Thanks for Sharing Louigi! I've been cracking my head with bordom-code and this came like a soothing remedy to my headache. Also, On 2015-09-30 10:13, Nils Gey wrote: Thanks for Reacting so strongly Nils! I have always thought that those claims were due to 432 being a Fibonacci number, hence i was very receptive to the concept of Verdi's 'A'. Thanks to you i verified it, and well my receptivity is gone. :) Although i'm not sure why, nor if i could to tell any difference without being able to hop from one tuning to the other in real-time, i would love to hear one of those pieces from wayback in the wayback tuning. Yours, -- Set

On 01/10/2015 03:34, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote: Sorry but this purported 'newage-ish debate' that certain tunings are more 'natural', 'in harmony with the universe' etc. is total bullshit. Period. It has nothing to do with maths, science or music really. Because in tonal harmony relative frequencies (of fundamentals and overtones) are relevant, tuning is relative in the same way. In non-tonal music (in its broad meaning) frequencies are of course relevant but discussing tuning doesn't make much sense. 'Ancient' music (pre-Bach, but probably pre-1650s really) is a more complex matter, but there is no historiography evidence of any natural or universe-friendly tuning. Of course in ancient times there were all sorts of superstitions and believings trickling in music, such as music in 3 was heavenly because of the Trinity, etc. But today we (hopefully) do not consider such 'theories' as scientific. One parameter characteristic of the music which can be influenced by tuning (also depending on the physical characteristics of the instrument) is timbre. As a prominent example consider Yesterday by the Beatles being played in F but in a G major position, i.e. the guitar is tuned 1 tone lower. At this point I could easily argue that because 432 is lower than 440, 432 is a more 'obscure', 'dark','demoniac' tuning than 440 which is more 'brilliant','clearer' and therefore more 'celestial' ;P As far as I know there has been no scientific research (e.g. through blind tests) demonstrating one tuning makes people feel 'better' than another. Additionally musical listening is a complex phenomenon from psycho-physical point of view, where positiveness/negativeness of body reactions is hard to assess: for example is increased heart rate due to arousal connected to listening to music positive or negative? That said, for (opera) singers modifying tuning, in particular raising it, might have an impact as singing higher can increase strain on the vocal cords etc. Therefore the 'debate' between singers about singing e.g. Verdi in lower tunings which are more similar to what the composer's epoch standard was, is totally legitimate. Lorenzo.

Somebody wrote: 'in harmony with the universe' Everything inside the universe, is in "harmony with the universe". be it 7hz frequencies, new-age mindflowers, lies or internet flamewars. Don't forget how small we are, and to be kind with each other. Respectfully, -- Set

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:47:26 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: PS: Self-resonance could be very destructive, IOW it's a kind of harmony that demolish things. What is the definition of "harmony", of "good" and "bad". It depends to the point of view. Everything is in a transitional state. I seriously asked for the definition of "in consistence with the universe" and against what the maths is applied. Btw. should art be in harmony with something or should it be in opposition to something?

Ralf Mardorf wrote: I once went to this "noise" gig. I can't remember the artist name, a friend took me there. The artist entered the room, and stood in front of us. Suddenly, he walked over to the water dispenser, and pulled the plug. Then i went back in front of us, a few seconds later, he walked to some overhead projector, and turned it off, then went back in front of us. He did this to EVERY object in that room producing noise, slowly, removing layer after layer of noise, to reach what was as close as possible to silence in that room. It made me think about silence in a new way. If anybody knows the name of the artist, please share it. Transcend existence? I guess thats the point in the debate where everything becomes an esoteric question :D Yours, -- Set

On 2015-10-01 14:45, Ralf Mardorf wrote: I'm aware of that piece by J. Cage. Compared to the one i'm writing about (in my own little taste of course) Cage's 4′33″ looks like a pretentious happening :D I guess i have to locate the friend who took me there :D Yours, -- Set

On 2015-10-01 12:47, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Agreed :) It's easy to claim things. For example, i claim my flat to be an independent nation. It was easy, i just expressed it to be so. The hard part is to make everyone else understand why they should agree with it. :D #speakershaverightstoo ! BOOM! BADABOOM! GOSH i love to exist in this contradictory universe. I find SO much personal growth in the task of bending it with my mind. And the less i'm capable of expressing all those feelings it evokes, the better i like the music i make of it.... Respectfully, -- Set

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:13:58 +0200 Set Hallstrom <sakrecoer(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would not agree in general terms. It depends what level is concerned. For instance, if you do not harmonize with an attacker and only go against his force then chances to loose the fight are higher since it becomes an opposition of force against force. So there is harmony. BOOM what ? BADABOOM what ? On the contrary, the bending happens when trying to force a definite view. Once the bending occurs then a little push is all that's needed. OTOH, you could consider yourself lucky to know exactly all your feelings. Like a local poet (poetry, you know :) once has written, it is not standing on a rock in a stream that balance is found, it is when jumping from one rock to another. BADASPLASH ? :)

Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 21:34:20 schrieb jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com: yeah, but that's as random as anything else, because the unit of a second (which is used to define what a Hertz is) isn't "natural" but also man-made and arbitrary... Edgar

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:49:40 -0500 "Chris Caudle" <chris(a)chriscaudle.org> wrote: It is not related. It just so happens that the frequency C in our scale becomes a "binary" number eg. 256Hz, 512Hz, 1024 Hz, 2048Hz, ..., when A is 432Hz instead of 440Hz. And that did not prevent making cheesy video game music.

On 30 September 2015 at 09:27, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, so many years ago, when everyone listened to music on YouTube! :-p Sorry, but always amuses me the idea that listening to any recording reflects how things sounded in their time. Best wishes, Neil -- Neil C Smith Artist : Technologist : Adviser http://neilcsmith.net Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections - www.digitalprisoners.co.uk

On 09/30/2015 04:53 AM, Neil C Smith wrote: I pretty much agree with this POV. I'm reminded of Luis Milan's advice re: tuning to the novice on the vihuela, it was something like "Tune the highest string as high as it will go", a rather practical commentary on intonation from the 16th century. Best, dp

[Dave Phillips] Yes, this has a long tradition: the higher the tension, the more energy the string can handle, the louder the sound. Supported by advances in instrument making and in the materials used, this has lead to a continuous rise in pitch over the centuries. Incidentally, virtually none of the famous Guarneri or Stradivari violins is still in original shape. Almost all of them have been extensively modified and reinforced in order to accommodate the high-tension strings and playing necessary to produce the volume that can fill a modern concert hall. Cheers, Tim

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:45:34 -0400, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote: There are reasons even for pop music to chose another pitch for A. There are reasons to chose different temperaments. Non of those reasons should be esoteric. FWIW a while back it was common practise not necessarily to chose another tuning for A in pop music, but to e.g. drop the e string of e. guitars down to d. The reasons should be playing technique, tone color etc.. No tuning ever could be consistent or inconsistent to the universe. A tuning only could be consistent or inconsistent to a human fashion or esoteric magic of numbers. On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:47:18 -0400, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote: To do the maths we need to know for what it should be applied. The secret of 432Hz perhaps leads to cold fusion, the perpetuum mobile car engine, the length of gods long white beard? 432Hz in relation to speed of light, Gauß, Planck, age of Mohammed youngest wife, virgins in paradise? If e.g. speed in relation to the speed of light, then measured in miles or meters or multiüple units of god's beard length? Are seconds consistent to the universe? Assumed we should find the perfect measuring units, what should be the expected result? A prime number, a set or perhaps as mentioned by Set a Fibonacci number? My choice for universe consistency is Douglas Adams Holy Trinity 424,242 Hz, but I don't know the question, resp. against what the maths should be applied. Regards, Ralf

Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 21:10:26 schrieb Tim Goetze: Actually the advice to tune the highest string to *almost* its breaking tension is given in a lot of instructional essays in Renaissance and Baroque. Fact is that we know next to nothing about the quality and production methods gut string materiel they had. John Dowland's treatise in his son's "A Varietie of Lute-Lessons" talks about strings from different provenance as being ideal for certain registers on the lute. Wire-wound gut was only invented at some point in the 18th century AFAIK. Another fact is, that a string has a "sweet spot" in tension, where it sounds best. So when stringing an instrument you aim for that by choosing material and thickness (besides basic sound characteristics you wouldn't mix, like solid metal vs. gut). But the highest, i.e. thinnest string was the one to break most easily, so this was indeed limiting how high an instrument at a given scale length could be tuned, and was probably the main reason for changing to re-entrant tunings on these large-scale orchestra theorboes they developed in Italy after 1600. my 2c, Edgar

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:53:49 +0100 Neil C Smith <neilcsmith.net(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Apart from the tunings and the instruments, one would have to possess a similar mind, spirit and soul as in those times. Cheers.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:24:27 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote: Haven't done the maths although it should be reasonably accessible.