Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Carrigan  ART vs. SCIENCE
Shakespeare tells us "science is measurement". So it follows that what CAN'T BE MEASURED is art. You are trying to nail down divine dimensions. Scientists shall NEVER understand that art is beyond understanding. So, in the same way the bastards reinvented standard pitch to A=440 FOR THEIR ON GOD DAMN CONVIENCE, so too, they imagine they can "measure" the devine. Concert pitch used to be as low as A=418, so the vocal tenor could easily reach high C. But nooooo, the damn scientists thought it would be much nicer if everone could work with simple mathematics. The good news is the bastards shall never understand and are consigned to their own hand made hell of sounds. May they rot in hell. They also screwed up microphones so they mostly record only down to low E "because that's the lowest note on the bass". ********. For hundreds of years basses have reached low C below E, but scientists don't want to do the work and spend the money to produce very large magnetic speakers, etc. Phoney bastards. Oh boy, that felt good!!! Don Carrigan
Photo: My 1820 Prescott restrung with gut strings for "period" pictch (A=418) by the Boston Handel & Haydn Society at Boston Symphony Hall. Click below: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...apRestring.jpg |
"Shakespeare tells us "science is measurement". So it follows that what CAN'T BE MEASURED is art."
No, it does not follow logically at all-- although I agree that art cannot be satisfactorily quantified.
"So, in the same way the bastards reinvented standard pitch to A=440 FOR THEIR ON GOD DAMN CONVIENCE"
This was certainly not done for the convenience of scientists! You really should read the history of changing concert pitch. Try
this. The substantial rise in concert pitch in the 19th century was not precipitated by scientists! The reference I gave suggests it was at the behest of vocalists. Alexander Woods, in his classic text,
The Physics of Music, argues that it was the result of the development of brass instruments.
Well, you've basically told me to rot in hell. After all, I am one of those scientists. It is folly to think that the intervals used in music cannot be measured although I agree that art cannot. I'd like to think Pythagoras is not rotting in hell either.
You made a statement about the difference between just intonation and equal temperament regarding a quarter-tone. That is a mathematical statement subject to quantitative verification! For all I can tell, the statement is incorrect and I politely asked you what was wrong with my calculations. Your response amounts to dismissing the mathematics entirely. So, you say the difference is a quarter-tone, I ask you to show me the basis for that claim and you respond that I shouldn't be appealing to mathematics. Hmm.
You are completely off the mark regarding the constraints of microphones, loudspeakers, and the physics of music. The low-frequency response of professional microphones is certainly not low-pass above or around the fundamental of the E string (~43 Hz). With regard to loudspeakers-- wrong again. Gee, the pair I have at home has usable output down to 12 Hz! Ever see or hear a Klipschorn, Don (I had those too)? The problem is it takes a large cabinet and substantial $$$ to be able to reproduce those frequencies. That's physics and economics, not art.
I can regularly enjoy the pedal tones of the organ in the Saint Saens' "Organ" Symphony No. 3. Interestingly, some
40+ years ago, Angel released
this
recording of that symphony. I remember the pedal tones shaking our home as they were reproduced with a Bell2200C amplifier and 15-inch Tannoy. That was in the 1960s, Don, and those pedal tones were recorded to the delight of many by those "evil" microphones invented by some "misguided" scientists. By the way, the two pieces of equipment just mentioned are over 50 years old and are alive and well and in my office.
drurb
Fellow, Acoustical Society of America
Edit: Check this out as well. I trust you will appreciate the relevance.
