paquino
you until you have any frame of reference regarding what I do, what I
am trying to accomplish and what I have accomplished to without your
comments as something that is irrelevant.
Oscar
Jan 8, 2012, 1:24:35 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 6, 6:06 am, Romy the Cat wrote:
>
> All that I know about your Don Tait that he came to my
> horizon as a supporter of Matthew Tepper - in my scale of values any
> person who do not feel that the dirt Tepper has to be run over with
> asphalt roller perfectly deserve to lay right next to Tepper. His
> behavior this there only prove how ignorant and ill-mannered another
> “full of himself” Tepper’s friends is. If you Bob instead of
> respecting the subject of matter has a need to flash loyalty to your
> local tribe instincts then you can go to hell right along with the
> rest of local hoodlums.
You better watch it, guys! http://tiny.cc/sifho
>
> All that I know about your Don Tait that he came to my
> horizon as a supporter of Matthew Tepper - in my scale of values any
> person who do not feel that the dirt Tepper has to be run over with
> asphalt roller perfectly deserve to lay right next to Tepper. His
> behavior this there only prove how ignorant and ill-mannered another
> “full of himself” Tepper’s friends is. If you Bob instead of
> respecting the subject of matter has a need to flash loyalty to your
> local tribe instincts then you can go to hell right along with the
> rest of local hoodlums.
M forever
Jan 8, 2012, 3:45:00 PM1/8/12
to
On Jan 6, 4:24 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <1KydnTwUd95dwJrSnZ2dnUVZ_rKdn...@supernews.com>, HAYDN
The difference in number of cycles is fairy irrelevant as musical
intervals are all relative. I don't understand what the B flat would
be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
that doesn't change your calculations much. Basically, the shift is
about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
external reference. I also know some people with absolute pitch who
can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
440, 442, 444 etc.
The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
one really needs to actually change instruments.
> In article <1KydnTwUd95dwJrSnZ2dnUVZ_rKdn...@supernews.com>, HAYDN
intervals are all relative. I don't understand what the B flat would
be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
that doesn't change your calculations much. Basically, the shift is
about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
external reference. I also know some people with absolute pitch who
can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
440, 442, 444 etc.
The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
one really needs to actually change instruments.
CharlesSmith
Jan 8, 2012, 4:20:24 PM1/8/12
to
On Sunday, January 8, 2012 8:45:00 PM UTC, M forever wrote:
> The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> one really needs to actually change instruments.
Just to confirm, the difference between 440 and 444 isn't a problem on a brass instrument. I've just done a practical test with a horn and an electronic tuner. At A=440 I have the main tuning slide out 22mm. To get up to A=444 I have to push the slide in to 16mm. So no big deal, plenty in hand.
> The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> one really needs to actually change instruments.
I think the issue is far more important on woodwind which have less tuning margin. On strings the adjustment is easy enough, but raising the pitch also increases the tension in the instrument, and makes the tone brighter.
Charles
Pierre P.
Jan 8, 2012, 4:30:59 PM1/8/12
to
I have an idea and a very good one. It's your speakers dammit!
Were I to sit in front of them, it would be just plain impossible for me to
concentrate on ANY music blaring out of them as they cause a visual
nightmare even by way of your photo of them.. Hopefully you have a very thin
and large screen in order to hide them when you listen to music. If you
don't then I have little or no hope for you as you have a "driving it home"
psychological problem. See? I'm really on YOUR side re the screen idea and
with the positive words I typed re: the rest of your equipment
Pierre
--
news:c11ff6ca-f631-4037...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
Were I to sit in front of them, it would be just plain impossible for me to
concentrate on ANY music blaring out of them as they cause a visual
nightmare even by way of your photo of them.. Hopefully you have a very thin
and large screen in order to hide them when you listen to music. If you
don't then I have little or no hope for you as you have a "driving it home"
psychological problem. See? I'm really on YOUR side re the screen idea and
with the positive words I typed re: the rest of your equipment
Pierre
--
CONTINUOUS, NON-STOP INTERNET BROADCASTS
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF MOZART SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach
"Romy the Cat" <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote in message
news:c11ff6ca-f631-4037...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
O
Jan 8, 2012, 4:45:14 PM1/8/12
to
In article
<70361746-9174-4359...@k29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, M
I was responding to your .92% figure you originally quoted, but it
becomes irrelevant more from the fact that musical perception differs
from person to person.
> I don't understand what the B flat would
> be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
> that doesn't change your calculations much.
Exactly.
> Basically, the shift is
> about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> external reference.
Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
> I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> 440, 442, 444 etc.
The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
> The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> one really needs to actually change instruments.
I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
not even to an entire semitone.
-Owen
<70361746-9174-4359...@k29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, M
becomes irrelevant more from the fact that musical perception differs
from person to person.
> I don't understand what the B flat would
> be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
> that doesn't change your calculations much.
> Basically, the shift is
> about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> external reference.
can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
> I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> 440, 442, 444 etc.
difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
> The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> one really needs to actually change instruments.
of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
not even to an entire semitone.
-Owen
Jenn
Jan 8, 2012, 6:15:53 PM1/8/12
to
In article
<21627001.592.1326057624818.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbr20>,
Exactly.
Brass, not really a problem. Flute, not really. Double reeds need
different bocal or differently constructed reeds. Clarinet: probably
shorter barrel. Melodic percussion: different instruments.
The general goal when an ensemble uses a higher pitch standard is to
brighten the sound due to hall or preference.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<21627001.592.1326057624818.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbr20>,
Brass, not really a problem. Flute, not really. Double reeds need
different bocal or differently constructed reeds. Clarinet: probably
shorter barrel. Melodic percussion: different instruments.
The general goal when an ensemble uses a higher pitch standard is to
brighten the sound due to hall or preference.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Romy the Cat
Jan 8, 2012, 6:00:24 PM1/8/12
to
On Jan 8, 4:30 pm, "Pierre P." <HaydnHo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have an idea and a very good one. It's your speakers dammit!
> Were I to sit in front of them, it would be just plain impossible for me to
> concentrate on ANY music blaring out of them as they cause a visual
> nightmare even by way of your photo of them.. Hopefully you have a very thin
> and large screen in order to hide them when you listen to music. If you
> don't then I have little or no hope for you as you have a "driving it home"
> psychological problem. See? I'm really on YOUR side re the screen idea and
> with the positive words I typed re: the rest of your equipment
It is what I meant when I said that you have no idea or any point of
> I have an idea and a very good one. It's your speakers dammit!
> Were I to sit in front of them, it would be just plain impossible for me to
> concentrate on ANY music blaring out of them as they cause a visual
> nightmare even by way of your photo of them.. Hopefully you have a very thin
> and large screen in order to hide them when you listen to music. If you
> don't then I have little or no hope for you as you have a "driving it home"
> psychological problem. See? I'm really on YOUR side re the screen idea and
> with the positive words I typed re: the rest of your equipment
reference of what I deal with. You do share your personal fears but
this is nothing more than your personal fears based upon non-infirmity
and ignorance.
Heck51
Jan 8, 2012, 7:51:50 PM1/8/12
to
On Jan 8, 6:15 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:>
<<Exactly.
> Brass, not really a problem. Flute, not really. Double reeds need
> different bocal or differently constructed reeds. Clarinet: probably
> shorter barrel. Melodic percussion: different instruments.>>
again - the problem for woodwinds - oboe, clarinet, bassoon, encounter
<<Exactly.
> Brass, not really a problem. Flute, not really. Double reeds need
> different bocal or differently constructed reeds. Clarinet: probably
> shorter barrel. Melodic percussion: different instruments.>>
is the extreme distortion caused by lengthening or shortening just one
part of the vibrating air column...
shortening the clarinet barrel, using shorter bocals, staples for 2ble
reeds - will before long distort the air column and make the
instrument "out of tune with itself"
the "short pipe" notes, at the top of the air column - open G, A, Bb
on clarinet, open F, E on bassoon, etc - will be affected much more
than the "long pipe" notes, which are sounded by the full length of
vibrating column. [Cl - low E, Bn - low Bb]
of course, one can make sharper reeds, but there may be a significant
change in tone quality and response, due to changed and lost
fundamental and overtones, and radically altered reed dimensions.
once the pitch level gets outside of the manufacturers limits. the
problems are very difficult.
Jenn
Jan 8, 2012, 8:58:35 PM1/8/12
to
In article
<5fd17386-89fe-4b47...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Agree, totally.
Hey, have you seen the remodel at 26 Gibbs St.?
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<5fd17386-89fe-4b47...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Hey, have you seen the remodel at 26 Gibbs St.?
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Heck51
Jan 9, 2012, 10:22:36 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 8, 8:58 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> Hey, have you seen the remodel at 26 Gibbs St.?
No, I've not been to downtown Rochester in quite awhile...
> Hey, have you seen the remodel at 26 Gibbs St.?
Jenn
Jan 9, 2012, 2:12:14 PM1/9/12
to
In article
<bea95ac2-5606-44cf...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Lots of cool stuff happening there. Renovation of Eastman Theater, new
chamber music hall, etc. I'll see it in a couple of months.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<bea95ac2-5606-44cf...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
chamber music hall, etc. I'll see it in a couple of months.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Kip Williams
Jan 9, 2012, 4:55:14 PM1/9/12
to
Jenn wrote:
> Hey, have you seen the remodel at 26 Gibbs St.?
I saw some of that the other day, but it was while we were headed
> Hey, have you seen the remodel at 26 Gibbs St.?
someplace else, so I didn't pay it a lot of attention.
Kip W
Heck51
Jan 9, 2012, 5:53:16 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 2:12 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> Lots of cool stuff happening there. Renovation of Eastman Theater, new
> chamber music hall, etc. I'll see it in a couple of months.>>
Hmm,....I'm going up in February, we have family still there. Maybe
> Lots of cool stuff happening there. Renovation of Eastman Theater, new
> chamber music hall, etc. I'll see it in a couple of months.>>
I'll pop downtown and have a look. I always loved playing in the old
Eastman Theatre, and Kilbourn Hall.
M forever
Jan 10, 2012, 12:06:28 AM1/10/12
to
> <70361746-9174-4359-974a-7f279475a...@k29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, M
I wasn't talking about perception, but about how instruments are
affected by the changes in pitch.
> > I don't understand what the B flat would
> > be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
> > that doesn't change your calculations much.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Basically, the shift is
> > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > external reference.
>
> Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
> > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > 440, 442, 444 etc.
>
> The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
> > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > one really needs to actually change instruments.
>
> I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> not even to an entire semitone.
But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
stuff you don't know.
affected by the changes in pitch.
> > I don't understand what the B flat would
> > be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
> > that doesn't change your calculations much.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Basically, the shift is
> > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > external reference.
>
> Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
> > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > 440, 442, 444 etc.
>
> The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
> > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > one really needs to actually change instruments.
>
> I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> not even to an entire semitone.
to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
stuff you don't know.
Jenn
Jan 10, 2012, 12:33:42 AM1/10/12
to
In article
<b2be7664-21b6-49e4...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
ET and KH are certainly two of the best halls I've ever heard or worked
in. And certainly historic in my little niche of the conducting world.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<b2be7664-21b6-49e4...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
in. And certainly historic in my little niche of the conducting world.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
O
Jan 10, 2012, 9:54:33 AM1/10/12
to
In article
<f0bd2ad4-8468-4e3e...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, M
ensembles occasionally will tune to compensate for a particularly dry
hall. Obviously, the BSO felt that the sharper tuning would produce a
sympathetic effect in their hall, if not a preferable one, for them.
obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
to be combative.
>
> > > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > > one really needs to actually change instruments.
> >
> > I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> > of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> > instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> > not even to an entire semitone.
>
> But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
> to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
> have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
> people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
> better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
> stuff you don't know.
If you limited your response to discussion instead of trying to turn
every discussion into your favorite topic of predicting what your
respondent doesn't know, people might grow to tolerate you more.
-Owen
<f0bd2ad4-8468-4e3e...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, M
forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was responding to your .92% figure you originally quoted, but it
> > becomes irrelevant more from the fact that musical perception differs
> > from person to person.
>
> I wasn't talking about perception, but about how instruments are
> affected by the changes in pitch.
I don't much care about what you were talking about, but what you said.
> > I was responding to your .92% figure you originally quoted, but it
> > becomes irrelevant more from the fact that musical perception differs
> > from person to person.
>
> I wasn't talking about perception, but about how instruments are
> affected by the changes in pitch.
>
> > > I don't understand what the B flat would
> > > be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
> > > that doesn't change your calculations much.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > > Basically, the shift is
> > > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > > external reference.
> >
> > Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> > can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> > final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> > not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> > Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
>
> Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
Halls respond differently to tones. Others here have indicated that
> > > I don't understand what the B flat would
> > > be more like 469 Hz (it depends on what tuning system is used) but
> > > that doesn't change your calculations much.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > > Basically, the shift is
> > > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > > external reference.
> >
> > Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> > can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> > final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> > not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> > Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
>
> Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
ensembles occasionally will tune to compensate for a particularly dry
hall. Obviously, the BSO felt that the sharper tuning would produce a
sympathetic effect in their hall, if not a preferable one, for them.
>
> > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
> >
> > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
>
> That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
> >
> > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
>
> That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
to be combative.
>
> > > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > > one really needs to actually change instruments.
> >
> > I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> > of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> > instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> > not even to an entire semitone.
>
> But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
> to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
> have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
> people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
> better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
> stuff you don't know.
every discussion into your favorite topic of predicting what your
respondent doesn't know, people might grow to tolerate you more.
-Owen
M forever
Jan 10, 2012, 10:55:09 AM1/10/12
to
> <f0bd2ad4-8468-4e3e-bad2-3e822380f...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, M
Obviously? Did they make any official statements saying that is actual
reason? I have a hard time imagining they did that because it is -
obviously - complete nonsense. An orchestra produces a vast and dense
spectrum of frequencies, not just a small, limited set of frequencies
to which such attributes could be ascribed. Plus, the differences in
wavelength are irrelevant vs the dimensions of the hall.
Yes, "halls respond differently to tones". But an orchestra doesn't
just produce "tones". And common to popular misconception, tuning just
slightly higher doesn't make the sound of a string instrument any
brighter either.
> > > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
>
> > > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
>
> > That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> > isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
>
> Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
> next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
> that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
> to be combative.
No, yours is just a very odd way to look at this. 20% "towards the
sharp"? I forgot though that you have no real musical background - my
bad.
> > > > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > > > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > > > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > > > one really needs to actually change instruments.
>
> > > I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> > > of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> > > instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> > > not even to an entire semitone.
>
> > But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
> > to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
> > have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
> > people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
> > better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
> > stuff you don't know.
>
> If you limited your response to discussion instead of trying to turn
> every discussion into your favorite topic of predicting what your
> respondent doesn't know, people might grow to tolerate you more.
Gotcha, huh? Remember, you responded to me, trying to make yourself
look really smart once again, and what I said still holds true: you
don't know that stuff, so why do you have to babble about it? I asked
the people who play brass instruments to comment, and they did. You
don't have anything of interest to contribute to this, so why don't
you stop babbling?
Is that your idea of a "discussion"?
reason? I have a hard time imagining they did that because it is -
obviously - complete nonsense. An orchestra produces a vast and dense
spectrum of frequencies, not just a small, limited set of frequencies
to which such attributes could be ascribed. Plus, the differences in
wavelength are irrelevant vs the dimensions of the hall.
Yes, "halls respond differently to tones". But an orchestra doesn't
just produce "tones". And common to popular misconception, tuning just
slightly higher doesn't make the sound of a string instrument any
brighter either.
> > > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
>
> > > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
>
> > That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> > isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
>
> Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
> next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
> that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
> to be combative.
sharp"? I forgot though that you have no real musical background - my
bad.
> > > > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > > > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > > > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > > > one really needs to actually change instruments.
>
> > > I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> > > of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> > > instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> > > not even to an entire semitone.
>
> > But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
> > to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
> > have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
> > people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
> > better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
> > stuff you don't know.
>
> If you limited your response to discussion instead of trying to turn
> every discussion into your favorite topic of predicting what your
> respondent doesn't know, people might grow to tolerate you more.
look really smart once again, and what I said still holds true: you
don't know that stuff, so why do you have to babble about it? I asked
the people who play brass instruments to comment, and they did. You
don't have anything of interest to contribute to this, so why don't
you stop babbling?
Is that your idea of a "discussion"?
Gerard
Jan 10, 2012, 11:20:35 AM1/10/12
to
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:
We are waiting breathlessly to hear what /your/ idea of a "discussion" is.
I'm sure the answer is:
endlessly saying "You don't have anything of interest to contribute" and "you
don't know what you're babbling about" and "you have no musical education".
I'm sure the answer is:
endlessly saying "You don't have anything of interest to contribute" and "you
don't know what you're babbling about" and "you have no musical education".
O
Jan 10, 2012, 11:49:03 AM1/10/12
to
In article
<4bb9b225-e46b-49d5...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, M
other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
>
>
> > > > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
> >
> > > > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > > > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > > > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > > > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
> >
> > > That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> > > isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
> >
> > Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> > obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
> > next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
> > that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
> > to be combative.
>
> No, yours is just a very odd way to look at this. 20% "towards the
> sharp"? I forgot though that you have no real musical background - my
> bad.
Yes, let's look at your alternative then. 20% overall would be 20% of
an octave! No one would assume an orchestra would tune that high, not
even you, with your musical background.
you know and what someone else doesn't, irrespective of the issue. In
fact, you've participated in very few threads where you haven't made
assumptions on what your interlocutors know - it's your standard
technique. It doesn't work very well.
-Owen
<4bb9b225-e46b-49d5...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, M
forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Basically, the shift is
> > > > > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > > > > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > > > > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > > > > external reference.
> >
> > > > Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> > > > can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> > > > final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> > > > not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> > > > Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
> >
> > > Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
> >
> > Halls respond differently to tones. Others here have indicated that
> > ensembles occasionally will tune to compensate for a particularly dry
> > hall. Obviously, the BSO felt that the sharper tuning would produce a
> > sympathetic effect in their hall, if not a preferable one, for them.
>
> Obviously? Did they make any official statements saying that is actual
> reason?
Maybe you can come up with another reason that they would tune sharp
> >
> > > > > Basically, the shift is
> > > > > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > > > > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > > > > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > > > > external reference.
> >
> > > > Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> > > > can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> > > > final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> > > > not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> > > > Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
> >
> > > Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
> >
> > Halls respond differently to tones. Others here have indicated that
> > ensembles occasionally will tune to compensate for a particularly dry
> > hall. Obviously, the BSO felt that the sharper tuning would produce a
> > sympathetic effect in their hall, if not a preferable one, for them.
>
> Obviously? Did they make any official statements saying that is actual
> reason?
other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
>
>
> > > > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
> >
> > > > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > > > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > > > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > > > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
> >
> > > That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> > > isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
> >
> > Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> > obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
> > next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
> > that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
> > to be combative.
>
> No, yours is just a very odd way to look at this. 20% "towards the
> sharp"? I forgot though that you have no real musical background - my
> bad.
an octave! No one would assume an orchestra would tune that high, not
even you, with your musical background.
>
> > > > > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > > > > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > > > > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > > > > one really needs to actually change instruments.
> >
> > > > I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> > > > of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> > > > instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> > > > not even to an entire semitone.
> >
> > > But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
> > > to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
> > > have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
> > > people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
> > > better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
> > > stuff you don't know.
> >
> > If you limited your response to discussion instead of trying to turn
> > every discussion into your favorite topic of predicting what your
> > respondent doesn't know, people might grow to tolerate you more.
>
> Gotcha, huh? Remember, you responded to me, trying to make yourself
> look really smart once again, and what I said still holds true: you
> don't know that stuff, so why do you have to babble about it? I asked
> the people who play brass instruments to comment, and they did. You
> don't have anything of interest to contribute to this, so why don't
> you stop babbling?
>
> Is that your idea of a "discussion"?
>
I think your idea of a discussion is an opportunity to talk about what
> > > > > The point of my exercise was actually simply to figure out how much
> > > > > the tuning slides of a given brass instrument would have to be
> > > > > adjusted to make up for that difference in tuning, and at one point
> > > > > one really needs to actually change instruments.
> >
> > > > I would think that amount of distance would vary according to what kind
> > > > of instrument is under consideration, but I would think most modern
> > > > instruments would easily be able to be tuned at least 20% sharper, if
> > > > not even to an entire semitone.
> >
> > > But you don't know that, so why would you think that? I know you like
> > > to have an opinion about everything, but one doesn't really have to
> > > have an opinion about everything, you know. That's why I asked the
> > > people here who play brass instruments to comment. Sometimes it's
> > > better to just talk about stuff you actually know, and ask about the
> > > stuff you don't know.
> >
> > If you limited your response to discussion instead of trying to turn
> > every discussion into your favorite topic of predicting what your
> > respondent doesn't know, people might grow to tolerate you more.
>
> Gotcha, huh? Remember, you responded to me, trying to make yourself
> look really smart once again, and what I said still holds true: you
> don't know that stuff, so why do you have to babble about it? I asked
> the people who play brass instruments to comment, and they did. You
> don't have anything of interest to contribute to this, so why don't
> you stop babbling?
>
> Is that your idea of a "discussion"?
>
you know and what someone else doesn't, irrespective of the issue. In
fact, you've participated in very few threads where you haven't made
assumptions on what your interlocutors know - it's your standard
technique. It doesn't work very well.
-Owen
M forever
Jan 10, 2012, 12:33:28 PM1/10/12
to
> <4bb9b225-e46b-49d5-b3a2-4b757bbf0...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, M
sounds more "brilliant", it's that simple. It has nothing to do with
how the hall responds to the very slightly higher overall pitch.
Again, you have to keep in mind that an orchestra doesn't just
produces single frequencies, but a very broad and dense spectrum of
frequencies.
> > > > > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > > > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > > > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > > > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > > > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
>
> > > > > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > > > > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > > > > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > > > > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
>
> > > > That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> > > > isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
>
> > > Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> > > obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
> > > next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
> > > that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
> > > to be combative.
>
> > No, yours is just a very odd way to look at this. 20% "towards the
> > sharp"? I forgot though that you have no real musical background - my
> > bad.
>
> Yes, let's look at your alternative then. 20% overall would be 20% of
> an octave! No one would assume an orchestra would tune that high, not
> even you, with your musical background.
Exactly. And while our perception of pitch isn't quite linear, we do
still perceive a 100% increase in pitch as producing the "same" note,
just an octave higher. That is the reference frame. "20% of a half
note" is misleading and not very graphic. But realizing that this
slight shift of tuning is less than 1% of an octave illustrates just
how slight the shift is, and it helps us get an idea of how
instruments are physically affected by the need to compensate for that
shift - e.g. by changing the length of the vibrating column of air
inside a wind instrument.
So I don't see the whole point of your exercise.
No, it works very well! I only talk about stuff that I know. When I
don't know stuff, I ask those who do know - as in the case, people who
actually play brass instruments. See - it's a very simple and
effective technique.
Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
actually.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Basically, the shift is
> > > > > > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > > > > > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > > > > > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > > > > > external reference.
>
> > > > > Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> > > > > can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> > > > > final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> > > > > not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> > > > > Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
>
> > > > Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
>
> > > Halls respond differently to tones. Others here have indicated that
> > > ensembles occasionally will tune to compensate for a particularly dry
> > > hall. Obviously, the BSO felt that the sharper tuning would produce a
> > > sympathetic effect in their hall, if not a preferable one, for them.
>
> > Obviously? Did they make any official statements saying that is actual
> > reason?
>
> Maybe you can come up with another reason that they would tune sharp
> other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
> tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
People have a tendency to tune slightly sharp because they feel it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Basically, the shift is
> > > > > > about 20% closer to the next semitone, so it is roughly a "tenth tone"
> > > > > > which is a very small shift indeed. Most people with good ears can
> > > > > > hear the slight shift in pitch in direct comparison, but not without
> > > > > > external reference.
>
> > > > > Of course, it isn't a case of whether one with good pitch perception
> > > > > can determine the difference, but of whether such a tuning affects the
> > > > > final result. The BSO at the time obviously thought so, or they would
> > > > > not have cared. Perhaps the sharper tuning resonated better in
> > > > > Symphony Hall and gave them an effect they wanted.
>
> > > > Huh? How would that "resonate better" in the hall?
>
> > > Halls respond differently to tones. Others here have indicated that
> > > ensembles occasionally will tune to compensate for a particularly dry
> > > hall. Obviously, the BSO felt that the sharper tuning would produce a
> > > sympathetic effect in their hall, if not a preferable one, for them.
>
> > Obviously? Did they make any official statements saying that is actual
> > reason?
>
> Maybe you can come up with another reason that they would tune sharp
> other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
> tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
sounds more "brilliant", it's that simple. It has nothing to do with
how the hall responds to the very slightly higher overall pitch.
Again, you have to keep in mind that an orchestra doesn't just
produces single frequencies, but a very broad and dense spectrum of
frequencies.
> > > > > > I also know some people with absolute pitch who
> > > > > > can't tell the difference with complete certainty either They can
> > > > > > still say "this is an A" or "this is a D flat" without external
> > > > > > reference, but not all of them can actually pinpoint whether that A is
> > > > > > 440, 442, 444 etc.
>
> > > > > The closer the pitch to 440, obviously, it becomes harder to tell the
> > > > > difference. I would think that a tone shift of 20% sharper would be
> > > > > perceptable to at least some of the audience, and even if consciously
> > > > > imperceptable, may impart a subtle effect.
>
> > > > That numbers that you worked out there don't work out. That shift
> > > > isn't 20% sharper, it is 20% of a semitone sharper.
>
> > > Why are you playing the idiot here, if not to nitpick? 20% sharper
> > > obviously means "towards the sharp" which would automatically be the
> > > next semitone. There is no one on this group that would misinterpret
> > > that to mean it was tuned two full tones higher. You go out of your way
> > > to be combative.
>
> > No, yours is just a very odd way to look at this. 20% "towards the
> > sharp"? I forgot though that you have no real musical background - my
> > bad.
>
> Yes, let's look at your alternative then. 20% overall would be 20% of
> an octave! No one would assume an orchestra would tune that high, not
> even you, with your musical background.
still perceive a 100% increase in pitch as producing the "same" note,
just an octave higher. That is the reference frame. "20% of a half
note" is misleading and not very graphic. But realizing that this
slight shift of tuning is less than 1% of an octave illustrates just
how slight the shift is, and it helps us get an idea of how
instruments are physically affected by the need to compensate for that
shift - e.g. by changing the length of the vibrating column of air
inside a wind instrument.
So I don't see the whole point of your exercise.
don't know stuff, I ask those who do know - as in the case, people who
actually play brass instruments. See - it's a very simple and
effective technique.
Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
actually.
Romy the Cat
Jan 10, 2012, 1:12:29 PM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 11:49 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> Maybe you can come up with another reason that they would tune sharp
> other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
> tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
Owen, this is also a well recognized phenomenon. Like we or not but
> other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
> tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
most of listening musical events a contemporary person gets from
recordings. It is well recognized that contemporary playing techniques
in the same way as the design of contemporary performing halls in way
following the harmonic leads that crappy stereo does. If you spend
time and listen a variety of high-priced audio elements and what they
call “high-end” audio installations then you will recognized that all
of them incredibly sharp. The dominating majority of audio idiots does
not undusted or know Sound and the moronic industry keeps advocating
the ultra-sharp sound that the gullible and ignorant people associate
was “quality”. So, it is not surprise that after tens of years the
performing artists who deal with live sound instead than recorded
surrogate tend to define “quality” in the same way how audio listeners
do.
Jenn
Jan 10, 2012, 1:25:28 PM1/10/12
to
In article
<373a9e4f-fa9d-4a9b...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> do.
Sorry, I'm not following you. You seem to be referring to "sharp" in
the sense of "harsh" or some such frequency balance. The discussion is
about tuning standards. How does this relate?
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<373a9e4f-fa9d-4a9b...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Romy the Cat <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:49 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > Maybe you can come up with another reason that they would tune sharp
> > other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
> > tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
>
> Owen, this is also a well recognized phenomenon. Like we or not but
> most of listening musical events a contemporary person gets from
> recordings. It is well recognized that contemporary playing techniques
> in the same way as the design of contemporary performing halls in way
> following the harmonic leads that crappy stereo does. If you spend
> time and listen a variety of high-priced audio elements and what they
> call łhigh-end˛ audio installations then you will recognized that all
> On Jan 10, 11:49 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > Maybe you can come up with another reason that they would tune sharp
> > other than them thinking that it sounds better that way? They wouldn't
> > tune sharp because they thought it sounded worse.
>
> Owen, this is also a well recognized phenomenon. Like we or not but
> most of listening musical events a contemporary person gets from
> recordings. It is well recognized that contemporary playing techniques
> in the same way as the design of contemporary performing halls in way
> following the harmonic leads that crappy stereo does. If you spend
> time and listen a variety of high-priced audio elements and what they
> of them incredibly sharp. The dominating majority of audio idiots does
> not undusted or know Sound and the moronic industry keeps advocating
> the ultra-sharp sound that the gullible and ignorant people associate
> was łquality˛. So, it is not surprise that after tens of years the
> not undusted or know Sound and the moronic industry keeps advocating
> the ultra-sharp sound that the gullible and ignorant people associate
> performing artists who deal with live sound instead than recorded
> surrogate tend to define łquality˛ in the same way how audio listeners
> do.
Sorry, I'm not following you. You seem to be referring to "sharp" in
the sense of "harsh" or some such frequency balance. The discussion is
about tuning standards. How does this relate?
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
Gerard
Jan 10, 2012, 1:27:00 PM1/10/12
to
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:
Yes, we've seen this when you talked about the Finnish people and their customs.
>
> When I
> don't know stuff, I ask those who do know - as in the case, people who
> actually play brass instruments. See - it's a very simple and
> effective technique.
Really?
>
> Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
> made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
> pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
> to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
> shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
> know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
> very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
> just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
> actually.
Really?
>
> When I
> don't know stuff, I ask those who do know - as in the case, people who
> actually play brass instruments. See - it's a very simple and
> effective technique.
>
> Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
> made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
> pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
> to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
> shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
> know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
> very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
> just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
> actually.
Romy the Cat
Jan 10, 2012, 2:33:00 PM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 1:25 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not following you. You seem to be referring to "sharp" in
> the sense of "harsh" or some such frequency balance. The discussion is
> about tuning standards. How does this relate?
Nope, Jenn, I did not use "harsh" but I said "sharp”. The perceived
> Sorry, I'm not following you. You seem to be referring to "sharp" in
> the sense of "harsh" or some such frequency balance. The discussion is
> about tuning standards. How does this relate?
sharpness might derive from razing pitch but also by holding pitch and
manipulating harmonics, something the audio doe in very mean way.
Musicians, the generation of musicians, along with acoustic
architects, instrument builders and etc non-deliberately and in way
non-consciousnessly slide in their reference points toward to that
instantly gratifying sharper presentation.
John Wiser
Jan 10, 2012, 4:24:46 PM1/10/12
to
"Romy the Cat" <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote in message
news:2b3d51bb-4f34-4b89...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Waaaah! He just overloaded my bullshit detector!
JDW
news:2b3d51bb-4f34-4b89...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
JDW
Bob Harper
Jan 10, 2012, 6:10:09 PM1/10/12
to
On 1/10/12 8:49 AM, O wrote:
(snip)
information in a friendly fashion, you are certainly correct. If, on the
other hand, the objective is to continue, however delusionally, to feel
superior to the peasantry (that's you and me, bub), then it succeeds
brilliantly in the only forum where it counts, namely, in the mind of
Michael. Once you understand that, all becomes clear.
Bob Harper
(snip)
> I think your idea of a discussion is an opportunity to talk about what
> you know and what someone else doesn't, irrespective of the issue. In
> fact, you've participated in very few threads where you haven't made
> assumptions on what your interlocutors know - it's your standard
> technique. It doesn't work very well.
>
> -Owen
That depends, Owen, on what the objective is. If it is to share
> you know and what someone else doesn't, irrespective of the issue. In
> fact, you've participated in very few threads where you haven't made
> assumptions on what your interlocutors know - it's your standard
> technique. It doesn't work very well.
>
> -Owen
information in a friendly fashion, you are certainly correct. If, on the
other hand, the objective is to continue, however delusionally, to feel
superior to the peasantry (that's you and me, bub), then it succeeds
brilliantly in the only forum where it counts, namely, in the mind of
Michael. Once you understand that, all becomes clear.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Jan 10, 2012, 6:12:54 PM1/10/12
to
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Jan 10, 2012, 6:13:36 PM1/10/12
to
Bob Harper
Oscar
Jan 10, 2012, 6:17:31 PM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 11:33 am, M forever wrote:
>
> Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
> made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
> pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
> to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
> shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
> know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
> very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
> just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
> actually.
<raises hand http://tiny.cc/xcttr like Arnold Horshack> What is the
>
> Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
> made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
> pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
> to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
> shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
> know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
> very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
> just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
> actually.
best way to become an arrogant, childish backtalking poopyhead?
M forever
Jan 10, 2012, 6:55:04 PM1/10/12
to
by my principles of simply only talking about stuff I know, and asking
about stuff I don't know. Like I did in this thread.
To which, coincidentally, you once again haven't contributed anything.
Another principle which follows from that is that it is easy for me to
admit when I am wrong about something. As we have seen in the recent
thread about the scherzo from Beethoven's 9th - I even provided the
evidence that I was wrong myself.
Pretty simple and sensible standards, one would think. But not for
people like you and Owen who are certified bullshitters whose whole
world view and MO is based on readily and uncritically accepted
beliefs, half-education with little factual basis and prepackaged
talking points.
M forever
Jan 10, 2012, 7:08:03 PM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:33 am, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
> > made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
> > pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
> > to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
> > shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
> > know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
> > very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
> > just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
> > actually.
>
> <raises handhttp://tiny.cc/xcttrlike Arnold Horshack> What is the
> On Jan 10, 11:33 am, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > Of course, you have participated in very few threads where you haven't
> > made assumptions about stuff you don't really know, or simply
> > pretended you know stuff even if you didn't. Again, one doesn't have
> > to have an opinion about everything, don't you agree? And why
> > shouldn't I point out when you talk about stuff you obviously don't
> > know? That is your standard technique. And that really doesn't work
> > very well. I find it easy to admit when I don't know something and
> > just ask. You should try that some time, too. It's pretty easy,
> > actually.
>
> best way to become an arrogant, childish backtalking poopyhead?
I can't tell you what the best way is to get there. Owen or Harper
would be much more competent and experienced guides on that road. Not
that you would need much guidance anyway, you seem to be a natural. I
can only observe the results, such as Owen's babbling about stuff he
doesn't actually know much about, his need to have an opinion about
everything, how he falls apart when that is pointed out (see above).
But as for what the best way to get there is, I have to refer you to
the experts.
John Wiser
Jan 10, 2012, 7:21:12 PM1/10/12
to
"Oscar" <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19c95019-13da-4aa2...@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Watch carefully now...<holds up mirror>
JDW
news:19c95019-13da-4aa2...@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
JDW
John Wiser
Jan 10, 2012, 7:23:30 PM1/10/12
to
"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BC3Pq.183783$ql3.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
just to get it past Tepper.
JDW
news:BC3Pq.183783$ql3.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 1/10/12 1:24 PM, John Wiser wrote:
>> "Romy the Cat" <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote in message
>> news:2b3d51bb-4f34-4b89...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 10, 1:25 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, I'm not following you. You seem to be referring to "sharp" in
>>>> the sense of "harsh" or some such frequency balance. The discussion is
>>>> about tuning standards. How does this relate?
>>
>>> Nope, Jenn, I did not use "harsh" but I said "sharp�. The perceived
>> "Romy the Cat" <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote in message
>> news:2b3d51bb-4f34-4b89...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 10, 1:25 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, I'm not following you. You seem to be referring to "sharp" in
>>>> the sense of "harsh" or some such frequency balance. The discussion is
>>>> about tuning standards. How does this relate?
>>
>>> sharpness might derive from razing pitch but also by holding pitch and
>>> manipulating harmonics, something the audio doe in very mean way.
>>> Musicians, the generation of musicians, along with acoustic
>>> architects, instrument builders and etc non-deliberately and in way
>>> non-consciousnessly slide in their reference points toward to that
>>> instantly gratifying sharper presentation.
>>
>>
>> Waaaah! He just overloaded my bullshit detector!
>>
>> JDW
>
> If it's just now going off, John, you must have it set pretty high.
>
> Bob Harper
>
I have to, you know,
>>> manipulating harmonics, something the audio doe in very mean way.
>>> Musicians, the generation of musicians, along with acoustic
>>> architects, instrument builders and etc non-deliberately and in way
>>> non-consciousnessly slide in their reference points toward to that
>>> instantly gratifying sharper presentation.
>>
>>
>> Waaaah! He just overloaded my bullshit detector!
>>
>> JDW
>
> If it's just now going off, John, you must have it set pretty high.
>
> Bob Harper
>
just to get it past Tepper.
JDW
Gerard
Jan 11, 2012, 10:47:56 AM1/11/12
to
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:
> On Jan 10, 6:10 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 1/10/12 8:49 AM, O wrote:
> > (snip)
> >
> > > I think your idea of a discussion is an opportunity to talk about
> > > what you know and what someone else doesn't, irrespective of the
> > > issue. In fact, you've participated in very few threads where you
> > > haven't made assumptions on what your interlocutors know - it's
> > > your standard technique. It doesn't work very well.
> >
> > > -Owen
> >
> > That depends, Owen, on what the objective is. If it is to share
> > information in a friendly fashion, you are certainly correct. If,
> > on the other hand, the objective is to continue, however
> > delusionally, to feel superior to the peasantry (that's you and me,
> > bub), then it succeeds brilliantly in the only forum where it
> > counts, namely, in the mind of Michael. Once you understand that,
> > all becomes clear.
>
> I fin it interesting just how threatened people like you and Owen are
> by my principles of simply only talking about stuff I know, and asking
> about stuff I don't know. Like I did in this thread.
> To which, coincidentally, you once again haven't contributed anything.
>
> Another principle which follows from that is that it is easy for me to
> admit when I am wrong about something.
Big lie.
> > On 1/10/12 8:49 AM, O wrote:
> > (snip)
> >
> > > I think your idea of a discussion is an opportunity to talk about
> > > what you know and what someone else doesn't, irrespective of the
> > > issue. In fact, you've participated in very few threads where you
> > > haven't made assumptions on what your interlocutors know - it's
> > > your standard technique. It doesn't work very well.
> >
> > > -Owen
> >
> > That depends, Owen, on what the objective is. If it is to share
> > information in a friendly fashion, you are certainly correct. If,
> > on the other hand, the objective is to continue, however
> > delusionally, to feel superior to the peasantry (that's you and me,
> > bub), then it succeeds brilliantly in the only forum where it
> > counts, namely, in the mind of Michael. Once you understand that,
> > all becomes clear.
>
> I fin it interesting just how threatened people like you and Owen are
> by my principles of simply only talking about stuff I know, and asking
> about stuff I don't know. Like I did in this thread.
> To which, coincidentally, you once again haven't contributed anything.
>
> Another principle which follows from that is that it is easy for me to
> admit when I am wrong about something.
0 new messages