On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > As said: I don't really see why I should go to the considerable > trouble of listing the many scholarly papers and books which have > dealt with this question in depth (Haynes is but one) since Ellis's > pioneering work was published in 1880. Especially so when the > point being made was simply that there was not just one 17th/18th C > Roman pitch, rather than trying to identify what these pitches > actially were. Perhaps you disagree? - in which case, since it is > far easier to disprove a proposition than to test it by numerous > examples, I await your reply proving that there was only ever one > pitch used in Rome during this period (say, 1600 - 1750)..............
No thanks. You made a statement that seemed to challenge conventional wisdom about Roman pitch. I just wondered whether the statement might have been occasioned by specific information. Evidently it wasn't. I won't waste any more of your time. On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > Indeed and this is the very point I wished to put across to those > who appear to think there was some such thing as an established > 'roman' pitch. > > MH > > LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I forgot the best quote from the Grove article: > > The concept of a precise and universal relation between notation > and pitch > was alien to most Western musicians, and there was no specific term > for > pitch itself before 1800. One does not follow from the other. Every organ, cornetto and recorder built in Rome in the 1650's might have been constructed to play at A=387.6547498904 regardless of whether the builder had a word for pitch. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
