I absolutely agree. Helmholtz may have been the standard, but it's a
stupid standard. C4 = middle C, etc. is much more elegant, logical,
and easy to understand.
It's like the difference between imperial and metric measurements.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 23 Jul 2004, at 10:11 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
But Andrew Stiller�s book on instrumentation uses the first one you
mentioned and not the second.
At the time I wrote it, Helmholtz was *the* international standard
for pitch designations. The whole current mess strikes me as a prime
example of what happens when you ignore the maxim "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it."
Me, I will continue to insist on Helmholtz until some other universal
standard is adopted in its place.
I think the current mess happened because it's easier in digital terms
to address things as C1 C2 C3 C4 rather than CC C c c' etc. The debut
of midi really muddied the waters, because folks who grew up on midi
designation of C4 as middle C find it hard to translate into the
Helmholtz way of thinking of octaves.
I wonder if Helmholtz had a reason for his nomenclature, and whether
he addressed the possibility of simply numbering the octaves.
It is definitely easier offhand to see the octave differences between
C5 and C2 than it is between c'' and C.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
