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.
Hear, hear, Andrew!! (But of course it's what I grew up with.)
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.
If that really were a standard it would make some sense, but didn't one manufacturer--probably Yamaha--use a similar system with middle C as C3 or C5? Enough different, in any case, to make the word "standard" inapplicable.
I wonder if Helmholtz had a reason for his nomenclature, and whether he addressed the possibility of simply numbering the octaves.
I've always assumed that he started with organ nomenclature.
It is definitely easier offhand to see the octave differences between C5 and C2 than it is between c'' and C.
Not if you're used to thinking in terms of c" and C. It's a little like fixed do and movable do. Whichever you learned first seems best, partly because you know what it's good for but mostly because you learned to think in those terms. Each has its uses and each has its place.
John
-- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
