Re: question for the music gurus:slightly programming related

|| Before that development, much music was optimized for certain
|| keys and would sound rather bad if played in other keys.

Often because they included so-called "wolf fifths." Although you can
actually get around these kind of problems on non-keyboard instruments by
adjusting syntonic commas as you go (adjusting by about 1/5th of one key on
a piano in certain situations).

Andreas

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Sina Bahram <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Wouldn't the Pythagoreans have prefered an odd number though? An odd number
> that is square, no doubt, but I suppose it really depends on if we're
> discussing the Mathematicoi Pythagoreans or the akusmaticoi Pythagoreans,
> *grin*.
>
> Take care,
> Sina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lloyd
> Rasmussen
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:49 PM
> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: question for the music gurus:slightly programming related
>
> I think that the Pythagoreans and other ancient musicians thought that C
> should be 512 cycles per second.  A-440 didn't become a standard until the
> early 20th century, and I think that much classical music was composed with
> its standard pitches a couple of percent flat from modern pitch.  Of
> course,
> the equal-tempered scale, where the ratio between one note and the next is
> the twelfth root of 2, was just coming into vogue during Bach's time 300
> years ago.  Before that development, much music was optimized for certain
> keys and would sound rather bad if played in other keys.
>
> Lloyd Rasmussen, Kensington, Maryland
> Home:  http://lras.home.sprynet.com
> Work:  http://www.loc.gov/nls
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-
> > bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Panes
> > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:31 PM
> > To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: question for the music gurus:slightly programming related
> >
> > Ah, yes. Sadly I was mistaken.
> >
> > Concert A is the A above middle C. Using this as a base and exactly equal
> > exponential steps, my calculator says middle C is
> > 261.6255653005986346778499935233 Hz.
> >
> > According to Wickapedia, middle C is 261.626 Hz
> >
> > Another contributing factor to my mistaken belief is that I thought C was
> > the base of the musical scale and its frequency was always even powers of
> > 2.
> > That's what you get for living in a digital world.
> >
> > I won't argue the facts anymore. Just look them up.
> >
> > Regards,
> > James
> >
> > jimpanes@xxxxxxxxx
> > jimpanes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Everything is easy when you know how."
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: question for the music gurus:slightly programming related
> >
> >
> > I don't believe this is correct. Middle c is 278.4375   Hz, from what I
> > remember, and a quick google yielded several dozen sites saying the same
> > thing.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Sina
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
>

Other related posts: