Perfect Pitch 435 or 440?
Don
organs. Much of the discussion was that organs built before 1921 were
voiced at A435 and tuned at 60degrees. After 1921, organs were built
to be tuned at A440.
I wonder what those "perfect pitch" people did after 1921???
D*
These comments are meant to offend everyone equally. If, for some reason you are not offended, please write me with a description of
yourself including your name, race, weight, religious views, political party, strong opinions, physical disabilities and anything else that you are
touchy about, and I will try to offend you in a future comment. Complaints should be emailed to: bit...@likeiactuallycare.com
Mentore Siesto
D >I have been reading an article about tuning pipe organs and older pipe
D >organs. Much of the discussion was that organs built before 1921 were
D >voiced at A435 and tuned at 60degrees. After 1921, organs were built
D >to be tuned at A440.
D >
D >I wonder what those "perfect pitch" people did after 1921???
Well, instrument tuning has varied through the years.
During Bach period, the central A was located at 415 Hz, and you will note
the difference between Baroque music played with modern instruments and
antique ones tuned the right way (which is 415): the sound is more soft,
cleaner and somewhat more "full" than playing it at 440.
This is the same with organs.
--
Mentore Siesto
Team OS/2 Italia
Home page:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/8529/index.html
eromlignod
United States in the mid-twenties and then later adopted by an
international congress around WWII. Ostensibly this value was
agreed upon because it was a reasonable average of previous
standards and it could be evenly divided by two until A0 at
27.5000 Hz. Before that, every piano maufacturer and even
individual opera houses had their own standards.
Don
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
jeanette
absolute perfect pitch, and sliding pitch.
I think that most people with perfect pitch do not sit there and thing
A435 or A440 when they hear a note. You would go insane over every
little slightly mistuned Sound. =P
They probably adjusted after 1921. =)
Jeanette
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:07:40 GMT, Don <calldo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>I have been reading an article about tuning pipe organs and older pipe
>organs. Much of the discussion was that organs built before 1921 were
>voiced at A435 and tuned at 60degrees. After 1921, organs were built
>to be tuned at A440.
>
>I wonder what those "perfect pitch" people did after 1921???
>
>
Colorado Dave
Does one refer to specific notes like A0, A1, A2, or
to their frequencies, i.e. A27.5, A55,...A440. (seems like the former is
much easier)
So (if I did my math correctly), on an 88 note keyboard,
the lowest note is A0 at 27.5 Hz, and
the highest note is C above A7 at 3947.61 Hz,
and Middle C is 2 notes above A220 which is 246.73 Hz.
A0 = 27.50
A1 = 55.00
A2 = 110.00
A3 = 220.00
A4 = 440.00
A5 = 880.00
A6 = 1760.00
A7 = 3520.00
The semi-tones are the twelfth root of 2 apart, which is a factor of 1.059
(from a previous post).
And I too, would like to know how close or accurate does one tune a piano?
Within a Hz? 0.1 Hz?
And how did we standardize on 88 keys? Was that as far apart as one could
spread one's arms
back in the 1500s?
--
Colorado Dave
"eromlignod" <gilm...@sealright.com> wrote in message
news:26b7654c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
Larry Fletcher
>Within a Hz? 0.1 Hz?
Close enough that you don't have to make a second trip.
>And how did we standardize on 88 keys? Was that as far apart as one could
>spread one's arms back in the 1500s?
Yes. People were smaller then.
(I'm just in a silly mood today. Please overlook me)
Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Dealer/technician
Doing the work of three men..........Larry, Curly, and Moe.
none
>And I too, would like to know how close or accurate does one tune a piano?
>Within a Hz? 0.1 Hz?
To within 1/100th of a semitone.
>And how did we standardize on 88 keys? Was that as far apart as one could
>spread one's arms
>back in the 1500s?
The piano developed over time with a range that was useful and desired
by pianists. There are piano with more or less keys still being made.
I've seen modern 63 and 97 note pianos.
>--
>Colorado Dave
>"eromlignod" <gilm...@sealright.com> wrote in message
>news:26b7654c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
>> From what I can remember, the A440 standard was adopted by the
>> United States in the mid-twenties and then later adopted by an
>> international congress around WWII. Ostensibly this value was
>> agreed upon because it was a reasonable average of previous
>> standards and it could be evenly divided by two until A0 at
>> 27.5000 Hz. Before that, every piano maufacturer and even
>> individual opera houses had their own standards.
>>
>> Don
>>
I'd like to see several piano manufacturers build a piano with only 12
tons of tension to increase harmonic presence. One reason pitch
continues to increase is that most musicians want a brighter tone to
cut through and be heard. One way to get that brighter tone is to
scale a piano with the string tension close to the breaking point.
This also chokes some of the harmonics.
Nothing sound like 1850 piano/forte to hear some of the old classics.
After all, low tension scales are what these people wrote on.
If you've ever heard a true piano/forte concert, let us know your
reaction. I had tears on my cheeks because the music was unlike any I
heard before.
There is a place for low tension scaling in today's music and some
company ought to have the courage to lead the way!
Also, the piano could be a little lighter, and save my piano moving
back.
eromlignod
>Does one refer to specific notes like A0, A1, A2, or to their
>frequencies, i.e. A27.5, A55,...A440. (seems like the former is
>much easier)
Musically they are referred to as A0, Bb0, B0... with A0 being
the lowest note on an 88-key piano and C7 being the highest
note. This refers to the note as printed in music regardless of
its fundamental frequency. The letter system applies no matter
what standard is being used (e.g. A440 or A335).
>So (if I did my math correctly), on an 88 note keyboard, the
>lowest note is A0 at 27.5 Hz, and
>the highest note is C above A7 at 3947.61 Hz, and Middle C is 2
>notes above A220 which is 246.73 Hz.
>A0 = 27.50
>A1 = 55.00
>A2 = 110.00
>A3 = 220.00
>A4 = 440.00
>A5 = 880.00
>A6 = 1760.00
>A7 = 3520.00
You're right on the money with the A's but something happened to
your high C which should be 4186.009 Hz. Try the algorithm FREQ
(X) = 27.5 * (2 ^ (X/12)) where X is the note number with A0
being 0.
>And I too, would like to know how close or accurate does one
>tune a piano? Within a Hz? 0.1 Hz?
Since the frequencies increase exponentially as you go up, the
difference in frequency for a half-step is much larger at the
top end than the bottom. Because of this we can't refer to
accuracy universally in Hertz. Instead we use what are
called "cents" which are 1/100th of a half step no matter where
in the gamut. A cent at the bottom is about 0.016 Hz and about
2.35 Hz at the top. It is generally accepted that +/- one cent
is pretty well in tune.
>And how did we standardize on 88 keys? Was that as far apart as
>one could spread one's arms
>back in the 1500s?
I have also wondered about this. The piano is both the highest
and lowest western musical instrument there is, so any more
range might become ridiculous at some point. The original
keyboards (harpsichords, clavichords and organs) probably never
had anywhere near 88 keys, and still don't. The piano was
invented around 1700, but also probably didn't have 88 keys
until the nineteenth century or so. Somebody in this NG will
probably enlighten us--there's a lot of bright people here.
engelbrecht-wiggans richard
> I have been reading an article about tuning pipe organs and older pipe
> organs. Much of the discussion was that organs built before 1921 were
> voiced at A435 and tuned at 60degrees. After 1921, organs were built
> to be tuned at A440. ...
Having been gone for the last month, I seem to have missed much
of this thread (whew!), so this may be repeating something
said earlier.
Questions about "perfect pitch" will bring out lots of sementics
arguments about "perfect" versus "absolute" versus whatever. But
all that aside, some people have a sense of pitch significantly
different from (often in addition to) the typical musician.
For example, if my cello teacher closes her eyes and I play a
randomly selected pitch on my cello, she can tell me the name of
the note closest to that pitch. She can hear the difference
between a cello tuned to A=440 and one tuned to A=435...and is
so used to the former that the latter annoys her. (She once
told me that the "best" recording of certain baroque cello music
would be that by her husband except for the fact that he had tuned
his cello to something lower than A=440.)
Richard.
Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans, U of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois
email: epl...@uiuc.edu; (217) 333-1088
engelbrecht-wiggans richard
>
> >And I too, would like to know how close or accurate does one tune a piano?
> >Within a Hz? 0.1 Hz?
>
The overtones on piano strings don't occur exactly at the
integer multiples of the fundamental as they would for an "ideal"
string (and a good tuner will make compromises to compensate.)
The equally tempered scale (and any other scale with only 12
distinct pitches per octave) is a compromise of sorts.
I'd say that a well tuned piano is one which is least out of tune
with respect to itself. If you want a more quantitative answer, it
might help to first specify how "accuracy" is to be measured and to
what standard. For example, one might ask "What is the most that the
fundamental frequency of any string on a "well tuned" piano differs
from the corresponding pitch in an equal tempered scale based on
A=440?" With stretched octaves, muddy bass notes, etc, I'd expect
that the answer would be much closer to 1/10 a semitone than to 1/100
a semitone. (1/10 a semitone is about 1/6 Hz on the lowest note of a
piano.) If the standard is the pitch that a (good) string, woodwind
or brass player would play in any possible context, then the answer is
probably a good bit more than 1/10th of a semitone simply because a
piano only admits 12 distinct notes per octave.
Clark
Keyboards have steadily increased compass over time; octave span, on the
other hand has fluctuated. The number of notes encompassed by keyboards
has not been constant either, from early Pythagorean diatonic schemes
there have also been short bass octaves, various extended Meantone
arrangements and more recent, explicitly microtonal systems which might
not even share the same harmonic basis.
Organs and many harpsichords multiplex keys, where stop lengths produce
several different octaves of a given note - and a few can alternate
between enharmonic notes. Despite its 3+ octave keyboards, the organ is
cited for the widest pitch range of any instrument (my own vote is cast
for the computer). It is interesting that these instruments continue to
be tuned to more antique reference pitches, and often in less uniform
tuning systems though markedly less stretched than modern pianos.
The modern piano cannot be extended much further in the treble due
constraints both of wire and hammer size (Titanium wire can't work,
unfortunately); it can be extended further in the bass, although given
current scaling practice it might not always prove musically rewarding.
Clark
eromlignod
>integer multiples of the fundamental as they would for
>an "ideal"
>string (and a good tuner will make compromises to compensate.)
>The equally tempered scale (and any other scale with only 12
>distinct pitches per octave) is a compromise of sorts.
>I'd say that a well tuned piano is one which is least out of
>tune with respect to itself. If you want a more quantitative
>answer, it might help to first specify how "accuracy" is to be
>measured and to what standard. For example, one might ask "What
>is the most that the fundamental frequency of any string on
>a "well tuned" piano differs from the corresponding pitch in an
>equal tempered scale based on A=440?" With stretched octaves,
>muddy bass notes, etc, I'd expect that the answer would be much
>closer to 1/10 a semitone than to 1/100 a semitone. (1/10 a
>semitone is about 1/6 Hz on the lowest note of a piano.) If the
>standard is the pitch that a (good) string, woodwind or brass
>player would play in any possible context, then the answer is
>probably a good bit more than 1/10th of a semitone simply
>because a piano only admits 12 distinct notes per octave.
>Richard.
Richard is absolutely correct. The +/- one cent I was referring
to was mainly a guideline for string-to-string unisons (there
are up to three strings tuned in unison in the piano that are
struck simultaneously). These have to be quite accurate to
avoid undesirable "deadbeats".
The phenomenon of "stretching" in the upper and lower registers
is a compromise since while the fundamentals may be in tune
between octaves using equal temperament values, the harmonics
may not. If the strings are stretched a little sharp in the
upper registers and correspondingly flat in the lower ones, the
notes will just "sound" better, even though they are slightly
out of tune with the mathematically "correct" equal
temperament. The amount that the strings are stretched varies
with the size and make of the piano owing to differences in what
stray harmonics are produced for a given string gauge & length,
harp design, sound board shape, etc.
none
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, it was written:
>
>>
>> >And I too, would like to know how close or accurate does one tune a piano?
>> >Within a Hz? 0.1 Hz?
>>
>> To within 1/100th of a semitone.
>The overtones on piano strings don't occur exactly at the
>integer multiples of the fundamental as they would for an "ideal"
>string (and a good tuner will make compromises to compensate.)
>The equally tempered scale (and any other scale with only 12
>distinct pitches per octave) is a compromise of sorts.
>I'd say that a well tuned piano is one which is least out of tune
>with respect to itself.
That is an excellant of description - finding the least offensive
pitches. Offensive is a strong word but great ears hear the subtlties.
> If you want a more quantitative answer, it
>might help to first specify how "accuracy" is to be measured and to
>what standard. For example, one might ask "What is the most that the
>fundamental frequency of any string on a "well tuned" piano differs
>from the corresponding pitch in an equal tempered scale based on
>A=440?" With stretched octaves, muddy bass notes, etc, I'd expect
>that the answer would be much closer to 1/10 a semitone than to 1/100
>a semitone. (1/10 a semitone is about 1/6 Hz on the lowest note of a
>piano.) If the standard is the pitch that a (good) string, woodwind
>or brass player would play in any possible context, then the answer is
>probably a good bit more than 1/10th of a semitone simply because a
>piano only admits 12 distinct notes per octave.
A bone to pick -- I agree with that too, but most tuners tune to
within 1/100 of that 1/10 variation. 1/10 is easily heard on most of
the piano. I can hear to 1/100 in the middle. But I must use a
technique akin to calibration. I use two tuning forks. One is detuned
by about 1.5 cycles per second. I place each fork to opposite ears and
hear the phasing or beats. I then match that phasing to the string on
the piano using the detuned fork. (I hope this is understanable.)
Colorado Dave
"mathematically perfect"
but had no idea it was so complex. I always enjoy learning about new
subjects. One of these
days I will buy some of the recommended books and do some reading.
Regarding my C7 being off, I goofed. I only multiplied 3520*(1.059)*2
instead of 3
(forgot the Bb). And I got rounding errors as I don't own a scientific calc
that will compute
the 12th root of 2.
--
Colorado Dave
"eromlignod" <gilm...@sealright.com> wrote in message
news:03a68b34...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
> Hi, Dave:
John Gavin
red has a range of lightness to darkness - traffic light red is
different from sunset red. Similarly notes heard by a perfect pitch
musician have a recognizable range. 435 is simply heard as an A which
is a bit lower than a 440. The notion that it disorients a musician is
not at all true.
Larry Fletcher
>is a bit lower than a 440. The notion that it disorients a musician is
>not at all true.
You are quite correct. However, that is exactly where most defenders of
"perfect pitch end up - telling tales of hearing dead on within 2 cents of
pitch, losing their minds because the piano was 1.7859873% off pitch, etc.
"proving" that perfect pitch is some God given gift only bestowed on a few
chosen people, and thus your statement can't possibly be right. It shows that
people elevate it into the realm of a Houdini parlor trick, and then admire
those who possess it. Your statement *is* correct, and is further proof that
perfect pitch does not exist, and the parlor trick is performed from memory.
Ed Dzubak
You are 100 per cent correct. "Perfect Pitch" is actually Perfect
Pitch Memory.
Often in the press, when there's not much going on in the world
at large and a real story about music or art is just too tough to
tackle; stories about perfect pitch get played up as some amazing
attribute. It's as if the press feels if you don't have it, you
can't possibly be a good musician. I don't have to list, here,
all the fine composers and musicians who never posessed perfect
pitch (in fact, Copland claimed to have a "slow" ear).
The press also likes the ridiculous notion that classical music
(namely Mozart) can somehow make one smarter if listened to at an
early age. Of course, there's no credible evidence to support
this idea, and common sense would ask us why there would be.
But common sense is in short supply these days.
Ed
--
LstPuritan
> I don't have to list, here,
>all the fine composers and musicians who never posessed perfect
>pitch (in fact, Copland claimed to have a "slow" ear).
Wagner and Schoenberg come to mind as important "non-absolute pitchers."
Wagner, just because he was BIG, and Schoenberg because people say to me "you
must need to have perfect pitch to appreciate Schoenberg because I can't hear
the tone rows so this music must be composed for the *elite few* who can hear
the colors [?!?] of the rows and inversions."
--Justin
**************************
www.mp3.com/justin_d_scott
**************************
Liszt, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Bach
Fractal Composition, Original Works
Debussy Orchestrations, and More
Don
wrote:
>Larry,
>
>You are 100 per cent correct. "Perfect Pitch" is actually Perfect
>Pitch Memory.
I would call it a highly developed pitch memory rather than "perfect"
>Often in the press, ...
> It's as if the press feels if ...
>The press also likes...
Yes we elect presidents and buy autos and shaving cream by the image
presented by the press rather than facts.
I am always amazed when someone uses the term "baby grand" as if it is
something to be proud of.
1. There is NO official designation of "baby grand." It was also
popularized by the press and song-writers.
2. A piano short enough to be called a baby-grand would be the worst
sounding of grand pianos. Short pianos simply sound inferior to
larger grand pianos!!!
>But common sense is in short supply these days.
AMEN!!!
eromlignod
>have perfect pitch to appreciate Schoenberg because I can't
>hear the tone rows so this music must be composed for the
>*elite few* who can hear the colors [?!?] of the rows and
>inversions."
>--Justin
It's funny how music closely follows art: baroque, romantic,
impressionism, contemporary. Contemporary music I find elusive.
When I was a little boy, my mother (an art major) would take me
to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art here in KC. When we got to
the comtemporary section I was confused. I would say, "mom,
that's just a square on a piece of paper." She would tell
me, "that's art. You'll understand better when you grow up."
When I was a teenager I started reading the descriptions next to
the "art" and the long, metaphoric tales they told. I saw
country hicks saying, "gawd damn! That ain't nuthin' but a
splotch!" and imagined myself intellectually superior to them.
But as I grew older, I began to look at this "art" with a
different eye. It suddenly occured to me: "maybe this is all a
scam?" I can put a square on a piece of paper; I can weld a
bunch of rusty pieces of metal together; I can toss cans of
paint on a huge canvas. And I can guarantee you that people
would come up with every type of chimerical description you
could imagine--EVEN THOUGH I NEVER INTENDED TO DO ANYTHING BUT
MAKE A MESS.
With contemporary "music", to fool yourself into thinking that
there must be some sort of intellectual thing that everyone else
is hearing is just falling into the trap IMO. Those who claim
to have this "gift" of understanding are mostly being
elitist. "Don't you get it?" they say. Well, no. I'm an
accomplished musician of many years' experience and, no, I don't
get it. Tchaikowski was a genius, Pollack is not.
Someday someone will have the nerve to say, "the emperor is not
wearing any clothes," and we can all just look back on the
twentieth century with ridicule. In the mean time I'll just
continue to think if it as a "splotch".
LstPuritan
>With contemporary "music", to fool yourself into thinking that
>there must be some sort of intellectual thing that everyone else
>is hearing is just falling into the trap IMO. Those who claim
>to have this "gift" of understanding are mostly being
>elitist. "Don't you get it?" they say. Well, no. I'm an
>accomplished musician of many years' experience and, no, I don't
>get it.
Go here:
http://community.cc.pima.edu/users/larry/diss7.htm
And tell me if you start to "get it," any of it at all. Elitist hoax or just
something very musical and very valid that not many people choose to learn and
instead relate to a blotch on a canvas and the whole "postmodern art" thing
because they don't want to be *troubled* with something new?
You're looking at a single dot and saying "A dot is meaningless and there's
nothing particularly special about it. Heck, I can make a dot." But you
haven't stepped back and seen that a whole bunch of dots form a coherent and
beautiful picture because you have your nose stuck so close to one dot refusing
to acknowledge that the larger picture is art, rather than a whole bunch of
dots passed off as music by a group of mysterious counterfeiters.
This sounds like the whole perfect pitch thread(s) all over again. There's
nothing magical about 20th century music and no "gift" is needed to hear what
entheusiests—like me—*do* hear and appreciate about what you call a "splotch"
of a century. IMO, the 19th century was the major "splotch" which delayed the
development of music for about 100 years in many respects, and only in this,
the 20th century, have we begun to gain back some of the lost ground.
>Tchaikowski was a genius, Pollack is not.
Webern was a genius, Chopin was not.
Doesn't prove much just to say it. I'm prepared to back up my claims, though,
because I think I understand Webern and Chopin enough. Do you understand both
Tchaikowski _and_ Pollack enough to make a case for your statement?
I haven't begun to reply to your message because I hoped you would first
acknowledge through the website I gave you above (a very thorough analysis of
Bartok Music for Celeste and Webern Op. 27 Piano Variations [one of my personal
favorite pieces] with scores) that there was more going on in the music than
you expected. The 20th century emperor's clothes are quite exquisite; but the
lenses needed to bring them into clear focus are quite different than those
needed to see Liszt, which is different than the lenses needed to see Bach.
>It's funny how music closely follows art: baroque, romantic,
>impressionism, contemporary.
You left out Renaissance. And we are back there (rather, at the crux of a new
one) right now.
>Contemporary music I find elusive.
What does it mean for music to be elusive? Are you sure you mean that?
Or something else?
eromlignod
I'll admit that the first guy that put a dot on paper was making
a statement. From then on it's meaningless for anyone else to
do the same. I see exhibitions by art students and it's all the
same any more. Welded-up, tempera-painted crap. Finger
paintings. I don't blame them: they've found out how to make
money. They've been doing it since WWI.
If *I* weld up a monstrosity and put it on public display are
you saying that you can tell the difference between it and a
similar one standing next to it by a "real" artist? What
hogwash! I challenge you!
When did art cease to require talent? By your definition
*everything* is art and anything can be intellectually
interpreted.
Obviously you're still dwelling in what I referred to as my
elitist "teenage years". Since you are barely more than a
teenager, I'll try to be understanding.
Incidentally, if your going to start a new thread based on one
of my postings, you could at least print the entire post in
addition to your usual harangue. :-)
Don
>...and Schoenberg because people say to me "you must need to
>have perfect pitch to appreciate Schoenberg because I can't
>hear the tone rows so this music must be composed for the
>*elite few* who can hear the colors [?!?] of the rows and
>inversions."
>--Justin
>It's funny how music closely follows art: baroque, romantic,
>impressionism, contemporary. Contemporary music I find elusive.
>When I was a little boy, my mother (an art major) would take me
>to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art here in KC. When we got to
>the comtemporary section I was confused. I would say, "mom,
>that's just a square on a piece of paper." She would tell
>me, "that's art. You'll understand better when you grow up."
>When I was a teenager I started reading the descriptions next
>to the "art" and the long, metaphoric tales they told. I saw
>country hicks saying, "gawd damn! That ain't nuthin' but a
>splotch!" and imagined myself intellectually superior to them.
>But as I grew older, I began to look at this "art" with a
>different eye. It suddenly occured to me: "maybe this is all a
>scam?" I can put a square on a piece of paper; I can weld a
>bunch of rusty pieces of metal together; I can toss cans of
>paint on a huge canvas. And I can guarantee you that people
>would come up with every type of chimerical description you
>could imagine--EVEN THOUGH I NEVER INTENDED TO DO ANYTHING BUT
>MAKE A MESS.
>With contemporary "music", to fool yourself into thinking that
>there must be some sort of intellectual thing that everyone
>else is hearing is just falling into the trap IMO. Those who
>claim to have this "gift" of understanding are mostly being
>elitist. "Don't you get it?" they say. Well, no. I'm an
>accomplished musician of many years' experience and, no, I
>don't get it. Tchaikowski was a genius, Pollack is not.
eromlignod
looked over the post I just made in rebuttal to Justin and saw
that it was acid indeed. Sorry Justin, not trying to start a
big fight with you (I don't have time to read all the posts ;-)).
And to clarify my position a little: I'm mainly referring to the
most radically abstract of art--not Liechtenstein, for example.
I like impressionism and *some* contemporary art (both music and
other art forms). It's just the utter nonsense that irritates
me. And there's literally tons of it. Small art galleries are
lousy with it. It can't *all* be fine art.
And I find it particularly patronizing when would-be art critics
defend these works by implying that I just don't have the
intellect to hear the difference, when they wouldn't know a key
signature if it bit them in the ass.
I'd love to hear your continued thoughts on this as always,
Justin.
Don
Carl Tait
eromlignod <gilm...@sealright.com> wrote:
>
>With contemporary "music", to fool yourself into thinking that
>there must be some sort of intellectual thing that everyone else
>is hearing is just falling into the trap IMO.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, some of the 20th century's
greatest artistic accomplishments would have been written off as garbage
150 years ago: Bartok's Fourth Quartet, Schoenberg's "Pierrot lunaire" --
even "The Waste Land" of T. S. Eliot (not to mention Joyce's "Finnegans
Wake"). The century was remarkable for its exploration of new forms
and new ideas; some wildly unconventional masterpieces emerged in which
form and content merged beautifully to produce striking results.
On the other hand, there was probably no century in which it was
easier to hornswoggle one's way into the world of art. To oversimplify
grotesquely, most of the clinkers got in through one of two doors:
intellectual masturbation or outright fraud via pseudo-profundity.
The intellectual types went in for complex, mathematically-motivated
structures ("pure" was the musical catchword in the '50s). Not all
of these pieces are bad -- Berg, in particular, produced some fine
works by playing fast and loose with the rules -- but the majority of
these compositions have an ugliness and emotional sterility unmatched
by any other music I know.
Even worse, though, are the charlatans who achieved notoriety
through trivia masquerading as deep philosophical statements.
I'm still baffled as to how anyone can read John Cage's book
"Silence" without doubling over in laughter; it is one of the most
(unintentionally) hilarious books I've ever read. Cage's "music,"
such as it is, is equally awful without being nearly as funny.
A few years ago, I wrote the following parody off the top of my head
just to see if these ersatz insights were as easy to come up with
as they appeared to be. They were.
********************************
1. Harmony of the Cubes (for violinist and crapshooter)
The violinist plays the highest harmonic possible. The crapshooter rolls
his dice over and over, flinging them into the low register of a grand
piano. When the dice total seven, the roller screams, "I have heard the
sound of three hands clapping" and the violinist switches to a double stop
on a major seventh. When the shooter craps out, he whispers "Klaatu
barada nikto" over and over until the audience falls asleep and/or leaves.
2. A Koan for Robert
Four vocalists repeat the name "Rauschenberg" over and over at random
times in a quiet, questioning tone with the accent moving uncertainly from
syllable to syllable. At the same time, a pianist plays the first prelude
from Bach's WTC backwards (note for note), then plays it forwards. The
forward performance should begin with very unsteady rhythm, then gradually
smooth out. As the prelude assumes its familiar form, the vocalists
become louder and more assured. On the final chord, all four vocalists
triumphantly announce the name in unison.
3. Australopithecus Flambe'
A pianist comes on stage wearing a gorilla suit. He begins to play "Auld
Lang Syne" on the clarinet. In the middle of the piece, he stops playing
and begins to eat a bowl of Cherries Jubilee while beating the rhythm of
Ravel's Bolero with his left foot. Only one audience member may applaud.
And some scholarly commentary on the third piece:
********************************
This masterpiece, one of Cage's most moving and provocative, has more
layers than it is possible for this humble writer to analyze. The title
suggests humankind's origins and the quest for fire, which ended with a
fundamental new discovery that could never have been envisioned at the
start of the quest. Cage's reference to the traditional New Year's
song suggests a longing for more innocent times filled with "old
acquaintance[s]" before the powerful yet terrifying agent of fire was
found. But the naked ape in all of us realizes that knowledge, once
discovered, can never be lost, and Cage's heartbreaking metaphor of
Cherries Jubilee -- the most decadent and selfish use of fire one could
imagine -- drives this point home with profound force. The sexual imagery
of Ravel's Bolero is set against the lonely approbation of a single
audience member to reinforce the idea.
The piece is full of wonderful "Cage-y" contradictions: even the most
casual zoologist is aware that Australopithecus was not a gorilla.
Combining this with the wrenching effect of a pianist being forced to
perform on the clarinet, it is clear that Cage is pointing to our
universal lack of empowerment to maintain boundaries, our unwillingness
to bend to pressures that force us into wholly inappropriate roles --
and ultimately, our reluctant capitulation to conformity and our
eventual enjoyment of our new-found constraints. Tragic and heroic,
"Australopithecus Flambe'" remains one of the great compositions
of our age -- or indeed, of any age.
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Hawthorne, NY 10532
Clark
> > 435 is simply heard as an A which
> >is a bit lower than a 440. The notion that it disorients a musician is
> >not at all true.
I think this is contextual, perhaps when 435hz is related less beatfully
to some other frequency. Every temperament is artificial, doubly in the
context of pianos.
Anyone exposed to music is ear trained, and now this is through 12tET.
No wonder something like PP should be so limited, that a flatter
interval equals a sharper. Perhaps there is a short circuit, though, if
certain less-fixed instrumental musicians aren't trained to such
rigorous standards 'modern' music will lack the same clarity that is
lacking in 12tET 'classical' works.
To my non-PP ears, the distinctions are very clear, where original
temperaments almost beat against what is played. This is not
intellectual, since my relative disinterest in most common practice
works has meant I haven't bothered to figure out what temperament
they're supposed to be tuned to.
I have read many unconvincing analogies between pictoral and musical
arts, which Don has perpetuated here; representational sounds have not
entered the mainstream musical vocabulary any better than Just sounds.
Tchaikowski played on a 19-tone piano - you may see, but do you hear
this many tones?
Clark
Larry Fletcher
>Larry,
>
>You are 100 per cent correct. "Perfect Pitch" is actually Perfect
>Pitch Memory.
>
Thank you, Ed. Also, did you happen to notice how, in another thread, it only
took about 3 posts in a row of pro "perfect pitch" proponents before it ended
up, just like I said it always does - being given divine authority? And how
quickly it went back to being an innate "gift" bestowed on a chosen few? It
never fails.
People who argue for the concept of "perfect pitch", divine endowment, innate
ability, that the chosen few "just do it", or any of the other ways they choose
to avoid facing the fact that it is simply a learned trait, should read the
resume of Dr. Diana Deutsch
http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/~ddeutsch/
A person would be hard pressed to minimize her credentials on the subject of
pitch memory. And she says it is *learned*. And if her work is accurate (and
I'm certain it is) then it can be taught to anyone, and the fact that only a
"chosen few" have it is because our culture continues to want to view it as a
mystical badge of honor either randomly occurring or being bestowed on the
Elect.
Only when those who keep defending the term "perfect pitch" and all the
surrounding supernatural crap that is constantly associated with it open their
eyes and see what it is that is being said, and then work toward learning about
it rationally will it ever be of any benefit other than a parlor trick. The sad
part is, those who keep defending it are the very ones who would be the best
qualified to teach pitch memory.
LstPuritan
>I'll admit that the first guy that put a dot on paper was making
>a statement.
You missed the point, so to speak. I was referring to visual art where from a
distance you see a coherent picture, but closer up you realize that the whole
picture is made up of tiny dots, and you have to step back to a different level
of understanding with an open mind to see the picture that is there.
> From then on it's meaningless for anyone else to
>do the same. I see exhibitions by art students and it's all the
>same any more. Welded-up, tempera-painted crap. Finger
>paintings. I don't blame them: they've found out how to make
>money. They've been doing it since WWI.
Agreed. I liken this unto the piano lid slamming, string grabbing,
ridiculously short-lived ideas of "avant garde" music that found its audience
for novelty value alone. There is more there, though, once you strain the 20th
century to flush the gimmicks get flushed down the drain.
>If *I* weld up a monstrosity and put it on public display are
>you saying that you can tell the difference between it and a
>similar one standing next to it by a "real" artist? What
>hogwash! I challenge you!
Missed the point; see earlier comment about the 'dot.' I have no doubt that
you, I, and a two year old toddler could imitate certain "abstract" art quite
well. What I'm saying is that Schoenberg is not abstract, and is not the
musical version of this type of visual art.
>When did art cease to require talent? By your definition
>*everything* is art and anything can be intellectually
>interpreted.
Did you go to the webpage I gave you?
>Obviously you're still dwelling in what I referred to as my
>elitist "teenage years". Since you are barely more than a
>teenager, I'll try to be understanding.
If you want to bring age into this, we can. Think about it before you try to
play the age card again, please. Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant.
And usually ends up messy.
Deepak says I should hold my toungue for now.
So I shall.
>Incidentally, if your going to start a new thread based on one
>of my postings, you could at least print the entire post in
>addition to your usual harangue. :-)
I haven't begun responding to your original message because I wanted to hear
your reaction to the webpage to which I gave you the link. It dispels your
sentiment that "anything can be intellecualized" is an appropriate validation
of your wanting understanding of 20th century music. That's why I asked
whether you mean that the music was elusive, "or something else." There is no
elusion in the music per se; there is a mental repression on your part by which
you have formed an attitude of "anti-elitist elitism," when I don't think you
understand fully what you are dismissing in this mindframe.
LstPuritan
>Whoah! I just pulled a Catherine (just kidding, Catherine). I
>looked over the post I just made in rebuttal to Justin and saw
>that it was acid indeed.
That's why I held my tongue. : }
>And to clarify my position a little: I'm mainly referring to the
>most radically abstract of art--not Liechtenstein, for example.
>I like impressionism and *some* contemporary art (both music and
>other art forms). It's just the utter nonsense that irritates
>me. And there's literally tons of it. Small art galleries are
>lousy with it. It can't *all* be fine art.
I agree with you. I am not pointing to a splotch on a canvas and stating "This
is the cosmic vortex of the collective unconscious, and it is BLACK because we
all DIE eventually." I was trying to advocate understanding the musical art
composed this century which truly seems to be based on extensive thought and
displays structural and functional feats of coherence outside the realm of
tonality. If you understand it, and still don't like it, you won't hear
complaints from me.
>And I find it particularly patronizing when would-be art critics
>defend these works by implying that I just don't have the
>intellect to hear the difference, when they wouldn't know a key
>signature if it bit them in the ass.
I'm no sentimentalist, and no romantic. My girlfriend attends the Academy of
Art in SF, and she gives me long speeches about some type of abstract painting
and what I don't understand about art and I agree with you about the
condescending attitudes people have about music and art. This is not me (I
hope). I'm the first person to yell "he's slamming the freaking lid; that's
not music" and although John Cage's 4'33" is interesting intellectually, to
actually arrange and perform this piece is silly, IMO, and I would be the first
to yell "Um... excuse me, but THIS SUCKS!"
>I'd love to hear your continued thoughts on this as always,
>Justin.
Don, I didn't want to start a heated argument with you (unless you want; I
don't hold grudges >:} ). I've heard you state you didn't like Schoenberg, and
I assume the same would go for Berg and Bartok and Webern. That's why I gave
you the websites, for you to check out when you have time and—if you like—let
me know what you think, and if your opinion that it's all a big
pseudo-intellectual elitist hoax is at all changed.
http://community.cc.pima.edu/users/larry/diss.htm
http://community.cc.pima.edu/users/larry/diss7.htm
What makes a fugue music? On the surface, it's just a melody displaced and
transposed one or more times. Seems pretty gimmicky to me. Why is it art?
What about Bach is different from Webern? What is the same? Which (if either,
neither, or both) is "real" art and which is "fake"? The page above considers
symmetry as a compositional determinant, and starts with Bach and moves on to
Bartok and Webern and more. Poke around if you have time, and any inclination
to explore something new.
Later,
LstPuritan
note for me; as one who took classes on Greek scansion labeling dactyls and
spondees and caesuras and learning to see the beauty of epic Greek poetry as a
function of a clearly defined form, I *HATED* The Waste Land when I first read
it. I wasn't indifferent to it, I really *HATED* it because I did not
understand it, and figured that anyone who considered something so formless,
discordant, and random a masterpiece is a gullible fool. I see this attitute
toward Schoenberg (Pierrot Lunaire, for example) all the time. People aren't
indifferent to Schoenberg, they let their knee-jerk emotional reaction to
dictate their judgement and they HATE Pierrot Lunaire as much as I hated The
Waste Land.
What I know now (and had repressed at the time) is that I hated The Waste Land
because I did not understand it and other people claimed to, which frustrated
me greatly. When I realized that I was acting ignorantly, I found several
books on The Waste Land, the website
http://world.std.com/~raparker/exploring/thewasteland/explore.html
which has every word as a hypertext link with cross-references and a
comprehensive guide to approaching the work, and several other sources. I had
a lot of prejudices to overcome to get over my dismissal of all "free-form"
poetry because of my obsession with the strict form of Homer and Virgil, but I
swallowed my pride and after bashing The Waste Land for a number of months in
another newsgroup, I reversed my opinion completely. Complete 180 degrees,
publicly. It taught me a lesson, though. I don't pass judgements on things I
don't understand anymore, and the more I don't like something the more I try to
understand it if only to know _why_ I don't like it.
<<The century was remarkable for its exploration of new forms and new ideas...
...there was probably no century in which it was
easier to hornswoggle one's way into the world of art.>>
Well said.
Your biting parody (especially the mock critics' responses) was brilliant and
right exactly on the mark. : }
Ed Dzubak
You don't have to convince me, psuedo-science is one of the most
pervasive ills going.
People would rather believe in the stupidist, unproven nonsense
than in what common sense and intellectual curiosity would and
should lead them.
Trouble is, the truth is almost always more interesting than the
psuedo-science explanation.
That's why we still have ufo's, sightings of the mother mary,
magic rocks....... fill in the blanks.
Ed
--
Larry Fletcher
>You don't have to convince me, psuedo-science is one of the most
>pervasive ills going.
>
>That's why we still have ufo's, sightings of the mother mary,
>magic rocks....... fill in the blanks.
But there's still hope. Someone finally convinced people to quit sacrificing
virgins to the volcano god.
Carl Tait
LstPuritan <lstpu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Great post, Carl.
Thanks! I had a good time with it: as someone who's often the
in-between guy in modern art/music discussions with my friends,
it was fun to dump it all on the table.
>Your mention of T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" hit a personal
>note for me; [...] I really *HATED* it because I did not
>understand it, and figured that anyone who considered something so
>formless, discordant, and random a masterpiece is a gullible fool.
That was the reaction of a number of well-respected critics when the
poem was published. TIME magazine thought it had to be a joke. William
Carlos Williams disliked the poem his entire life, but that was almost
certainly a difference in aesthetics rather than a thoughtless dismissal.
>I see this attitute
>toward Schoenberg (Pierrot Lunaire, for example) all the time. [...]
>
>What I know now (and had repressed at the time) is that I hated The Waste Land
>because I did not understand it and other people claimed to, which frustrated
>me greatly.
I see what you mean, and fully agree it's important not to make
the all-too-common mistake of confusing bafflement with hatred.
At the same time (here goes the guy-in-the-middle act again),
if you approach something unfamiliar with an open mind and find
that your honest gut reaction *is* hatred or revulsion, I wouldn't
hold out a lot of hope that you'll ever come to love the work.
Eliot himself put it this way (in his book on Dante, but in the
midst of a more general discussion):
"If you get nothing out of it at first, you probably never will;
but if from your first deciphering of it there comes now and then
some direct shock of poetic intensity, nothing but laziness can
deaden the desire for fuller and fuller knowledge. ... I have
always found that the less I knew about the poet and his work, before
I began to read it, the better. ... it is better to be spurred to
acquire scholarship because you enjoy the poetry, than to suppose
that you enjoy the poetry because you have acquired the scholarship."
For me, the most promising reaction to a challenging art work is
a feeling of puzzled curiosity combined with intermittent flashes
of "Oooh, this part is really good" -- which was, in fact, my initial
reaction to "The Waste Land." On the other hand, I loved Pierrot lunaire
the first time I heard it, which seems to be true of a lot of people
who enjoy the piece (while others vomit in horror).
>When I realized that I was acting ignorantly, I found several
>books on The Waste Land, the website
>
>http://world.std.com/~raparker/exploring/thewasteland/explore.html
Yes, that's a great site. I'd also recommend Nancy Gish's book
"The Waste Land: A Poem of Memory and Desire." It's thorough but
straightforward; no postmodern buzzwords. Side note to anyone
considering a plunge into this notoriously difficult poem: tracking
down the numerous allusions isn't nearly as important to a basic
understanding of the work as you might think. If the poem grabs you,
you'll *want* to follow all the tributaries -- they add a lot --
but the main stream flows quite well on its own. Use an edition
that provides translations for the non-English phrases (e.g., the Web
site above), think "mosaic"/"different voices"/"heap of broken images,"
and dive right in.
M.R.E.
"Carl Tait" <ta...@diamond.cs.columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8lntu0$m...@diamond.cs.columbia.edu...
<snip>
> On the other hand, there was probably no century in which it was
> easier to hornswoggle one's way into the world of art. To oversimplify
> grotesquely, most of the clinkers got in through one of two doors:
> intellectual masturbation or outright fraud via pseudo-profundity.
<snip>
> Even worse, though, are the charlatans who achieved notoriety
> through trivia masquerading as deep philosophical statements.
> I'm still baffled as to how anyone can read John Cage's book
> "Silence" without doubling over in laughter; it is one of the most
> (unintentionally) hilarious books I've ever read. Cage's "music,"
> such as it is, is equally awful without being nearly as funny.
>
> A few years ago, I wrote the following parody off the top of my head
[etc...]
<snip>
> 1. Harmony of the Cubes (for violinist and crapshooter)
<snip>
> 2. A Koan for Robert
<snip>
> 3. Australopithecus Flambé
Well, as a composer, all I can say is:
"PLEASE, don't participate in any competitions...
the way things have been going for me lately, you'd probably win 1st place!"
I agree with you completely.
Here I am, trying to compose "music", and the winners in all the
competitions "create events"...
I can't compete with tubas blowing into open pianos while dancing Irish jigs
in platform clogs!
P.S. Anyone interested in reading a new piano concerto? You can hum the
melodies... well, most of them ;-)
--
Michel R. Edward, Compositeur
Montréal, Québec
<<Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast>>
Don
Fletcher) wrote:
>>From: Ed Dzubak
>
>>You don't have to convince me, psuedo-science is one of the most
>>pervasive ills going.
>>
>
>>That's why we still have ufo's, sightings of the mother mary,
>>magic rocks....... fill in the blanks.
>
>But there's still hope. Someone finally convinced people to quit sacrificing
>virgins to the volcano god.
Yeah...and where I am from in Tennessee, we have other things we do
with virgins...examples of which I cannot mention due to restraints of
the statute of limitations!
<gr>
D*
Time is ever so important when playing ragtime. It all started when a
pianist named Alexander Berlin invented a wrist metronome made of used
fabric from his mother's sewing basket. He called it "Alexander's ..."
Carl Tait
M.R.E. <leco...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>Here I am, trying to compose "music", and the winners in all the
>competitions "create events"...
>I can't compete with tubas blowing into open pianos while dancing
>Irish jigs in platform clogs!
Dear Sir,
I'm afraid you just don't understand the true meaning of my
latest masterpiece, "Tap Dance of the Valkyries." The tubas are
a clear reference to Wagner and his vile prejudices, as reflected
in England's patriarchal hegemony over Ireland. The oppressed,
as is so often the case, are struggling to maintain their cultural
identity by continuing to practice their traditional arts even as
their ungainly, flatulent enemies attempt to quash them. The open
pianos are used for their sympathetic vibrations, a compelling
reminder of the audible but ultimately vacuous sympathy that
Ireland's plight has engendered.
Pompously yours,
John Cage Jr.
Winner, Mount Ebank Competition for Fraudulent Composers
Tom W. Ferguson
The subtle siren influence of Vonnegut is everywhere.