|
yea dudes that looks like hogwash but there are also stuff like this http://www.schillerinstitute.org/music/rev_chart.html + Show Spoiler +The Tradition of Florentine Bel Canto
Composition of Classical music, according to the Italian Renaissance principle of bel canto, ("beautiful singing") is one of the best examples of mankind's ability to discover an existing physical principle, and to use that discovery to create new works of science and art, which then increase humanity's power to build civilization.
Today, bel canto signifies the physical principle, discovered in the Fifteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and his collaborators, that the human singing voice is innately endowed wth differentiated voice registers and other qualities, which allow a composer to create a unique density of new ideas in a musical work.
As Leonardo indicated in his treatise on the human voice, bel canto singing can be compared to painting, because of the conscious use of 'colors' in the voice, either as natural colors (conferred by the different registers), or as a conscious change of color for purposes of interpretation.
For example, great singers are able to make theri voices darker while singing a part in a Lied corresponding to a change in the poetic text, or a change from major to minor, or to make them lighter in a particularly joyful part.
Generally, the audience will perceive a clear register shift from the second to the third, high register (particularly in the tenor voice, which is stronger), as a change in color, (See Bergonzi program., 1993). Physically, the shift from the soprano's first to second register, is located in the scale precisely where the tenor's shift from second to third register occurs, which is between the F-F# above middle C, (with C tuned to the scientific tuning of C=256Hz, or A at 430.5- 432HZ.)
Third register notes, if sung with the right impostazione (placement), have a particular brilliance, which they lose if they are shouted, or sung in the throat, where they become opaque. First register notes, being sung mostly with a chest resonance, are perceived as darker notes. This implies that each note of the scale does not have the same value for singing.
Great composers such as J.S. Bach, Mozart Beethoven and Verdi were aware of these differences in registration when they wrote their vocal works, and Bach developed the well tempered scale based on this palette of vocal colors.
Since instruments are an imitation of the bel canto singing voice, they echo the natural registration of the six species of voices, the only difference being that they introduce a new degree of freedom, often allowing motivic development, by moving from one voice to the next. (See Concert at C=256 and also interview with violinist Norbert Brainin)
Thus, when a composer constructs a musical composition, he has six species of the adult singing voice-- soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto, tenor, baritone, and bass (above)- each containing three or four different registral "voices", a well defined palette of colors, with which to "paint."
The Campaign To Lower the Tuning Pitch
On April 9, 1988 at a conference on "Music and Classical Aesthetics" sponsored by the Schiller Institute at the Casa Verdi in Milan, Italy, a worldwide campaign was launched to restore the lower tuning pitch of the classical composers from Bach through Verdi, a pitch based on a Middle C of 256 Hz, which in turn is grounded in the physical laws of our universe.
This campaign had been originally inspired by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., whose collaborators uncovered the historical evidence that Giuseppe Verdi, Italy's great composer and nation-builder, had successfully battled to impose a diapason of A=432, based on Middle C=256, as the official tuning of the Italian armed forces in 1884.
November 6, 1988 will undoubtedly go down in musical history since, on this day, in an internationally famous musical Institute, the scientific proof was given that music sounds more beautiful in the "Verdi tuning" of C=256 Hz (corresponds to A=432 Hz) than in the higher tuning commonly used today.
In a simple but extraordinarily conclusive experiment, it was demonstrated that the sounds produced in the low tuning have a greater abundance of overtones. The result: The sounds have more color, and their volume and carrying capacity are greater. If we employ the mathematical physics of Gauss and Riemann in an appropriate way, we are able to supply a rigorous form of intelligible representation of creative mental activity as this applies to valid fundamental discoveries in the physical sciences, and applies also to creativity in classical musical compositions of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al. By examining counterpoint from this vantage-point, we are able to show how creativity is explicitly represented in such compositions, and how the registral characteristics of vocal polyphony function within the well-tempered domain to provide the ground upon which creative activity works.
It happens, that creative mental processes have the same characteristic we associate with the classical harmonics of natural beauty. Thus, beauty, so defined, so superimposed upon natural beauty, is the proper elementary requirement of art.
i'm downloading http://www.schillerinstitute.org/music/2008/boston_concert_rwb.html to see/hear what's the deal
|
|
|
Wow. There's some homeopathy level nonsense being spouted in those pseudoscientific articles.
The only thing that sounds remotely plausible is that the lower tuning is somehow more pleasing to a greater number of people, but the how and why in the first bit about Pythagorean tuning makes no sense, and the last bit about the so-called overwhelming proof is all hyperbole and no substance.
So, unless you want your music to sound a little bit off to musicians, and laymen with perfect pitch, just tune your instruments to a normal baseline.
|
Hmm, apparently the idea behind it seems to be trying to get really perfect fifths, as opposed to tempered tuning where each fifth is a little bit off?
|
well this dude says it should be A=450Hz because indian music... http://ray.tomes.biz/alex.htm The modern standardised scale has A=440 Hz and the others adjusted according to the equitempered scale which does not quite fit this table. However the trend has been for A to increase with time and it had got to 450 Hz before the standard was set. Based on Indian music, the earth's natural resonance, a study of the rhythm speed for great composers and on other evidence, I believe that 450 Hz is the true and correct A. It is in harmony with the earth. For indian scales relationships see graphic. After researching what notes sounded pleasant together Pythagoras worked out the frequency ratios (or string length ratios with equal tension) and found that they had a particular mathematical relationship.
The octave was found to be a 1:2 ratio and what we today call a fifth to be a 2:3 ratio. Pythagoras concluded that all the notes could be produced by these two ratios as (3/2)*(3/2)*(1/2) gave 9/8 which is a second and so on.
The problem was that after applying these ratios repeatedly he was able to move through the whole scale and end up back where he started... except that it missed by a bit, called the Pythagorean comma. After twelve movements by a fifth (and adjusting down an octave as required) he got back to the same note but it had a frequency of 3^12 / 2^19 [Note ^ means to the power of] which is 1.36% higher in frequency than it should be.
Although Pythagoras did a wonderful job he did get it slightly wrong. The correct solution was worked out by Galilei (the father of the famous Galileo Galilei) who concluded that the best frequencies were in the proportions
do re mi fa so la ti do
1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2
Which may be represented as whole number proportions as
24 27 30 32 36 40 45 48
These proportions are called the Just Intonation music scale and are the most pleasing proportions for note frequencies for any one key. The differences from Pythagoras are small, so that mi is 5/4 (=1.250) rather than 81/64 (=1.266).
there are a lot of stuff in there about scales, harmonics, cycles ... + Show Spoiler +the universe 
(overall, from reading those kind of stuff, the agreement is that A=440Hz is pretty bad as far as music goes. 450, 432, 426, are all better)
|
You need to work on your Bullshit detector. As soon as an article uses phrases like
"earth's natural resonance"
You can safely discard it as esoteric bullshit. A bit more fun out of that article (just from random skimming)
"If the electromagnetic zone around the earth vibrates, it does so with a frequency of 7.5 Hz because the speed of light is 300,000 km/s and the circumference of the earth is 40,000 km. Therefore the predicted strong harmonics of this vibration should have frequencies of 7.5 Hz times the various harmonics numbers. Interestingly, the frequencies resulting exactly match those used in Indian music. "
The fuck is that guy talking about. I have no idea what kind of perception this guy has of EM fields, but it doesn't have anything to do with reality.
"Redshifts are what astronomers use to tell how far away galaxies are and are believed to be based on the velocities of galaxies relative to us and caused by the big bang. I don't believe in the big bang or that redshifts are due to velocity."
Oh. Okay.
"Now what is immediately obvious here is that some frequencies are produced in many more ways than others; 4, 6, 8, and especially 12 are produced often while 11 and 13 aren't. "
Congratulations, you have discovered prime numbers.
Music is supposed to sound good. That is it. If your music sounds better if you use another base for your notes, have fun. Just don't make up pseudoscientific mumbojumbo about "the base frequency of the universe" to justify this.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_atmospheric
Resonant waves of this zeroth mode can be excited in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide cavity, mainly by the continuing current components of lightning flowing between two return strokes. Their wavelengths are integral fractions of the Earth's circumference, and their resonance frequencies can thus be approximately determined by fm ≃ mc/(2πa) ≃ 7.5 m Hz (with m = 1, 2, ...; a the Earth's radius and c the speed of light). These resonant modes with their fundamental frequency of f1 ≃ 7.5 Hz are known as Schumann resonances
don't be scared dude, just don't be scared.
when your first instinct is to shut down anything that's not yours(you're somewhat of a scientist), there's a problem somewhere.
|
I still maintain that only one in ten thousand (those with absolute pitch) can actually hear a difference, if even those, seeing that the differences between the suggested frequencies are smaller than between notes.
|
I stand corrected, apparently there are things that can be described as resonant frequencies here.
Still doesn't mean that what the guy is talking about isn't bullshit. Because, as a bit more reading quickly lead to, the actual resonant frequencies aren't really multiples of 7.5 (And you need this number to be very exact not to break that guys argument. (7.83 (fundamental),[3] 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz) If you calculate with 7.83 as a basis, you suddently have your "resonances" at 376;422;470;501;563 and further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances
I am not scared of knowledge. I am also not very keen on believing random shit sight unseen, and if people just vomit a load of pseudo-scientific-sounding buzzwords with a bit of "spirituality" tacked in between, what they are writing is usually not worth the effort to read exactly.
And in this case, while some of what is written is not complete nonsense, the way it is thrown together. The main thing he appears to have noticed if that numbers have many 2s and 3s in their prime factors, they will be multiples of a lot of numbers. While this is true, it is also not really interesting or new.
It is really easy to find a lot of random correlations if you just round your values well enough.
Just for fun, lets take a look at the "size" table in that article:
http://ray.tomes.biz/stp-fig3.gif
The first value is already off by a factor of 10, as the observable Universe is roughly 93 Gly large, and the given value on his table is 10Gly.
Second value, apparently "very accurately" 34560 times smaller, are galaxies, which the table gives at 300kly. Except that a much better real value (the size of the milky way) is 100kly in 1 diameter, 3kly high (And don't say 3*100=300 please.)There are smaller galaxies, there are larger galaxies. So with actual reasonable numbers, our first factor becomes 930.000 instead of 34560. If the thing that is meant is the distance between galaxies, i am wondering why the first data point wasn't the distance between universes. Anyways, in this case it is still far off, the average distance between galaxies is in the area of some Megaparsecs, or a few million light years. A quick calculation with the size of the universe and the estimated number of galaxies gives me 13Mly. Once again far off from 300kly. This number would lead to a factor of ~7200, once again quite far off from 34560.
Next value, distance between stars. He gives us 8ly, wikipedia gives me 5. Less far off than the previous numbers, still pretty far off for a theory that is supposed to give "very exact predictions".
Distance between planets (I have no idea how to even define that reasonably well, or how to find any data as we don't really know this about any planets outside of the solar system). Given value: 15AE, no idea how that is supposed to be an average when the only numbers above this value are x---Neptune (and some x---Uranus) distances, anything else is usually below this.
Next are moons, once again no information is given on how that value of 70Mm is produced, probably just randomly made up? The distance earth-luna is ~384Mm. Random other moons that i looked up: Io (420Mm), Phobos (9.2Mm), Deimos (23Mm), Miranda: (130Mm), Oberon (580Mm), Triton (354Mm)
For the next two steps, even that guy can't come up with reasonable things to fit that scale.
Cells at 1.7 µm (Complete BS, this http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-is-a-human-cell/ gives me 2µm radius for a sperm cell (assuming the being spherical, any other shape leads to even larger numbers), and it only gets bigger from there on on.
Atoms at 0.5 Angström. Once again off by quite a bit. Only Hydrogen is slightly smaller, everything else starts to become a lot bigger really quick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius. Anything below 0.1 nm = 1 Angström is intellectually dishonest.
Nucleons: 1.4 fm. Real value about 0.84–0.87fm for a proton for example.
Now, lets have some fun and actually calculate the factors of his (completely made up) size comparison.
33333;37500;33725;32057;35000;33333;35294;34000;35714
Pretty wide spread to be making 5 digit accurate predictions for his resonance factor. And that is even ignoring the fact that all of the numbers he gave are completely made up and far from reality.
And this is why i usually don't spend a lot of time when some guy comes along with obviously pseudoscientific mumbojumbo. It takes ages to actually factcheck everything, and 95% of it is just completely randomly made up BS. You can't trust a single number in those kinds of articles, nor the reasonings, nor the sources, nor anything.
|
On November 10 2015 08:12 Simberto wrote:
And this is why i usually don't spend a lot of time when some guy comes along with obviously pseudoscientific mumbojumbo. It takes ages to actually factcheck everything, and 95% of it is just completely randomly made up BS. You can't trust a single number in those kinds of articles, nor the reasonings, nor the sources, nor anything.
Yeah, just walk away at first sign of mumbojumbo. You'll have to put in considerable effort to disprove things, and chances are that you won't change anyone's mind anyway.
Generally a good idea to put effort into doing things right yourself instead of shooting down people that do it wrong.
|
when i got to that universal/cosmological part i understood nothing(mostly  ) and just skipped over it. i made a note that he believes that but didn't actually believed it myself. when reading things like that, it's like when a neanderthal sees lightning and blames God for its existence so even if you believe there is no god, the lightning (could have)still happened.
in the science you actually believe in, there are things off by even 20% between the measurable and the predictions and i don't see you scrapping them or call them bullshits.
he has his wishful thinking and you have your correlations('cause causality has left the building). woopty-fuckin-do.
about your fundamentals, the 7.5 is an approximation; the formula even uses ≃ (approximately equal with). yes he used it as an absolute because it did fit his agenda but even with a basic understanding of frequency, (pressure)waves&co., you know that the pitch/freq depends on temperature. with a 15C to 25C room temperature, a 432Hz pitch could vary by -6Hz to +6Hz.
7.5 varies because it does. would it be cool to have a perfect, objective model for frequencies/waves/harmonics/resonances?. i don't know, probably. i'd get to listen to math!, in perfect conditions
440 is bad because there are no fifths below it; because 440 is not divisible by 3. musicians back then (~1939ish) did not agree with the 440Hz standard.
is 432 magic?; well it's objectively better than 440(as are other pitches).
i've listened to 432Hz stuff. the ones just converted from 440 to 432 form youtube are weird but the ones composed for 432 (Verdi, some Bach/Mozart/Beethoven/Beatles) and played in 432 sound better(comparatively); a lot better.
|
Yeah no. You have no idea how science works, and i am done wasting my time with this. All i am going to say to this: If you claim that a value is 34560 to 5 digits, your measurements should better lead to an error in the order of ~1. If you want to make an argument that 450 is supremely genius because it is 60*7.5 and want that value to be exact to ~5 Hz and are sure of your 60, that means you need to have that a margin of error of at most ~0.1 on that 7.5
If, on the other hand, your data is really inaccurate and you say that you get value 100+-20, that is still good science. Error bars distinguish what kind of statement you can make.
I have no idea if 432 or 440 sounds better or worse, my ear for music is incredibly shitty.
If the part of something someone writes that i understand is full of made up bullshit and bad pseudoscience, i just assume that the rest of it is also bullshit and bad pseudoscience.
|
On November 10 2015 17:07 xM(Z wrote:
440 is bad because there are no fifths below it; because 440 is not divisible by 3.
FYI, it is perfectly possible to have non-integer frequencies.
|
34560 is just a multiplier. his made up math has no adjustments for possible/probable interferences(temps, press, gravitation, resonances etcetcetc) but don't worry, your kids will believe it probably just to spite you. 
@Cascade - they create the wrong kind(out of tune) of harmonics
|
I just listened to the 3 A's (432Hz, 440Hz and 450Hz) in a vacuum and the change in pitch is quite minimal. It's audible, but I'm pretty sure when there are different timbres and different notes going on at the same time, combined with the acoustics of the room, you're absolutely unable to differentiate between 432 and 440Hz.
But then again, I don't have absolute hearing so I'm just speculating here, but it just seems that the complexity should mask certain aspects. The A would become more of a range of freqencies instead of just 1 frequency.
|
yes, it's all about how frequencies(the whole scale) come together with their harmonics and resonances(Stradivarius violins were allegedly tuned to 432).
even so, if you want to be an ass about it, you can say that it all depends on ones ear.
|
On November 10 2015 19:10 xM(Z wrote:34560 is just a multiplier. his made up math has no adjustments for possible/probable interferences(temps, press, gravitation, resonances etcetcetc) but don't worry, your kids will believe it probably just to spite you. @Cascade - they create the wrong kind(out of tune) of harmonics
But seconds are in no way fundamental, they are just an arbitrary division of time. You could just as well divide time into shmeconds, of which there are 100000 instead of 86400 a day. That would make completely different frequencies integers. There is nothing fundamental about frequencies which are integer Hz values. 1Hz means 1 / second, which is 108/125= 0.864 / shmecond (Also know as shmertz), so totally not an integer and thus an evil number.
Afaik the point with harmonies is that they are multiples of base harmonics, but it shouldn't really matter which base harmonic you choose, except for societal training to think that some harmonics sound "good". If you don't believe that there is a heavy societal effect here, play some Heavy Metal to your grandmother. She will have a very different opinion of those sounds than you.
|
On November 10 2015 19:10 xM(Z wrote:
@Cascade - they create the wrong kind(out of tune) of harmonics
You have to be trolling... Please tell me you are trolling. :o
Or that I misunderstand you at least....
Are you seriously claiming that 440Hz going to 440Hz/3 is experienced any different than 441Hz (divisible by three) going to 441Hz/3?
|
Is is possible to put something in front of a bullet in order to make it loose so much momentum that it will just bounce off without harm once hitting you?
Not thinking about bulletproof vest, but more to something like a foam block, where you could actually see the bullet slowing and hitting you at the speed of a drunk fly
|
@Simberto - to hear, from someone who believes unconditionally in laws(of physics, math, chemistry ...), that harmonics are just random bullshit and that their likes and dislikes by people at large is totally random/arbitrary/subjective, is odd to say the least. go read up on consonance and psychoacoustics. (i totally ignored your shmertz because what you did there was like calling the color green white, then expect me to see white when you say white ... but i still see green. seconds and hertz are measurement standards; they don't create the vibrations, the white. your example would give a different name/measurement to the same vibration. the point?)
@Cascade - i am claiming that scales are perceived differently, not notes by themselves; mainly, some scales are liked better based on our biology
(edited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
