Talk:Concert pitch

Attempts to change concert pitch

A section on the movement to change concert pitch to 432Hz for the A above middle C would be welcomed. --81.106.115.91 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I stumbled across this article today, but I'm not a specialist by any means and wouldn't know where to begin adding it! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• That is a bizarre article, but so is the history of tuning! I find the argument of 432 being correct when studying how sound affects water to be much more compelling. A new study would be nice, like the old simple study that played the different tunings (432 + 440) and their octaves for a large sampling of people. Just re-do the study and see what people say. Not too hard (unless there is a 'conspiracy' keeping us from going there). Here's a youtube video showing the affect of the 432Hz tuning's effect on water: youtu.be/zmWWfp71TwA. Hard to find one for 440 specifically: youtu.be/8kmnR_fltxk. I have no idea what he is saying but it is quite interesting. The majority of videos are about A=432Hz; actually zero specifically about A=440Hz (that i could find), except for just pure tones for tuning. Note the about section in the first video for details about the perfection of A=432Hz. ;>jamvaru (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

---if I may just comment on above from user Jamvaru: "I have no idea what he is saying but it is quite interesting" super funny... um could this be THE clue that LaRouche's 432 campaign is just self-promoting hogwash?, commonly known as smoke and mirrors?
--- "Just re-do the study and see what people say. Not too hard (unless there is a 'conspiracy' keeping us from going there)". Indeed SO VERY easy, that even your smart phone has all the tools necessary to Design and implement such an experiment. All you'd need to do is get off YouTube, create the differently pitched samples and hit the streets to talk to people. No conspiracy would stop you from doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennpublic (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• • imo the 432 is correct, but I'm not sure how to put it in the article; perhaps the conspiracy is true, and those who follow the 440 tuning are actually brainwashed so do not (can not) have a true opinion or be active in the discussion, lol (?) ;>jamvaru (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This talk page is for discussion about improving the article. It is not a forum for general topic discussion. If you have a suggestion for improving the article, please state it clearly. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

--- this article pints out that musicians around the world chose many different tuning notes not just 440, so your point about brainwashing the entire world of musicians is moot.

• Indeed. This article does link to scientific pitch, a.k.a. "Verdi tuning," promoted a few decades ago by "controversial American political activist" Lyndon LaRouche and his Schiller Institute. That brief mention suffices; any more would be undue, IMO. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally: Re-tuning an instrument to play at a different pitch can't be approximated by recording it at the first pitch and then doctoring the recording. Doctoring recordings is easy to do, but (to give a frivolous example) no matter how much you lower the pitch of Mickey Mouse, you'll never turn him into Barry White. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Standard concert pitch

It is suggested that A440, Pitch_(music)#Standardized_pitch_.28A440.29, Pitch_(music)#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music be merged into a new page "Standard concert pitch" - This new page can then include information on

• todays standard absolute pitch A440
• history of concert pitches
• related topics (such as the increase of standard pitch over time; the tuning of Mozart and Haendel's tuning forks; some Organ tunings as basis for today's baroque choice of around 415 Hz; etc etc.)

256 C (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. The A440 page should discuss musical note A at 440 Hz, and send the reader looking for more information to Pitch (music). If there is an article written called Standard concert pitch (and such an idea has merit), material from Pitch (music) can be combined with new material to create the article. No merge required. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Merging A440 here seems reasonable considering that right now it's just a stub. SharkD  Talk  03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Move "History of pitch standards" and "A440" to new article "standard concert pitch"

This section copied and pasted from Talk:Pitch (music) 14:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd like to suggest that the presentation can be improved, if the information on Pitch_(music)#Standardized_pitch_.28A440.29 and Pitch_(music)#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music be moved to a new article called "standard concert pitch" or something like that. 256 C (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am wary of any proposed change by an editor whose username apparently advocates 256 Hz for middle C, a fringe position. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wary indeed. Vague "presentation can be improved" does not support such a move. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. No merge is required to create a new article entitled Standard concert pitch. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and created a concert pitch article by refactoring the existing pitch (music) article. You're welcome to pick up from there and make whatever changes you like, including, if you wish, renaming it, or indeed undoing my edits, if you feel that is appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Text above this line was moved from [[Talk:Standard concert pitch]] 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Regarding the bold refactoring: I'm not so sure that Pitch (music) was so broken that it needed fixing, but I'll wait and see what others have to say. I've made a few edits to the article page here, but those don't need to be construed as an investment in keeping it this way. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Change of organ pitch with temperature

Citation from article:

"At the Queen's Hall in London, the establishment of the diapason normal for the Promenade Concerts in 1895 (and retuning of the organ to A = 439 at 15 °C (59 °F), to be in tune with A = 435.5 in a heated hall) caused the Royal Philharmonic Society and others (including the Bach Choir, and the Felix Mottl and Artur Nikisch concerts) to adopt the continental pitch thereafter."

If the organ is at A = 439 Hz at 15 °C it must be at more than 440 Hz in a heated hall, assuming that a heated hall has a temperture around 20 °C. So this seems to be an error in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.39.113 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there IS an error, the two figures should be the other way around: The organ was tuned to A=435.4 Hz at 15 °C, which gave A=439 Hz at normal room temperature during a concert. This followed the common misunderstanding of the original instructions for use of the diapason normal, which specify that TUNING FORKS should be tuned to agree with the diapason normal at 15 °C, but later on says that wind instruments should be constructed to agree with these forks at 24 °C ! Hardly anybody read that far however at the time, so the standard was taken to be for COLD instruments and thus will be sharper when these same instruments are warmed-up in playing. Thus the English "new Philharmonic" pitch became only nominally sharper than the French. In practice, tuning the cold Queen's Hall organ to A=435 was roughly equivalent to tuning the same instrument in the heated hall to A=439!

The impossibility to KEEP instruments at exactly the same pitch, because of ubiquitous temperature changes - very few degrees °C are enough to change wind-instrument and organ pitch by several Hertz - also shows how absurd the postulated "superiority" of certain nominal pitches above others must be. No symphony or opera in the real world is, or ever was, performed with all musicians exactly agreeing on the nominal pitch from the first note to the last, and the same organ will sound differently depending on the season: A 20 °C difference in ambient temperature cause the pipes to change by a more than a quarter tone, i.e. a nominal A=440 will come out as A=432 on a cold winter's day, but becomes A=448 in blazing summer heat! One cannot sensibly talk about the classical composers having written their scores for EXACTLY this or that pitch, because the actual tuning of all real musical instruments changes slightly all the time. Any nominal standard is very useful as a guide for building, tuning, and repairing instruments, but must not be taken to indicate that the music performed on them EXACTLY consists of the frequencies mathematically derived from that standard! Only digital sound sources can actually produce tones of mathematically exact frequency, with mostly very un-musical results.... 95.90.245.165 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Need source for 1939 Conference

"In 1939, an international conference recommended that the A above middle C be tuned to 440 Hz, now known as concert pitch." Is there a source for this? I haven't been able to find a single source mentioned online! Keys510 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How else did it happen? Hyacinth (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of online mentions. I added one. They are all from the 432 crowd, who mention that the conference was called by (Nazi) Goebbels, and therefore of course bad. Eijkhout (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Schiller Institute URL cannot be used because it is unreliable. Those folks make the story conform to their wishes rather than telling the facts straight. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre 19th-century

the "facts", particularly per organ phenomena need sourcing IMO.J Civil 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan civil (talk • contribs)

"In the realm of popular music electronic keyboards"

The paragraph "In the realm of popular music electronic keyboards (those, that is, whose tuning cannot be adjusted, which includes almost all the cheaper ones for home use) are still tuned to the A=440 Hz standard in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Electronic tuners for guitar or bass also use a fixed A=440 Hz tuning although some provide for adjustment of that reference frequency." suffers multiple issues.

0. no sources nor references provided, signifing Original Research,

1. There's no "realm of popular music electronic keyboards", the term is poetic speech (handwaving) and nonencyclopedic,

2. "those, that is, (...), which includes almost all the cheaper ones for home use" is also hand-waving and unencyclopedic

3. "Electronic tuners for guitar or bass also use a fixed A=440 Hz tuning although some provide for adjustment of that reference frequency." states "tuners use fixed 440 Hz although some allows adjusment", which is also nonsense, since it states the obvious "p or not p".

4. per definition, "concert pitch" is "the pitch reference a group of musical instruments are tuned to for a performance." - there is *not sense in talking about concert pitch of a single instrument!*.

The rollback by Basemetal is obviously motivated by personal reasons, as he is the sole creator of the aforementioned paragraph. Poponuro (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

NB, I reworded it into section, but I'd be glad if somebody either revamped it seriously or removed it altogether. Poponuro (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does some pitches sound better than others?

Does anyone have an answer, or a hunch of why this is the case? If so, we could mention it in the article. Besides, I would really much like to know why!! :) —Kri (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

String instruments, violins in particular are said to sound more brilliant with higher pitches, which may be an obvious effect since a higher pitch corresponds to a higher string tension, ceteris paribus. Actually, the same effect may be reached using thicker strings (strings with a higher mass per unit of length): they give the same pitch with a higher tension.

Another comment to be made is that wind instruments can be tuned, but only sound pure in one particular pitch. Other pitches require correction by the player, that may affect the quality of the sound in extreme cases. Rbakels (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There are so many reasons why this might be the case, for any individual, that to sort them all out and control for all of them in an experiment would be prohibitive. But here's one example: No pipe or string is ever perfect. Every flaw affects the tone in some small way. This includes both imperfect manufacturing and imperfect design. This problem is worse in recorded music, because even though modern recording equipment may begin to approach "flawless" when compared with past methods, there's a lot of room for human error with choice and placement of microphones, use of effects, and so on. Add in psychological effects - both the player's and your own, plus those of the recording crew if applicable - and you've got what's called in science "a big mess". :) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Sharpness wars listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpness wars. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Cuban A336?

diff That would mean tuning strings down nearly a fourth, making them too flabby to play. There are voices here and there saying that Dinnerstein acknowledges that she mis-spoke, and meant 436 Hz, which is within the realm of credibility. Yes, verifiability, not truth, yada, yada, but in this case there is no way to make a straight-faced claim in Wikipedia's voice that an entire orchestra tunes A4 to 336 Hz.

I intend to remove that mistaken bit of content soon, in the spirit of WP:CB. If someone could reach out to Ms. Dinnerstein and get verifiable confirmation that she meant 436 Hz, that would be splendid. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that 336 Hz seems very unlikely. Maybe 436 could be restored, and a remark in the NPR citation could mention 336 and the likelihood of her misspeaking. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I made such an adjustment. Hope it works. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I was the editor who made the original change from 336 to 436 after reading about it, deciding that it sounded decidedly fishy, and then emailed Ms Dinnerstein about it. She responded saying that she indeed meant 436 and probably misspoke - she clearly does say 336 in the NPR interview. I don't have the original email but I pasted her entire reply when giving the reason for the change. She is very easy to get hold of through her web site should you require further confirmation (simonedinnerstein@gmail.com).80.225.136.11 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A432: Pythagorean tuning

The A432 tuning style is not inherently controversial, as is spuriously written in this article. It's actually attributed to Pythagoras. Such tuning facilitates less dissonance than A440. It is known as Pythagorean tuning.

A432 is specified in the Pythagorean tuning article in the third paragraph of the "Method" section: "For instance, the A is tuned such that its frequency equals 3:2 times the frequency of D—if D is tuned to a frequency of 288 Hz, then A is tuned to 432 Hz". --Van0014 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Pythagorean tuning is about justly tuned fifths, not any "specified" frequency. I doubt you will find a credible source saying Pythagoras and his contemporaries were able to measure frequency in Hz. They were capable of tuning strings so the third harmonic of one matched the second harmonic of another, as any modern player may demonstrate on a violin, viola, or cello, showing the 3:2 frequency ratio of that interval. 432 Hz is given in that article as an example, perhaps poorly chosen, but not a specification.

The controversy comes from the promotion of A432 or "Verdi tuning" by the Schiller Institute. Just plain Bill (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Though there is controversy, there is no doubt that A432 is chosen for it's fundamental lack of dissonance, and not for the sake of any theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation Van0014 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just intonation says nothing about choice of reference pitch. "Fundamental lack of dissonance" is meaningless in the absence of context. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just intonation was the tuning method used when A432 was used. It's not as practical to use equal temperament.

As you mention Verdi tuning, this seems to support my theory; Verdi tuning uses A432Hz; The Schiller Institute lowered from that pitch and made controversial claims. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pitch Van0014 (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

False argument. This article does not say that 432 is "inherently controversial." Rather, we say that controversial claims have been made, which is absolutely true. You yourself seem to believe these controversial claims, as shown by your unsupported comment about dissonance. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

agreed, although pythagorean tuning has less dissonance when compared with equal temperament Van0014 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My viewpoint and style of debating is unorthodox; I'm thankful to have both of you contributing for the greater good. It's said that a little knowledge is worse than a lot, maybe because of the confusion it can cause. My understanding is vague and incomplete. Your contributions are enlightening Van0014 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be aware of Ross Duffin's "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care) which goes into the history and particulars of that method of tuning keyboards to allow free modulation from key to key without retuning to avoid wolf intervals. Still, this article is about standard pitch references, and how they have varied historically. Tuning systems and alterations/temperaments are covered in other articles. Other editors may, with some justification, consider this comment to be too much like a forum post to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article talk page, so I will stop at that.

Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason you don't hear Pythagorean tuning or just intonation in mainstream concerts or recordings is that in practical modern use they sound really terrible. If you have the extra money and if you really care, I suggest you buy or borrow one of the electronic keyboards that allow you to hear these different systems for yourself while you play some songs you know (or, if necessary, invite someone with more keyboard skill). They are elementary-level systems, good only for elementary-level music. Nothing is wrong with them as such; it's just that every type of modern music is more complicated than those systems were designed to handle. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A432 Section neglects to mention research done in support of 432 Hz tuning.

I made an edit presenting three studies done which support the use of A432 tuning. I twas instantly reverted ("Rv complete nonsense" User:Binksternet) despite the fact that it cites accurate and unbiased sources. It is against the policy of Wikipedia to dis-include accurate scientific information which represents a subject more thoroughly on the grounds of it being "Complete Nonsense." The reversion of my edit was completely unwarranted and I will place it back in the article. Here was my edit which was removed:

That being said, there is a growing body of pilot studies and research suggesting that music with using the 432 Hz tuning has positive effects on human emotion and well-being compared to 440 Hz tuning. In a 2019 study led by Pedro Christian Aravena, three groups were studied to compare salivary cortisol levels when exposed to no music, 440 Hz music, and 432 Hz music in a dental setting. The study concluded that music in general was effective at quelling anxiety prior to dental work. Furthermore, the use of 432 Hz music showed a result of significantly lower salivary cortisol levels than that of 440 Hz music. In another pilot paper studying the effects of 432 Hz music as compared to 440Hz music in promoting sleep in patients with spinal cord injuries, researchers found that "music tuned to 432 Hz has positive effects on sleep quality compared to music at a frequency of 440 Hz in patients with spinal cord injuries."

References

Looking at those studies, there are some logical issues with the conclusion of 432 being special. 1- some of the measured effects were minimal, 2- no other pitch standards were tested (i.e., any lower key might have the same effect), 3- some of the subjects heard the same music at 440 and 432, and some were given familiar music, but at 432, so again, they're only comparing two keys, one slightly lower than the other. I don't (as they say) have a dog in this fight, but I don't think those studies support that conclusion. - Special-T (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Special-T: Still, I think it is not representative of Wikipedia policy to not include information supporting both sides of the argument. They are pilot studies of course, but they still present valid information which shouldn't be left out of the article. BluePankow ✉ 17:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not require "both sides" to be presented in cases of fringe science; 432 Hz tuning has enough of a fringy aura about it and its promoters that it will need solid reliable secondary sourcing to establish the due weight required for inclusion here. A few pilot studies (primary sources) are not enough. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Fringy aura"? I'm not sure you can discredit evidence, preliminary or not, just because of the nature of the party which supports it. This is a similar fallacy to supporting an argument just because an authority figure dictates that it's true. If there's evidence supporting the claim, preliminary or not, I believe it should be outlined to at least create a more well-rounded article rather than writing it off as a conspiracy theory about "nazis" supporting A440 vs A432. On the matter of secondary sources: that is a valid argument, let me see what I can do. BluePankow ✉ 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Trying to "discredit evidence, preliminary or not, just because of the nature of the party which supports it" is a good old ad hominem argument; yes, it is fallacious.

When the supporters of a tuning reference pitch go on about numerology, music of the spheres, healing properties, and ice crystallization patterns, that raises cause for concern. I believe extra diligence in vetting such claims is then warranted. I am not too concerned with who promoted Stuttgart pitch, nor when, although that is yet another interesting factoid.

I do happen to think that items published under the Elsevier umbrella deserve a bit of extra scrutiny, although it probably does not sink to the level of predatory publishing. I have seen a Wikipedia editor pay such a journal to publish his "research" and attempt to use it as a reference. To be clear, I do not think that is happening here.

Secondary sources? Yes, please! Just plain Bill (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the talk of "music of the spheres" and connection to astrology is ridiculous, and it's unfortunate that most talk of A432 is given a negative connotation based on people making claims surrounding it that aren't rooted in science. I have been searching for secondary sources, but most are from questionable websites. Do you not think three primary sources (lacking secondary sources) is enough to support the paragraph or maybe a more concise and less descriptive one? BluePankow ✉ 19:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may reiterate - I looked at those refs and I don't see that those studies support the conclusion that 432 has any special significance. - Special-T (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How have you reached this conclusion? The pilot studies warranted further research, and all claimed in their conclusion paragraphs that 432 Hz had an effect on human physiology or well-being in comparison to 440 Hz. BluePankow ✉ 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the reasons I gave above are pretty clear. - Special-T (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree that the reasons you listed are grounds upon which to discredit the studies in pointing towards the possibility that A432 has significant differences from A440. The fact that the pilot studies all pointed towards similar conclusions, and that they explicitly stated that more research should be done is evidence enough that there is a possibility of there being a significant difference in physiological response. Whether it has been proven or not has nothing to do with the fact that research is being done to confirm it. The article should include this information because it presents emerging research. Maybe it could be rephrased to emphasize that no conclusion or consensus has been reached yet? BluePankow ✉ 19:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

[ec] I would prefer to wait until something like a survey paper appears, evaluating available studies. Until then, this amount of detail seems like undue weight. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair stance. I do agree that my full paragraph does represent some undue weight. I think it would be wise, though, to include a sentence presenting the idea at least to represent the possibility. BluePankow ✉ 19:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Any claim of health benefit on Wikipedia falls under the very strict rules of WP:MEDRS which require not a few pilot studies, not even a score of clinical trials, but rather review articles published in scientific journals. Review articles compare all the most relevant clinical trials and evaluate them. So the referencing presented here is two orders of magnitude below the required level. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This section does not describe health benefits specifically, but notable physiological changes. Thus, it is a valid claim. BluePankow ✉ 20:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact, it has nothing to do with medicine at all. It does not claim treatment, prevention, or causation of disease. BluePankow ✉ 20:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Then why would you write that 432 Hz music has a positive effect on well-being and sleep quality as compared to 440 Hz music?[1] You did not limit yourself to physiological observations.

Regarding the Calamassi–Pomponi references, these two people are husband–wife advocates of 432 Hz. They have organized pro-432 groups and they sell music pushing the notional benefits of 432.[2] There's absolutely no way that they can be considered scientists conducting a neutral study. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nearly all science is done with a previous bias which is held by the scientist. This is why experiments are conducted in a randomized, double blind fashion, to attempt to negate the effects of bias on the results of the data. If you read the procedures, the studies are valid. BluePankow ✉ 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit break

Would it satisfy you to rephrase and condense the paragraph? BluePankow ✉ 21:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it's too soon. I would want to see a large-scale study of 440 compared to 432, separating out the effects of just intonation versus equal temperament versus Pythagorean tuning systems. I would want to see whether the subjects are responding to the relative lack of dissonance in the Pythagorean tuning examples. And the music selections are critically important, as they can be chosen for the purpose of skewing the results. A piece with lots of key modulation might favor equal temperament, whereas a piece with long-held chords might favor Pythagorean tuning. Such a study has not been undertaken. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not our place to critique the studies, but exceptional claims need exceptional sources, so we have to wait until these papers are reviewed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Well, I can't argue with policy unfortunately. However, I think a one-sentence mention on the research currently being done is warranted. Cna we agree? BluePankow ✉ 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not Calamassi–Pomponi but yes, we can say that Aravena et al have been conducting a study in Chile. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, how does this sound? "That being said, in a Chilean 2019 study led by Pedro Christian Aravena, three groups were studied to compare salivary cortisol levels when exposed to no music, 440 Hz music, and 432 Hz music in a dental setting. The study concluded that music in general was effective at quelling anxiety prior to dental work. However, the use of 432 Hz music showed a result of significantllylower salivary cortisol levels than that of 440 Hz music.<ref name=":1" />" Maybe two sentences. BluePankow ✉ 04:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, your text puts you back into WP:MEDRS world because it discusses biomedical information, and all you have is one primary work, not the required literature review of multiple primary works. I would tell the readers that a study was done in Chile in 2019 to see if dental patients would benefit from listening to 430 Hz music, but more such studies would need to be done before a medical consensus can be determined. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Also, in a Chilean 2019 study led by Pedro Christian Aravena, three groups were studied to compare salivary cortisol levels when exposed to no music, 440 Hz music, and 432 Hz music in a dental setting. Further research must be done in order to determine whether or not A440 tuning has physiological differences to A432 tuning." How is that Mr. User:Binksternet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluePankow (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not Binksternet, but your suggested text uses a single primary source for an item which needs something more robust, ideally in the form of a review of multiple peer-reviewed studies.

Remember, the context is along the lines of "music of the spheres" and "spiritual effects" of a tuning slightly flatter than the common run of modern standard pitches clustering around 440 Hz. It is too soon to devote much (or any) space in this article to the particulars of this "controversy." Just plain Bill (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with JpB. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The study done in Chile does nothing more than measure salivary cortisol. It is in no way in alignment with spirituality. I believe the study is worth mentioning to show that research is being done, obviously including that a conclusion has not been reached. BluePankow ✉ 03:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to measuring salivary cortisol, the study evaluated patients on the CORAH Modified Dental Anxiety Scale. The authors of this very recent study found no prior research "comparing the effect of a type of music with different frequencies to control anxiety in patients during dental treatment." It seems they are breaking new ground.

I saw nothing in the abstract regarding motivation for choosing 432 Hz as a tuning note (instead of, say, 415 Hz or 450 Hz) but the full report does reference Calamassi and Pomponi in note 17. They are aware of that context, even if they may not subscribe to its "spiritual" alignment.

The report says little about the specifics of controlling for confounding factors in choice and presentation of music, other than mentioning that an arbitrary selection is preferable to having the patient choose music which "might be associated with an event that induces a previously conceived emotion."

One possible confounding factor could be a slight (about 2%) tempo change associated with pitch-shifting a particular recorded selection. If the pitch shift preserves the tempo, there may be decimation/interpolation artifacts which a listener may notice, or which may have a subliminal effect. On this, the authors are silent. They seem to have been duly diligent regarding cultural and language differences which may have influenced the CORAH-MDAS results.

Once more, with feeling: It is too soon to tell if this study is an outlier, or a herald of things to come. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That is fair. Case closed I suppose. BluePankow ✉ 18:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pitch inflation and Praetorius

"The standard voice ranges he cites show that the pitch level of his time, at least in the part of Germany where he lived, was at least a minor third higher than today's."

That's absolutely out of question and certainly a misreading of the source. Think about what that would imply- a'= 528 Hertz or higher would be unattainable for all instruments except for some high shawms and some recorders in g/d'/a'. Lutes with Bb or B as their first course? Bass viols with F or F#? Tenor Traverso in F or F#, regular cornettos with c' as bottom note, Trombones in Db, Bass Trombones and bassoons in Ab... no. That's absurd. These instruments do not even exist in collections- except for pre 1600 loud wind instruments and recorders, which may not have been used outside of their respective "chests" or "sets". Cornettos are regularly tuned in a'≈ 470 Hertz, as are trombones. That has to be the "common pitch" praetorius refers to, whilest the lower pitch by a third or a tone fits the pitch of the preserved renaissance traversos.

The vocal ranges in the Syntagma musicum do not describe modern voice types- which didn't exist. Early baroque voice ranges SATB were equivalent to modern "medium female voice"/ high tenor/ low tenor/ low bass. Altus was regularly sung by non-falsettist males. 2A01:598:92B3:77E9:95DA:E561:8CF3:D22B (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)