Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Anthonys Lists]

On 27/05/2016 07:16, Michael Hendry wrote:

Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:

Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
to have transposed parts?
Well, they DON'T need transposed parts. You just need to learn a 
different mapping between notes and fingers. As indeed, having learnt 
the trombone, I have to do. If I'm given a part in bass clef, I read a 
C, I play a C. When given a part in treble clef, I read a C, I play a Bb 
a ninth lower.


The major reason as far as I know that clarinets and trumpets etc 
transpose is to do with the fact that a player may play several 
instruments in the course of one piece. And as far as bands are 
concerned, players may be asked to switch instruments to cover for 
missing players. To explain ... (using the trumpet as an example...)


The trumpet comes typically in two tunings - Bb or D. The equivalent 
member of the horn family, the cornet, comes in Bb or Eb (and I believe 
both have a - rare - C version).  Then you have the flugel horn as well. 
Imagine having to play part of a part on a Bb trumpet, then switch to a 
D trumpet half way through, when all your parts are written in concert 
pitch? You read a C, and on the Bb instrument it's first finger. A few 
bars and an instrument switch later, you read a C and on the Eb 
instrument it's first and second finger an embouchure/harmonic lower. 
(And in the orchestra, French/English horns used to change pitch by 
changing the crook, again typically several times in one piece...)


I look at music for brass and wind instruments as tablature. The note 
position tells you what fingering/harmonic to use. The music is 
transposed so the resulting note is the correct pitch. This means that 
any clarinet/sax player can pick up any clarinet/sax and know how to 
play it. Likewise (excluding the trombone) any brass player can pick up 
any brass instrument and know how to play it.


To give an example specifically for you, aimed at the guitar, I'm also 
an amateur classical guitarist. I remember going round my aunt's, who 
was having guitar lessons, and she showed me some pieces that she said 
"were very hard, because they were written for the lute". She was rather 
shocked when I said "oh I could probably sight-read those". It wasn't 
easy, but by tuning the g string down to f#, it wasn't hard either. 
Imagine how much easier it would have been if all the notes meant for 
the g string were transposed up a semitone to match :-) In other words, 
a sort of tablature - the note position indicates the string/position, 
not the pitch.


Oh - and why is the trombone different? Unlike the other brass/woodwind 
instruments, which in their modern form all date from the 1800s, the 
trombone in approximately its present form goes back at least three 
centuries earlier, to the sackbut from the 1500s. So brass/wind notation 
evolved with the instruments, but the trombone long predates that.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 27 May 2016, at 08:16, Michael Hendry  wrote:

>> Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.
> 
> This is where my lack of formal musical education shows me up - I’m a 
> self-taught amateur guitarist. F# and Gb look and sound the same on the 
> guitar (and on the piano), but it seems that this is because these 
> instruments have been constructed to sound equally bad in all keys.

The Pythagorean tuning, used since Medieval times, has pure octaves P8 equal to 
the ratio 2, and pure fifths P5 the ratio 3/2, so for frequencies, but on 
plucked strings like the guitar, or stricken, as on a piano, it gets a bit 
stretched. Then these are iterated. So it has two generators P5 and P8, which 
is also what LilyPond has internally in order to make produce staff notation 
transpositions.

Think of the white keys of a piano keyboard: the short distances, the minor 
second m, gets a bit narrow, to about 90 cents instead of the 100 cents the 
guitar usually has. The major second M, the large distances, becomes slightly 
wider, and so the sharp that raises with M - m, as F# is a P5 = m + 3M above B 
and F is 2m + 2M above the same note, which is also what the flat lowers with. 
Between F# and Gb is then (M - m) - (M - (M - m)) = M - 2m which is called the 
Pythagorean comma, around 20 cents.

Change the value of P5 to get other tunings, like (extended) meantone tunings.

> Other instruments are constructed and tuned so as to sound good in certain 
> keys and not so good in others, so it’s feasible that an orchestra could 
> sound better playing in sharp keys.

Only the strings section provide absolute pitch references in the form of open 
strings tuned in Pythagorean tuning. For the other orchestral instruments, 
woodwinds and brasses, even though are designed as though being in E12 (12 
equal temperament), one must adapt the pitches on each individual note.

> Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:
> 
> Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
> to have transposed parts?

Clarinets come in A and Bb because limitations of the mechanics: the former is 
better in sharps, the latter in flats. Blatter says there so little difference 
in tone color a composer could not rely on it, as it varies more between 
performers. With the modern Boehm mechanics, it does not matter so much, as on 
the flutes, which can play just about anything chromatically, so it is a 
tradition.

> Why is the G string on my guitar the one I most commonly check because 
> although it sounds perfectly in tune in the context of a G major chord, it 
> can sound out of tune in other contexts?

It is a tricky to put the frets on a guitar in the right positions, as it 
depends on type of strings used: thinner strings will increase more in pitch 
when pressed. So the manufactures guess what the users might use. There are 
various methods to get around this: first decide what type of strings you would 
want use, and then adjust the guitar after that.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

> Le 27 mai 2016 à 08:16, Michael Hendry  a écrit :

> Other instruments are constructed and tuned so as to sound good in certain 
> keys and not so good in others, so it’s feasible that an orchestra could 
> sound better playing in sharp keys.

I was told that the open string settings of the string sections providing 
natural harmonics in sharp keys explains that.

> Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
> to have transposed parts?

It looks like those in Bb are the best compromise. Shorter clarinets in C 
produce a rather harsh sound, not to speak of the Eb (sopranino) oboe.

JM
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Michael Hendry]

> On 27 May 2016, at 09:59, Thomas Morley  wrote:
> 
> 2016-05-27 8:16 GMT+02:00 Michael Hendry :
>> 
>>> On 27 May 2016, at 00:53, Wols Lists  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 26/05/16 10:43, Olivier Biot wrote:
 
 
 On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry > wrote:
 
   I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
 
 
 Definitely!
 
 
   Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who
   claim that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E)
   their experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a
   more sombre sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this
   applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
 
 
 I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my
 humble opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on
 harmonics induced in the instrument played, the other is a more
 subjective element: often 'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher
 pitch too, which results to brightening of the music played. Maybe
 because a lot of written music wanders around the natural scale of the
 clef, which goes up 1 full tone per 2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).
>>> 
>>> Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.
>> 
>> This is where my lack of formal musical education shows me up - I’m a 
>> self-taught amateur guitarist. F# and Gb look and sound the same on the 
>> guitar (and on the piano), but it seems that this is because these 
>> instruments have been constructed to sound equally bad in all keys.
> 
> Well, if you play first string, second fret without any context,
> nobody can say whether it's a F# or Gb.
> Though, try out to play the attached.
> For me F# and Gb feels completely different, _because of the context_.
> I'd always name them as written, i.e. F# in the first Gb in the second
> example.

In that case, shouldn't you have alternative names for C natural, which is 
common to both G and Db major scales, but has different functions in your 
examples?

(I realise I’m getting dangerously close to 
how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin? territory in this thread 
deviant!)

Michael

> 
> In general, it's not only the actual tune of an instrument, but our
> brain _interprets_ what it gets, depending on the context, which
> includes the (musical) culture we're grown up/educated in.
> 
>> Other instruments are constructed and tuned so as to sound good in certain 
>> keys and not so good in others, so it’s feasible that an orchestra could 
>> sound better playing in sharp keys.
>> 
>> Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:
>> 
>> Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t 
>> have to have transposed parts?
>> 
>> Why is the G string on my guitar the one I most commonly check because 
>> although it sounds perfectly in tune in the context of a G major chord, it 
>> can sound out of tune in other contexts?
> 
> Well, if you tuned a perfect octave: G on 6th string, open 3rd string.
> It will be nice for g-major, but not in say e-major.
> Hence, I'm used to take slightly different tunings depending on the
> key of the piece I'm going to play. Ofcourse one has to say the range
> of keys used for classical guitar-music is very limited. des-major is
> a _very_ rare exception.
> 
> Additional the 3rd string of the guitar is problematic because of the
> used material in relation to its thickness.
> There are a lot of attempts to deal with it by the guitar-constructors.
> 
> Cheers,
>  Harm
> 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Francisco Vila]

2016-05-27 10:44 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen :

>
> Reminds we of this version of a well known birthday song ...
>
>

For the laziest,

\version "2.19.41"
\header { title = "Fatal Birthday" }
\score {
  \relative {
\time 3/4 \partial 4
deses'8. bis16
cisis4 deses eis
fes2 bis,8. deses16
eses4 bis fisis'
geses2 c,8. deses16
\key cis \major bis'4 beses eis,8. geses16
disis4 eses \fermata ais8. ceses16
\key ces\major gisis4 geses g
geses2 \bar "|."
  }
  \layout{}
  \midi{}
}

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Thomas Morley]

2016-05-27 8:16 GMT+02:00 Michael Hendry :
>
>> On 27 May 2016, at 00:53, Wols Lists  wrote:
>>
>> On 26/05/16 10:43, Olivier Biot wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely!
>>>
>>>
>>>Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who
>>>claim that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E)
>>>their experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a
>>>more sombre sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this
>>>applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
>>>
>>>
>>> I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my
>>> humble opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on
>>> harmonics induced in the instrument played, the other is a more
>>> subjective element: often 'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher
>>> pitch too, which results to brightening of the music played. Maybe
>>> because a lot of written music wanders around the natural scale of the
>>> clef, which goes up 1 full tone per 2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).
>>
>> Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.
>
> This is where my lack of formal musical education shows me up - I’m a 
> self-taught amateur guitarist. F# and Gb look and sound the same on the 
> guitar (and on the piano), but it seems that this is because these 
> instruments have been constructed to sound equally bad in all keys.

Well, if you play first string, second fret without any context,
nobody can say whether it's a F# or Gb.
Though, try out to play the attached.
For me F# and Gb feels completely different, _because of the context_.
I'd always name them as written, i.e. F# in the first Gb in the second
example.

In general, it's not only the actual tune of an instrument, but our
brain _interprets_ what it gets, depending on the context, which
includes the (musical) culture we're grown up/educated in.

> Other instruments are constructed and tuned so as to sound good in certain 
> keys and not so good in others, so it’s feasible that an orchestra could 
> sound better playing in sharp keys.
>
> Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:
>
> Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
> to have transposed parts?
>
> Why is the G string on my guitar the one I most commonly check because 
> although it sounds perfectly in tune in the context of a G major chord, it 
> can sound out of tune in other contexts?

Well, if you tuned a perfect octave: G on 6th string, open 3rd string.
It will be nice for g-major, but not in say e-major.
Hence, I'm used to take slightly different tunings depending on the
key of the piece I'm going to play. Ofcourse one has to say the range
of keys used for classical guitar-music is very limited. des-major is
a _very_ rare exception.

Additional the 3rd string of the guitar is problematic because of the
used material in relation to its thickness.
There are a lot of attempts to deal with it by the guitar-constructors.

Cheers,
  Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Fri, 27 May 2016, David Kastrup wrote:


Wols Lists  writes:


Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.


Cough cough.


Reminds we of this version of a well known birthday song ...

--

MT___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists  writes:

> Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.

Cough cough.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Michael Hendry]

> On 27 May 2016, at 00:53, Wols Lists  wrote:
> 
> On 26/05/16 10:43, Olivier Biot wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry > > wrote:
>> 
>>I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
>> 
>> 
>> Definitely!
>> 
>> 
>>Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who
>>claim that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E)
>>their experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a
>>more sombre sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this
>>applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
>> 
>> 
>> I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my
>> humble opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on
>> harmonics induced in the instrument played, the other is a more
>> subjective element: often 'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher
>> pitch too, which results to brightening of the music played. Maybe
>> because a lot of written music wanders around the natural scale of the
>> clef, which goes up 1 full tone per 2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).
> 
> Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.

This is where my lack of formal musical education shows me up - I’m a 
self-taught amateur guitarist. F# and Gb look and sound the same on the guitar 
(and on the piano), but it seems that this is because these instruments have 
been constructed to sound equally bad in all keys. Other instruments are 
constructed and tuned so as to sound good in certain keys and not so good in 
others, so it’s feasible that an orchestra could sound better playing in sharp 
keys.

Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:

Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
to have transposed parts?

Why is the G string on my guitar the one I most commonly check because although 
it sounds perfectly in tune in the context of a G major chord, it can sound out 
of tune in other contexts?

Michael

> And once you move away
> from percussion instruments (yes, the piano IS a percussion instrument)
> most instruments can tweak their pitch. Okay, instruments like the
> orchestral strings and the trombone can play an infinitely variable
> pitch, but - in the hands of a good player - pretty any much instrument
> can vary the pitch to some extent. I've heard of brass players who could
> "bend" the pitch by over a tone!
> 
> So any orchestra or band will tend NOT to play "well tempered", and that
> could explain the brightness or dullness.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wol
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Wols Lists]

On 26/05/16 10:43, Olivier Biot wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry  > wrote:
> 
> I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
> 
> 
> Definitely!
>  
> 
> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who
> claim that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E)
> their experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a
> more sombre sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this
> applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
> 
> 
> I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my
> humble opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on
> harmonics induced in the instrument played, the other is a more
> subjective element: often 'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher
> pitch too, which results to brightening of the music played. Maybe
> because a lot of written music wanders around the natural scale of the
> clef, which goes up 1 full tone per 2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).

Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note. And once you move away
from percussion instruments (yes, the piano IS a percussion instrument)
most instruments can tweak their pitch. Okay, instruments like the
orchestral strings and the trombone can play an infinitely variable
pitch, but - in the hands of a good player - pretty any much instrument
can vary the pitch to some extent. I've heard of brass players who could
"bend" the pitch by over a tone!

So any orchestra or band will tend NOT to play "well tempered", and that
could explain the brightness or dullness.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Wols Lists]

On 26/05/16 08:34, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> > "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
> nice overview.
> 
> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
> 
I think what Andrew is describing is *relative* pitch. Often confused
with Perfect Pitch.

Perfect Pitch is something innate, iirc. You have it, or you don't, and
it's obvious by about the age of 5 at the latest. Most importantly, it
does NOT appear to be learnt.

Relative Pitch, on the other hand, IS learned. I can pitch a Bb just
like that, not surprisingly :-) Oddly enough, I can also pitch a G, it's
the first note of "God Save the Queen". I should then be able to work
out any note by comparing it to those two reference notes, except I'm
not that good a musician.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 16:48, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
>> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.
> 
> For discussion:
> 
> (and several related videos of the same young boy)

A video for those without absolute pitch: trying to identify which version of a 
well known melody is in the original key. Tests have shown that people are 
pretty good at that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCJGkUVmKm4



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 20:17, Johan Vromans  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:44 -0400
> Kieren MacMillan  wrote:
> 
>> For discussion:
>> 
> 
> Provided the video is bona fide, this is merely a good example of someone
> who is capable of memorizing the 12 tones of the piano. Which, as discussed
> elsewhere in this thread, is not really perfect pitch.
> 
> For example, I cut out the "sing an A" part and played the notes through
> a sensitive tuner. The piano A was 439.3 Hz, which I attribute to the video
> recording. So I calibrated the tuner to this, and measured the boy's A. It
> was approx 435 Hz. Impressive, though. Maybe he's a reincarnated
> baroque musician?

When I measure where he marks the pitch, a few tens of seconds after the 
attack, it is pretty close to 440 Hz.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:44 -0400
Kieren MacMillan  wrote:

> For discussion:
> 

Provided the video is bona fide, this is merely a good example of someone
who is capable of memorizing the 12 tones of the piano. Which, as discussed
elsewhere in this thread, is not really perfect pitch.

For example, I cut out the "sing an A" part and played the notes through
a sensitive tuner. The piano A was 439.3 Hz, which I attribute to the video
recording. So I calibrated the tuner to this, and measured the boy's A. It
was approx 435 Hz. Impressive, though. Maybe he's a reincarnated
baroque musician?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[tisimst]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n191005...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> > "Perfect pitch" is a sham.
>
> For discussion:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhLNXXxbfNA>
> (and several related videos of the same young boy)
>
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
>

One word: ...

(i.e., I'm speechless)




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/OT-high-precision-tuner-app-tp190891p191010.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 17:40, Jacques Menu Muzhic  wrote:

> My bassoon teacher told me the same, and in particular that D major is the 
> brightest key on our instrument (440). So I asked whether it’s E flat major 
> on the baroque instrument (415).
> 
> And the answer is no, it’s D major too, because that phenomenon is relative 
> to the instrument size, not absolute.

The instruments have certain resonances, and the bassoon, though largely 
harmonic like the other orchestral instruments, has an inharmonicity in the 
midrange, which gives character, makes it stand out and hard to cover, but also 
less suitable for harmony. If there are strings present, then one cannot merely 
transpose, because they end up playing in a more distant key where one cannot 
rely on open strings which are tuned in Pythagorean.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:57, Michael Hendry  a écrit :
> 
> 
> I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
> 
> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim that 
> when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their experience is of 
> brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre sound. I’ve even heard 
> in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the 
> other dull).
> 
> Michael (lighting blue touch-paper and retiring to a safe distance).

My bassoon teacher told me the same, and in particular that D major is the 
brightest key on our instrument (440). So I asked whether it’s E flat major on 
the baroque instrument (415).

And the answer is no, it’s D major too, because that phenomenon is relative to 
the instrument size, not absolute.

JM





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Kieren MacMillan]

> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.

For discussion:

(and several related videos of the same young boy)

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Michael,

> but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with all this?

First off, I wouldn’t exactly call it a “gift”: it’s actually quite irritating 
at times. For example, it is essentially impossible for me to play a piece on 
an electronic piano with the “Transpose” button engaged.

As to your precise question… For me, the difference between “Baroque pitch(es)” 
and “modern pitch(es)” are small enough that I can either just adjust my ear 
for the duration of the performance, or imagine a key signature one semi-tone 
up or down to compensate for the visual conflict(s).

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[mskala]

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry wrote:
> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and

It seems like such a thing could easily become self-fulfilling, if a lot
of composers believe it and choose keys for their compositions according
to the mood they intend to create.  A listener who hears a lot of such
compositions and has any sensitivity at all to absolute pitch, might then
tend to automatically and unconsciously perceive such a mood difference
even in cases like the *same* composition played at two different
transpositions.

-- 
Matthew Skala
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 09:57, Michael Hendry  wrote:

> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim that 
> when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their experience is of 
> brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre sound. I’ve even heard 
> in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the 
> other dull).

In a symphony orchestra, the string section is tuned in Pythagorean, and by 
following traditional harmony rules, can be encouraged to play in 5-limit Just 
Intonation. Moore distant keys, where there are no open strings to rely on, 
then become difficult to perform, which has in the past been used as a musical 
effect.

For fixed pitch instruments tuned in E12, like pianos, there is no difference 
though.

Also, in Pythagorean tuning, F# is higher than Gb, but it is the reverse in 
(extended) meantone tunings. If one chooses the wrong E12 enharmonically 
equivalent note in these tunings, there results a wolf interval, which is 
pretty descriptive.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Olivier Biot]

On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Johan Vromans  wrote:

> On Thu, 26 May 2016 08:57:31 +0100
> Michael Hendry > wrote:
>
> > Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> > that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> > experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> > sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and
> > Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
>
> Interesting...
>
> I can put a capo on the 3rd fret on my guitar and play a piece in
> (effectively) G. Now I put the capo on the 2nd fret. Does the piece sound
> dull because it's now in Gb? Or does it sound brighter because it's in F#?
>
> In my experience it sounds the same, but lower.


Try playing without capo. If at all possibleon a guitar, technically
speaking. The sympathetic resonances on the non-played strings will be
starkly diminished.

Putting a capo effectively transposes your instrument, which defies the
OP's point (and mine).

Hope this makes sense.

>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 08:57:31 +0100
Michael Hendry  wrote:

> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and
> Gb (the one bright, the other dull).

Interesting...

I can put a capo on the 3rd fret on my guitar and play a piece in
(effectively) G. Now I put the capo on the 2nd fret. Does the piece sound
dull because it's now in Gb? Or does it sound brighter because it's in F#?

In my experience it sounds the same, but lower. 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Olivier Biot]

On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry  wrote:

> I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!


Definitely!


> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb
> (the one bright, the other dull).


I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my humble
opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on harmonics induced
in the instrument played, the other is a more subjective element: often
'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher pitch too, which results to
brightening of the music played. Maybe because a lot of written music
wanders around the natural scale of the clef, which goes up 1 full tone per
2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).

To get back to the former point, playing F minor (4 flats) on the cello
dulls most natural harmonics on the open strings, which results in an
eerie, almost dead color. To my ears at least.

Just my (musical) 2 cents,

Olivier

>
> Michael (lighting blue touch-paper and retiring to a safe distance).
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 08:49, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
>>> Absolutely fascinating stuff but bizarre all the considerations
>>> that affect pitch over time.
>> 
>> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope
>> with all this?
> 
> They simply dispair.  I speak from experience :-)
> 
> To a certain extent (say, plus-minus a whole note) I can compensate
> the different pitch.  If the difference is larger, I have to transpose
> everything.

Perhaps you might try the programs mentioned before [1] that I wrote for ChucK, 
which allows one to play different tunings on the computer keyboard, to see if 
you can get used to it. A Swedish composer with absolute pitch said he managed 
to get used to exact quarter tones, or E24, and it was not so difficult for him.

1. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-05/msg00465.html



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying.  [...]

OK, I misunderstood :-)


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Michael Hendry]

> On 26 May 2016, at 08:02, N. Andrew Walsh  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with all 
> this?
> 
> Michael
> 
> You ready for some polemic?
> 
> "Perfect pitch" is a sham. It's a fraud perpetuated by people who think that 
> some of us are simply born musical geniuses, with an innate ability to sense 
> the inner nature of music directly, and from whom creative and musical 
> expressiveness naturally and effortlessly flows. I've sat in on seminars for 
> composition, ear-training, musicology, music history, you name it; if one of 
> the composers said he had perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his 
> scores are immediately taken more seriously.
> 
> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note equal 
> tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from an early age 
> -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply enough ingrained that 
> you can associate heard pitches with their usual note names. That's it. I've 
> also sat in on ear-training seminars where the played music was to be written 
> down transposed: the kids with perfect pitch floundered, because they 
> couldn't actually hear the intervals, and (for them) the note names were all 
> wrong. Likewise, play them examples in other tuning systems -- just 
> intonation, but also meantone, pythagorean, or similar -- and likewise, they 
> couldn't actually identify any of the notes. To them, it was all just "out of 
> tune." 
> 
> I *despise* the idea of perfect pitch, because to me it's a sort of musical 
> parlor trick that a distressingly high number of musicians have conflated 
> with some sort of in-born propensity for musical talent, and creative 
> music-making suffers greatly for it.
> 
> But my opinions on the matter are, as the kids are saying these days, "salty."
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> A

I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!

Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim that 
when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their experience is of 
brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre sound. I’ve even heard 
in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other 
dull).

Michael (lighting blue touch-paper and retiring to a safe distance).
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[N. Andrew Walsh]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

>
> > "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
>
> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
> nice overview.
>

I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. I *absolutely* do
not think having absolute pitch makes you a better musician, and I
specifically criticized those who do (in my case, the committees reviewing
composers' scores who think having absolute pitch makes them some kind of
musical savant). I specifically said that the undue attention paid to it is
detrimental to creative music-making.


>
> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
>

I said this as well: it's a direct hindrance to being able to being able to
hear musical relationships the moment the heard material deviates from what
you've been habituated with.


>
> > I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
> > music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
> > perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
> > immediately taken more seriously.
>
> Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
> takes care of that.
>

I've been working and teaching at a music school in Germany for eight
years. I beg to disagree. It was usually the first question they asked in
the ear-training seminars, and the reaction I describe for composition
seminars occurred just as often. But I do agree that they take it even more
seriously in the US.


>
> > What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
> > equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
> > an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
> > enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
> > usual note names.  That's it.
>
> No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.
>

>From that wikipedia article you suggested I read:

Influence by music experience
Absolute pitch sense appears to be influenced by cultural exposure to
music, especially in the familiarization of the equal-tempered C-major
scale. Most of the absolute listeners that were tested in this respect
identified the C-major tones more reliably and, except for B, more quickly
than the five "black key" tones, which corresponds to the higher prevalence
of these tones in ordinary musical experience. One study of Dutch
non-musicians also demonstrated a bias toward using C-major tones in
ordinary speech, especially on syllables related to emphasis.

and later:

Nature vs. nurture
Absolute pitch might be achievable by any human being during a critical
period of auditory development, after which period cognitive strategies
favor global and relational processing. Proponents of the critical-period
theory agree that the presence of absolute pitch ability is dependent on
learning, but there is disagreement about whether training causes absolute
skills to occur or lack of training causes absolute perception to be
overwhelmed and obliterated by relative perception of musical intervals.

I've been working with and writing music in non-standard tunings for … 15
years. I've worked with a lot of musicians in that time, both in Germany
and in the US. I can tell you from experience, and from having talked about
it with acousticians and musical-cognition specialists (a number of them
from the Fraunhofer Institut), that I'm pretty confident that when I say
that absolute pitch is largely the result of internalizing an
equal-tempered scale (and that usually within a narrow range of the
standard concert pitch, be it 440 or 443 or whatever) learned through early
musical training, and that a lot of musicians, composers, theorists, etc.
nevertheless treat it as if it's some key to musical talent., and that this
does more harm to music-making than good, I have a reasonably solid basis
for asserting it to be the case.

Cheers,

A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

BTW : are there people with 415 Hz perfect pitch, and others with 442 Hz?

> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:41, Jacques Menu Muzhic  a écrit :
> 
> I once played near a timpani guy who told me: «  I hear a G, thus you’re 
> playing an F » !
> 
> Sort of « one tone off » perfect pitch…
> 
> JM
> 
>> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:34, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>>> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
>> 
>> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
>> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
>> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
>> nice overview.
>> 
>> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
>> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
>> 
>>> I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
>>> music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
>>> perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
>>> immediately taken more seriously.
>> 
>> Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
>> takes care of that.
>> 
>>> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
>>> equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
>>> an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
>>> enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
>>> usual note names.  That's it.
>> 
>> No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.
>> 
>> 
>>   Werner
>> 
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

I once played near a timpani guy who told me: «  I hear a G, thus you’re 
playing an F » !

Sort of « one tone off » perfect pitch…

JM

> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:34, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :
> 
> 
>> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
> 
> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
> nice overview.
> 
> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
> 
>> I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
>> music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
>> perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
>> immediately taken more seriously.
> 
> Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
> takes care of that.
> 
>> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
>> equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
>> an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
>> enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
>> usual note names.  That's it.
> 
> No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.
> 
> 
>Werner
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Werner LEMBERG]

> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]

It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
*not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
nice overview.

In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.

> I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
> music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
> perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
> immediately taken more seriously.

Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
takes care of that.

> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
> equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
> an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
> enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
> usual note names.  That's it.

No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[N. Andrew Walsh]

>
>
>
> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with
> all this?
>
> Michael
>

You ready for some polemic?

"Perfect pitch" is a sham. It's a fraud perpetuated by people who think
that some of us are simply born musical geniuses, with an innate ability to
sense the inner nature of music directly, and from whom creative and
musical expressiveness naturally and effortlessly flows. I've sat in on
seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology, music history, you name
it; if one of the composers said he had perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit
up, and his scores are immediately taken more seriously.

What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note equal
tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from an early age
-- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply enough ingrained
that you can associate heard pitches with their usual note names. That's
it. I've also sat in on ear-training seminars where the played music was to
be written down transposed: the kids with perfect pitch floundered, because
they couldn't actually hear the intervals, and (for them) the note names
were all wrong. Likewise, play them examples in other tuning systems --
just intonation, but also meantone, pythagorean, or similar -- and
likewise, they couldn't actually identify any of the notes. To them, it was
all just "out of tune."

I *despise* the idea of perfect pitch, because to me it's a sort of musical
parlor trick that a distressingly high number of musicians have conflated
with some sort of in-born propensity for musical talent, and creative
music-making suffers greatly for it.

But my opinions on the matter are, as the kids are saying these days,
"salty."

Cheers,

A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Absolutely fascinating stuff but bizarre all the considerations
>> that affect pitch over time.
> 
> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope
> with all this?

They simply dispair.  I speak from experience :-)

To a certain extent (say, plus-minus a whole note) I can compensate
the different pitch.  If the difference is larger, I have to transpose
everything.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Michael Hendry]

> On 25 May 2016, at 22:42, Shane Brandes  wrote:
> 
> A440 was made an ISO standard in 1955. Bands (orchestral) still
> routinely ignore it. The pitch was raised especially during the late
> 19th century  partially due to the ability of pianos to withstand
> greater string tension which gave the ability to produce louder sound
> to cover larger and larger concert halls. Even in the earlier period
> of the Baroque organs tended to be pitched high and then small organs
> were used tuned in kammerton (chamber tone) with a lower pitch to
> accommodate vocal music. Absolutely fascinating stuff but bizarre all
> the considerations that affect pitch over time.
> 
> Shane

Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with all 
this?

Michael


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Shane Brandes]

A440 was made an ISO standard in 1955. Bands (orchestral) still
routinely ignore it. The pitch was raised especially during the late
19th century  partially due to the ability of pianos to withstand
greater string tension which gave the ability to produce louder sound
to cover larger and larger concert halls. Even in the earlier period
of the Baroque organs tended to be pitched high and then small organs
were used tuned in kammerton (chamber tone) with a lower pitch to
accommodate vocal music. Absolutely fascinating stuff but bizarre all
the considerations that affect pitch over time.

Shane

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Johan Vromans  wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 17:38:55 +0100
> Wols Lists  wrote:
>
>> Maybe I didn't word it very well. Take a Baroque part, written for eg
>> A=400, and try and sing it at the modern A=440 without transposing it.
>>
>> Painful ... in other words the pitch has risen but, obviously, our
>> voices haven't risen with it.
>
> Well maybe I did not word it correctly. I understood "the original pitch"
> to mean the original pitch (A=400Hz) so it would be sung lower than when
> using the current convention (A=440Hz).
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 17:38:55 +0100
Wols Lists  wrote:

> Maybe I didn't word it very well. Take a Baroque part, written for eg
> A=400, and try and sing it at the modern A=440 without transposing it.
> 
> Painful ... in other words the pitch has risen but, obviously, our
> voices haven't risen with it.

Well maybe I did not word it correctly. I understood "the original pitch"
to mean the original pitch (A=400Hz) so it would be sung lower than when
using the current convention (A=440Hz).

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

Someone mentioned local organ tuning as explaining historical differences.

The one at Abbatiale de Payerne (Switzerland) is 422 Hz:

http://www.abbatiale-payerne.ch/musique/orgues/orgue-paroissiale/

see near the bottom of the page.

I was told about it by my oboe teacher, who often plays there. But this is 
neither 415 nor 440, so she has to adapt…

JM

> Le 25 mai 2016 à 18:38, Wols Lists  a écrit :
> 
> On 25/05/16 07:05, Johan Vromans wrote:
>> Since we're OT anyhow...
>> 
>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:58:48 +0100
>> Anthonys Lists  wrote:
>> 
>>> Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in 
>>> the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.
>> 
>> Why are they almost unsingable? They were sung at the time they were
>> written. Did the human voice get higher since?
>> 
>> Just curious.
>> 
> Maybe I didn't word it very well. Take a Baroque part, written for eg
> A=400, and try and sing it at the modern A=440 without transposing it.
> 
> Painful ... in other words the pitch has risen but, obviously, our
> voices haven't risen with it.
> 
> Dunno why I was doing it, but I discovered all this from Wikipedia some
> time ago. Iirc A=440 is the original ISO standard number 1 :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Wol
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Wols Lists]

On 25/05/16 07:05, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Since we're OT anyhow...
> 
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:58:48 +0100
> Anthonys Lists  wrote:
> 
>> Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in 
>> the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.
> 
> Why are they almost unsingable? They were sung at the time they were
> written. Did the human voice get higher since?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
Maybe I didn't word it very well. Take a Baroque part, written for eg
A=400, and try and sing it at the modern A=440 without transposing it.

Painful ... in other words the pitch has risen but, obviously, our
voices haven't risen with it.

Dunno why I was doing it, but I discovered all this from Wikipedia some
time ago. Iirc A=440 is the original ISO standard number 1 :-)

Cheers,
Wol


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Frauke Jurgensen]

The reference pitch wasn't standardised until quite late in history, and
there were many local variations (some related to organ pitch). If you were
a composer writing in a place with a low pitch standard, you might write
the parts higher on paper. Thus Purcell's theatrical music (female roles
sung by women) looks high on paper. Many older modern editions transcribe
it transposed down a tone, but now, it's more common to assume that you've
got a historically-informed ensemble using lower pitch (392 or 415,
frequently). These modern "baroque" pitch standards provide a happy medium
for copies of wind instruments, and correspond to a  harpsichord with a
sliding transposer going down 1 or 2 semitones from 440 (same goes, the
other way, for modern "Venetian" pitch). 400 is a great pitch for lots of
music, but not so convenient for the standardisation of modern historical
instruments. Hope this helps! Mobile phone not so convenient for typing
detailed explanations!
On 25 May 2016 15:28, "Kieren MacMillan" 
wrote:

> Hi Johan,
>
> > But my question was: Why are they "almost unsingable" in the original
> > pitch? Did the human voice get higher since?
>
> For centuries, women weren’t allowed to sing in church. So men and boys
> had to cover all parts, including the higher ones. Although boy sopranos
> and altos have impressive ranges, female sopranos and altos have a slightly
> higher general range: c’’' is generally the top of even the most
> spectacular boy soprano voice, but (e.g.) the “Queen of the Night” aria
> extends up to f’’’.
>
> Best,
> Kieren.
> 
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Johan,

> But my question was: Why are they "almost unsingable" in the original
> pitch? Did the human voice get higher since?

For centuries, women weren’t allowed to sing in church. So men and boys had to 
cover all parts, including the higher ones. Although boy sopranos and altos 
have impressive ranges, female sopranos and altos have a slightly higher 
general range: c’’' is generally the top of even the most spectacular boy 
soprano voice, but (e.g.) the “Queen of the Night” aria extends up to f’’’.

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:42:34 +0200
Olivier Biot  wrote:

> Isn't that related to the independent church organ tunings back then: the
> higher they were tuned, the brigher they sounded in a church.

A=400 is almost a G. It's lower.

But my question was: Why are they "almost unsingable" in the original
pitch? Did the human voice get higher since?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Olivier Biot]

Isn't that related to the independent church organ tunings back then: the
higher they were tuned, the brigher they sounded in a church. Sadly, the
human voice cannot be tuned up the same way an organ can...

See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgelton (in German).

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Johan Vromans  wrote:

> Since we're OT anyhow...
>
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:58:48 +0100
> Anthonys Lists  wrote:
>
> > Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in
> > the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.
>
> Why are they almost unsingable? They were sung at the time they were
> written. Did the human voice get higher since?
>
> Just curious.
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

Since we're OT anyhow...

On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:58:48 +0100
Anthonys Lists  wrote:

> Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in 
> the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.

Why are they almost unsingable? They were sung at the time they were
written. Did the human voice get higher since?

Just curious.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthonys Lists" <antli...@youngman.org.uk>
To: "N. Andrew Walsh" <n.andrew.wa...@gmail.com>; "lilypond-user" 
<lilypond-user@gnu.org>

Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: OT: high-precision tuner app



On 23/05/2016 18:38, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:
it's very common to describe a pitch with something like "C# -49.52c" 
where the latter part is a deviation in cents from a standard reference 
pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or some other tuning pitch [which 
is sometimes necessary when dealing with European orchestras inexorably 
tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more "flashy" or whatever]).


Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in 
the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.


And when I bought my first trombone the band I played with threatened to 
hacksaw bits off it because as a modern instrument it was tuned to A=440. 
Most of the (ancient) band instruments were tuned to something like A=460 
and mine wouldn't sharpen up enough.


Cheers,
Wol


Anyone who gets excited about stuff like this might like to read:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Performing-Pitch-Story/dp/0810841851

(Yes - I do have a copy)

--
Phil Holmes 



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Anthonys Lists]

On 23/05/2016 18:38, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:
it's very common to describe a pitch with something like "C# -49.52c" 
where the latter part is a deviation in cents from a standard 
reference pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or some other tuning 
pitch [which is sometimes necessary when dealing with European 
orchestras inexorably tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more 
"flashy" or whatever]).


Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in 
the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.


And when I bought my first trombone the band I played with threatened to 
hacksaw bits off it because as a modern instrument it was tuned to 
A=440. Most of the (ancient) band instruments were tuned to something 
like A=460 and mine wouldn't sharpen up enough.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[musicus]

Hello Andrew,

I'd like to add a few thoughts to this topic:

[...]Also, in relation to accuracy, no phone tuner app is more accurate 
than 0.1 cent[...]


Indeed!
Most tuning programs measure the frequency via FFT (Fast Fourier 
Transformation), which gets only fine results,
if you use a relative long measurement time. This is for music 
instruments not usable, because barely no instrument can produce

an identical frequency over a time period of a few seconds.
So, either you get a fine resolution or a short measurement time, but 
not both together.

(frequency resolution = samplingrate / number of values)

A much better idea is to filter the signal to the wished frequency and 
measure the time of its period.
So, if you want to distinguish 440 hz from 441 hz, you need an AD/C with 
at least 200.000 Samples/second

in order to get reliable results.
(using standard frequency range 0-20 kHz at 1hz resolution and 10-times 
measurement resolution) (20.000*1*10)

But 1 Hz difference at 440 Hz is about 4 cent!!
So, in order to get 0.01 cent (~0,0025 hz) resolution you need
20 kHz*400*10 = 8 MSp/s

In other words: No smartphone (or PC) does have an AD/c with MSp/s, so 
you need special hardware to measure frequencies at this resolution.




[...]the ear simply cannot hear a hundredth of a cent difference [...]

I did an experiment tuning a pair of piano strings at around 440 Hz and 
could tell a difference up to one beat in 20 seconds.

This means it is possible to distinguish 440,00 Hz from 440,05 Hz
This is finer than 0.1 cent.



Another problem with such fine frequency specifications is 
inharmonicity.
If you want to tune 2 or more strings together - let's say an octave - 
you cannot only consider the fundamentals.
A fine difference at the fundamentals can get you very disturbing beats 
at higher partials, because they are much more affected by 
inharmonicity.
You need to measure all "overlapping" (-> creating beats) partials (in 
our case: 1. <-> 2. / 2. <-> 4. / 3. <-> 6. / 4. <-> 8. ...) and 
consider those dependent of their amplitude.
Then you can calculate the "right" frequency and tune both strings 
together.
This is the way, good aural piano tuners work and why they get much 
better results than any tuning app (so far).


My point is, you can only set ONE reference frequency (441 or 442 Hz f. 
e.) and other deviations from "standard" intonation won't work at this 
fine resolution.

There are some parameters to consider
(deviation of inharmonicity between various instruments / "to which 
resolution can a musician change the intonation?"...)
before you set values of 1/100 cent. Maybe it is better to specify 
Beats/second. (tempered quint vs pure quint = 1/2 B/s)

Best regards,
musicus

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Andrew Bernard]

Hello Andrew,

Apart from doing engraving scores with lilypond, I am also a harpsichord maker 
(and tuner obviously) and a player. I have decades of experience doing 
professional tuning. Also having a background in maths and computing, I take an 
interest in temperaments, tuning theory, and tuning programs.

There are many tuner programs for Android available. But the ones that let you 
enter and tune custom temperaments only support 12 notes per octave. As far I 
am aware there are no programs that support more notes per octave. Also, in 
relation to accuracy, no phone tuner app is more accurate than 0.1 cent. in 
testing, even that is doubtful, to tell the truth, and you are lucky if a phone 
is accurate to one cent (depressingly). You cannot find a program that is 
accurate to 0.01 cents as you require. One reason for this is that phones do 
not have particularly accurate ADC/DAC chips. The other reason is that the ear 
simply cannot hear a hundredth of a cent difference, even when comparing two 
notes in a just intonation and listening for beats and so on. There are many 
papers in psychoacoustics that have established this.

It seems to me that what you actually want is a high precision frequency meter 
instead. There are tools like this for computers, but you are unlikely to find 
that sort of laboratory accuracy application for a mere phone.

If you have a Mac you could look at:

http://www.faberacoustical.com/apps/mac/electroacoustics_toolbox/

Or  could use this for accurate frequency measurement:

http://www.baudline.com/index.html

Other than that, better write your own app. I am sure there are a lot of just 
intonation folks who need such a tool.

Andrew




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Ralph Palmer]

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:38 PM, N. Andrew Walsh 
wrote:

> Hi List,
>
> I'm guessing somebody on the list might be able to help me with a somewhat
> off-topic issue.
>
> For whatever reason (or rather: see my previous posts to the list about my
> interest in just intonation) I'm trying to find a tuning app capable of
> tuning to very precisely-set reference pitches. That is, when dealing with
> music in just intonation, it's very common to describe a pitch with
> something like "C# -49.52c" where the latter part is a deviation in cents
> from a standard reference pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or some
> other tuning pitch [which is sometimes necessary when dealing with European
> orchestras inexorably tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more
> "flashy" or whatever]). I'm trying to find a (preferably free) Android app
> that can be set as precisely as possible, and then provide visual feedback
> to tune my instruments.
>
> I normally use a Peterson virtual strobe tuner, but the screen is failing,
> and it gets wobbly if the pitch isn't from an organ or similarly stable
> instrument. It oftentimes jumps from the tuning pitch to its fifth, and is
> hard to read.
>
> Is there an app out there that has the capability I'm looking for? I'm
> having a hard time searching, because a lot of apps don't specify what they
> mean when they say they can be fine-tuned, and they usually don't mean
> this. I'd *like* it if I could get at least one decimal place; two would be
> even better.
>
> I figure some of you work with tuners a lot, and might have some tips.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> A
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
I do not fully understand what you're looking for, but here are the best
suggestions I could find:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pl.netigen.toolstuner
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sonosaurus.tonalenergytuner
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.istrobosoft.tuner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bIQT43EIA

Please excuse the noise if these are not useful.

Good luck,

Ralph


-- 
Ralph Palmer
Brattleboro, VT
USA
palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:38:13 +0200
"N. Andrew Walsh"  wrote:

According to the documentation of DA Tuner:
http://www.applaudapps.net/?page_id=18

Custom temperaments can be applied to DaTuner.  You can also provide your
own custom temperament files – after the first execution of DaTuner a .csv
will be created, and you can manually open this and add your own
temperaments using a computer or local file editor.

Is that what you are looking for?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Hi Urs,

Intunator does not seem to allow me to *set* the deviation in cents, which
is what I need. That is, I need to pre-set the tuner to "B-flat minus 45.62
cents" or whatever, and then be able to use it to tune my instrument to
match.

Cheers,

A

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:

> Intunator could be good for you.
>
> Am 23. Mai 2016 19:38:13 MESZ, schrieb "N. Andrew Walsh" <
> n.andrew.wa...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi List,
>>
>> I'm guessing somebody on the list might be able to help me with a
>> somewhat off-topic issue.
>>
>> For whatever reason (or rather: see my previous posts to the list about
>> my interest in just intonation) I'm trying to find a tuning app capable of
>> tuning to very precisely-set reference pitches. That is, when dealing with
>> music in just intonation, it's very common to describe a pitch with
>> something like "C# -49.52c" where the latter part is a deviation in cents
>> from a standard reference pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or some
>> other tuning pitch [which is sometimes necessary when dealing with European
>> orchestras inexorably tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more
>> "flashy" or whatever]). I'm trying to find a (preferably free) Android app
>> that can be set as precisely as possible, and then provide visual feedback
>> to tune my instruments.
>>
>> I normally use a Peterson virtual strobe tuner, but the screen is
>> failing, and it gets wobbly if the pitch isn't from an organ or similarly
>> stable instrument. It oftentimes jumps from the tuning pitch to its fifth,
>> and is hard to read.
>>
>> Is there an app out there that has the capability I'm looking for? I'm
>> having a hard time searching, because a lot of apps don't specify what they
>> mean when they say they can be fine-tuned, and they usually don't mean
>> this. I'd *like* it if I could get at least one decimal place; two would be
>> even better.
>>
>> I figure some of you work with tuners a lot, and might have some tips.
>>
>> Thanks for the help!
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>>
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
> gesendet.
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Urs Liska]

Intunator could be good for you.

Am 23. Mai 2016 19:38:13 MESZ, schrieb "N. Andrew Walsh" 
:
>Hi List,
>
>I'm guessing somebody on the list might be able to help me with a
>somewhat
>off-topic issue.
>
>For whatever reason (or rather: see my previous posts to the list about
>my
>interest in just intonation) I'm trying to find a tuning app capable of
>tuning to very precisely-set reference pitches. That is, when dealing
>with
>music in just intonation, it's very common to describe a pitch with
>something like "C# -49.52c" where the latter part is a deviation in
>cents
>from a standard reference pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or
>some
>other tuning pitch [which is sometimes necessary when dealing with
>European
>orchestras inexorably tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more
>"flashy" or whatever]). I'm trying to find a (preferably free) Android
>app
>that can be set as precisely as possible, and then provide visual
>feedback
>to tune my instruments.
>
>I normally use a Peterson virtual strobe tuner, but the screen is
>failing,
>and it gets wobbly if the pitch isn't from an organ or similarly stable
>instrument. It oftentimes jumps from the tuning pitch to its fifth, and
>is
>hard to read.
>
>Is there an app out there that has the capability I'm looking for? I'm
>having a hard time searching, because a lot of apps don't specify what
>they
>mean when they say they can be fine-tuned, and they usually don't mean
>this. I'd *like* it if I could get at least one decimal place; two
>would be
>even better.
>
>I figure some of you work with tuners a lot, and might have some tips.
>
>Thanks for the help!
>
>A
>
>
>
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

OT: high-precision tuner app

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Hi List,

I'm guessing somebody on the list might be able to help me with a somewhat
off-topic issue.

For whatever reason (or rather: see my previous posts to the list about my
interest in just intonation) I'm trying to find a tuning app capable of
tuning to very precisely-set reference pitches. That is, when dealing with
music in just intonation, it's very common to describe a pitch with
something like "C# -49.52c" where the latter part is a deviation in cents
from a standard reference pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or some
other tuning pitch [which is sometimes necessary when dealing with European
orchestras inexorably tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more
"flashy" or whatever]). I'm trying to find a (preferably free) Android app
that can be set as precisely as possible, and then provide visual feedback
to tune my instruments.

I normally use a Peterson virtual strobe tuner, but the screen is failing,
and it gets wobbly if the pitch isn't from an organ or similarly stable
instrument. It oftentimes jumps from the tuning pitch to its fifth, and is
hard to read.

Is there an app out there that has the capability I'm looking for? I'm
having a hard time searching, because a lot of apps don't specify what they
mean when they say they can be fine-tuned, and they usually don't mean
this. I'd *like* it if I could get at least one decimal place; two would be
even better.

I figure some of you work with tuners a lot, and might have some tips.

Thanks for the help!

A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user