The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why don't we switch to 432Hz tuning? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 15th April 2018
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
300 leading opera singers, huh?

Sounds like there's a list. Could you give us a link?
The article cites: Joan Sutherland, Luciano Pavarotti and Plácido Domingo, and the Schiller Institute cites:
Quote:
The petition has been signed by numerous artists from around the world, including singers Elly Ameling, Fedora Barbieri, Grace Bumbry, Carlo Bergonzi, Piero Gappuccilli, Maria Chiara, Giuseppe Di Stefano, Dietrich FischerDieskan, Mirella Freni, Christa Ludwig, Pilar Lorengar, Leona Mitchell, Birgit Nilsson, Louis Quilico, Ruggero Rainiondi, Bidu Sayao, Peter Schreier, Joan Sutherland, and Renata Tebaldi conductors Richard Bonynge,Luciano Chailly, Gianandrea Gavazzeni, Rafael Kubelik, Reinhard Peters and Klaus Weise, and instrumentalists Norbert Brainin(violin). Frans Bruggen (flute), Helmut Hucke (oboe), GunterLudwig (piano), Siegfried Palm (violoncello), and Norman Shetler (piano).
The full list is available on request.
2
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #62
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Singers LOVE lower pitches... especially Opera where the physical demands are high. This preference is no different than Hendrix tuning to "A = 415"

Lower keys are easier to sing for some voices, and the tension of strings being less gives a different tone. This has NOTHING to do with validating the mountains of BS that built the 432 movement.
5
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #63
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Well, maybe not necessarily:
.
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...So (mathematically speaking) I guess we only need 132 more "leading opera singers" to sign on to the idea, and then the universe will begin to resonate to its full potential!
.
It seems quite obvious why an opera singer and a musician with a fixed-pitch instrument might have different preferences.
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #65
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
It's noteworthy that 300 leading opera singers supported a move to 432.
Was there someone with a clipboard and a petition out in front of Lane Bryant?
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #66
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
It seems quite obvious why an opera singer and a musician with a fixed-pitch instrument might have different preferences.
.
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
.
Yeah. Sorry. I'm busy doing important stuff with synths. You're only conversing with one hemisphere of my brain
Old 15th April 2018
  #68
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Yeah. Sorry. I'm busy doing important stuff with synths. You're only conversing with one hemisphere of my brain
Yeah, I didn't really mean that I actually disagreed with your observation at all. (Quite the contrary, really!)

I just didn't really think it was a response properly borne out of my post.

...But hey; no worries, mate!
.
Old 15th April 2018
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
Singers LOVE lower pitches... especially Opera where the physical demands are high. This preference is no different than Hendrix tuning to "A = 415"

Lower keys are easier to sing for some voices, and the tension of strings being less gives a different tone. This has NOTHING to do with validating the mountains of BS that built the 432 movement.
For sure, I tune my accompaniment guitars a half step down, for just that reason. Songs I sang in, say, G, 30 years ago feel and sound better to me dropped a bit.

As I noted before, I've got no problem if someone wants to adopt their own 'standard' reference pitch.

It's just that I can't keep from laughing outright when people start talking about how their favorite pitch is 'in harmony' with the 'fundamental resonance of the universe.'

Some of the rationales cited for these alternative tunings are pretty amusing...

"The lowest audible tone is also a C, of ​​16 Hz (16 cycles per second), confirming the basic character of the C."

Of course, there is no one 'lowest audible tone' because each individual's hearing is potentially quite different from the next fellow's.

This stuff is more than a bit like those folks who deconstruct Biblical verses and then reconstruct them in various ways, looking for secret messages.

If one prefers 'relaxed' tuning, one does NOT need a supernatural explanation.
Old 15th April 2018
  #70
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
That is one beautiful piece of video!
.
Old 15th April 2018
  #71
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
For sure, I tune my accompaniment guitars a half step down, for just that reason. Songs I sang in, say, G, 30 years ago feel and sound better to me dropped a bit.

As I noted before, I've got no problem if someone wants to adopt their own 'standard' reference pitch.

It's just that I can't keep from laughing outright when people start talking about how their favorite pitch is 'in harmony' with the 'fundamental resonance of the universe.'

Some of the rationales cited for these alternative tunings are pretty amusing...

"The lowest audible tone is also a C, of ​​16 Hz (16 cycles per second), confirming the basic character of the C."

Of course, there is no one 'lowest audible tone' because each individual's hearing is potentially quite different from the next fellow's.

This stuff is more than a bit like those folks who deconstruct Biblical verses and then reconstruct them in various ways, looking for secret messages.

If one prefers 'relaxed' tuning, one does NOT need a supernatural explanation.
...And then there's this:
Wikipedia | Slack-Key Guitar
.
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #72
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
That is one beautiful piece of video!
.
Form can definitely be more powerful than content much of the time. Calling out a standardized presentation form doesn't devalue the content of all those who use that form though, you'd still have to address the actual content of the speech that was linked, or this is just another attempt at using fallacious logic to muddy the waters.
Old 15th April 2018
  #73
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
It's not about music at all. It's about gluten consumption. Consumption of grains has disrupted the natural human inner ecosystem which has resulted in our incrementally increasing pitch upward to adjust for the imbalances. This has led to increased allergies and the dependence on pharmaceutical remedies. Big pharma is hugely invested in maintaining A at 440 cps. If we were to return to our paleo diet and to 432 tuning, the drug companies would soon go out of business.
5
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
It's not about music at all. It's about gluten consumption. Consumption of grains has disrupted the natural human inner ecosystem which has resulted in our incrementally increasing pitch upward to adjust for the imbalances. This has led to increased allergies and the dependence on pharmaceutical remedies. Big pharma is hugely invested in maintaining A at 440 cps. If we were to return to our paleo diet and to 432 tuning, the drug companies would soon go out of business.
Haha, quality
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #75
If vocalists have a preference for 432 does that mean it is a more natural reference?
Old 15th April 2018
  #76
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
If vocalists have a preference for 432 does that mean it is a more natural reference?
No
3
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #77
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
No
Why then?
Old 15th April 2018
  #78
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Why then?
Assuming this is actually true, it could also mean vocalists like it "a little bit lower in comparison." Relativity rather than absolute.

In which case as soon as everyone's adjusted to 432, they'll like 424 in side-by-sides.
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #79
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Why then?
Because it's not an objective measurement. "More natural reference" is a statement that fails the analysis. Natural to a singer is a variable unique to every singer, and is a variable again to every instrumentalist. It's not some "law of the natural world" like gravity.

To simplify it... a lower tuning reference makes it EASIER to sing for every Soprano. You'd probably find less bass vocalists who agree.

Plus... they are singers. In every class I've ever taken or taught at university, vocal majors (opera singers) were some of the least competent students with the greatest complaints about everything. Point is invalid just because you reference singers IMO.
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...And then there's this:
Wikipedia | Slack-Key Guitar
.


I am, actually, a big fan of slack key and other Hawaiian styles, particularly from what seems (to me, though I'm no expert) the golden era of the 30s to the early 50s.
Old 15th April 2018
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
It's not about music at all. It's about gluten consumption. Consumption of grains has disrupted the natural human inner ecosystem which has resulted in our incrementally increasing pitch upward to adjust for the imbalances. This has led to increased allergies and the dependence on pharmaceutical remedies. Big pharma is hugely invested in maintaining A at 440 cps. If we were to return to our paleo diet and to 432 tuning, the drug companies would soon go out of business.



This is why the Chipmunks were huge in the heavy grain-consumption regions. Of course. It all makes so much sense, now. You know, once you know. You know?

Come to think of it, my decision to drop-tune all my guitars came not long after I started cutting back on grains.
Old 15th April 2018
  #82
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post


I am, actually, a big fan of slack key and other Hawaiian styles, particularly from what seems (to me, though I'm no expert) the golden era of the 30s to the early 50s.
Somehow I hear "slacker-key"
Like, in Hawaii, it's too damn hot to have to finger actual chords! Ease up, brah!
Mobetta kine music, haole!
Old 15th April 2018
  #83
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
432 is part of a special family of sacred numbers. It even sounds different, it has a specific warmth, feels right, like comming home, even smells like home.

I understand that many will deny this reality.
If you put it in those terms, I understand many will think you're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Personally, I'd like a higher tuning standard (442?) - it sounds more crisp, more sharp, less flat you know...
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #84
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
. . . more crisp, more sharp, less flat you know...
B sharp. Never B flat. Always B natural.
2
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
Somehow I hear "slacker-key"
Like, in Hawaii, it's too damn hot to have to finger actual chords! Ease up, bra!
Mobetta kine music, haole!


There's nothing lazy about the fingerwork of some of those Hawaiians. They were listening to stuff like Django and the Playboys on the one hand and pushing the evolution of their own homegrown traditions on the other. And then there's the hula girls. (Maybe one part of the story is in the hands...)
1
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #86
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
B sharp. Never B flat. Always B natural.
Except for E's and A's...
Old 15th April 2018
  #87
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
B sharp. Never B flat. Always B natural.
...And of course, if you don't C# you'll Bb!
.
2
Share
Old 15th April 2018
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Assuming this is actually true, it could also mean vocalists like it "a little bit lower in comparison." Relativity rather than absolute.
The historical evidence suggests that the original reference was lower and was raised in the interest of fixed-tuned instrument ensembles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
In which case as soon as everyone's adjusted to 432, they'll like 424 in side-by-sides.
No evidence for that; just an anecdotal preference for 432.
432 is a smidge under -32 cents (from 440); so not much room to go lower. I'd be interested to see a study of singers vs fixed-tuned players as to preference.
Old 16th April 2018
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
Because it's not an objective measurement....
No, but it can be if required. I'm posting an observation based on anecdotal information and asking a question based on that.
An objective measurement would require playing tones and asking participants (singers/players) if they have a preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
"More natural reference" is a statement that fails the analysis...
Which analysis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
...Natural to a singer is a variable unique to every singer, and is a variable again to every instrumentalist.
A natural reference will be the one that singers or instrument-tuners resort to in the absence of a universal reference. This might vary across geographic regions and cultures. The fact is that most singers (ideally) sing in 'culturally-relative pitch'; the characteristic differences between vocalists (to an intra-cultural audence) is mainly micro-timing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
It's not some "law of the natural world" like gravity.
Gravity is dependent on the mass of the bodies being affected. There's a big difference between physics and anthropology. In anthropology a distinction would be made between the relative natural reference tuning of different cultures; a major empirical tuning might be seen as hegemonic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
...To simplify it... a lower tuning reference makes it EASIER to sing for every Soprano. You'd probably find less bass vocalists who agree....
I was thinking this...interesting assumption. Another possibility is that (bass) musical composition and vocal capability (different larynxs favoured) would change with a change in reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman View Post
Plus... they are singers. In every class I've ever taken or taught at university, vocal majors (opera singers) were some of the least competent students with the greatest complaints about everything. Point is invalid just because you reference singers IMO.
So your saying the singers anecdotal preference for 432 is invalid - because they're singers?

Lol. Righty oh!
Interesting discussion. Thanks
Old 16th April 2018
  #90
Lives for gear
YouTube
1
Share
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump