Talk:Pitch (music)/Archive 1

Stub

Sorry for the cheesy stub, man. --Ed Poor

Hey, I'm just glad somebody finally started the article - I'd been meaning to do it for ages, but kept putting it off. I guess my "yuck" comment in the edit summary was largly an expression of my thoughts on having to finally face up to this subject! I'll expand this quite a bit when I can get to my books. I want to write about how pitch standards have changed over time - the A above middle C was only fixed at 440Hz in 1920 or something. Before then there are stories about orchestras constantly pushing up their pitch in order to sound louder and brighter than their rivals, and singers complaining about it because they had to keep singing higher and higher. It's quite an entertaining subject really. --Camembert

Yeah, personally I prefer A=435... --Ed Poor

Historical standards

I've added some stuff about historical pitch standards now, but it's only half the story, and I'm not sure about some of the ISO related dates - it needs a certain amount of checking, and probably rewriting. --Camembert

Orchestra tuning

From the article:

In practice, as orchestras still tune to a note given out by the oboe, rather than to an electronic tuning device (which would be more reliable), and as the oboist himself may not have used such a device to tune in the first place, there is still some variance in the exact pitch used.

- That's got to keep the pianist busy, then.

Well of course, when an orchestra is playing with a piano, they should tune to the piano (the same ought to be the case when fixed-pitch percussion like the glockenspiel or xylophone is used, but I know from experience that it isn't always). And even pianos are not consistently tuned to A=440 - I read somewhere that in Eastern Europe in particular, they tend to be more like A=444. I'll try to stick something like this in the article if nobody else does. --Camembert

____ A minor thought: The article is a good read if one has some familiarity with instruments and especially classical music (and performances). I think it might leave readers who are less familiar, but want to learn about pitch, a bit unsatisfied with the fairly technical discussion at the outset, which then leads into specific topics like orchestra tuning. While I don't mean to insult oboe-enthusiasts, the fact is that for most people it's an obscure instrument (a cool one, but obscure nonetheless), so the mention of its being used as a standard by which the other instruments set their pitch/tuning will probably raise as many questions as it answers. One can easily imagine a reader asking, "the oboe? Out of all the instruments, WHY the oboe?" My suggestion then would be to somehow at least a give brief account of how or why the oboeist has this honor. To the extent that there's something that sets the oboe apart pitchwise, whether it is merely tradition or the physical properties of the instrument, that discussion would be a natural part of the larger article on Pitch. C d h 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

String diameter

The statement, "Pitch can be adjusted by varying the diameter of the string" is true, but I think misleading. The fundamental physical property being adjusted when the diameter is adjusted is the string density (mass per unit length). Consider that the pitch can be adjusted while keeping the diameter the same by changing the type of material the string is made out of to one with a different density.

Thus, I suggest that density, not diameter, be identified along with length and tension as the variables that control string pitch.

-- Ben Denckla

The couldn't same then could be said of length? That what your actually changing is the unit length while the mass stays the same? Hmm, you could change the mass without changing the diameter, so that may indeed be the primary consideration. I don't know, I added "diameter" to the article but only to replace "thickness".Hyacinth 08:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Concert pitch

Concert pitch is not the same as pitch and I believe that it shouldn't redirect to here. Concert pitch refers to instruments that produce notes which sound the same as they are written such as the piano, as opposed to transposing instruments such as trumpets. NigelHorne 12:45, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Pure tone

"We can state that the note A above middle C played on any instrument gives the same pitch perception as the pure tone at 440Hz, which has exactly defined frequency."

Isn't part of what allows pitch identification the overtones of harmonic sounds. For sounds with inharmonic spectra, or no spectra, it is harder to perceive and correctly label the fundamental. Hyacinth 19:52, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Octave designation

Isn't A = 440 also called A4? Can we have a little discussion about the octave numbers? C#5, D3, etc. - Omegatron 02:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Here is a little explanation: http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/appendix/octaveregisters/octaveregisters.html - Omegatron 03:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

diameter and tension

"Pitch can be adjusted by varying the diameter of the string. A thicker string will result in a lower pitch. A thinner string will result in a higher pitch.

Pitch can be adjusted by varying the tension of the string. A string with less tension (looser) will result in a lower pitch, while a string with greater tension (tighter) will result in a higher pitch."

anyone know the mathematical relationship for these two? - Omegatron 03:26, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

found it myself. - Omegatron 16:24, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

World Wide Standard

I thought it is worth mentioning that not only Pianos but Entire Orchestras are starting to tune higher and higher in much of Europe. I am studying Voice in college and am finding that even many Conductors, mainly European in Origin, in places all over the world are starting to tune their orchestras up a little to give them a "brighter" sound. It should also be noted that as the "A" is rasied above 440, the distance between each note also increases, making tunning an ensamble a little bit easier. Infact, the only real downside of tunning up a little from 440 is that it is harder on the vocalists to reach higher and higher notes. ~Paul

---

There seems to be some confusion about the actual year of the first conference, 1936 or 1939? On the web are also messages about the involvement of German Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels.

This information is used by a movement to change the pitch to A=432Hz, C=256Hz etc. I can only find one source, the Schiller Institute, witch hasn't a real fine reputation, although their musical theory makes any sense. Does anybody know more about this subject? Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.166.6.127 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuning

A444 is superb as a starting point- drop down two octaves and find A111.

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 17:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

correction

In the line about atonalism I found this:

"for example, C# and Db are the same pitch while C4 and C5 are functionally the same"

Shouldn't it be "C4 and C5 are functionally different"? -Robin Wenger

See pitch class. Hyacinth 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow

Excellent section on historical pitch standards. If the rest of the article reads like this (which I don't know as I haven't read it), then this could be a Featured Article. --Doradus 15:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

But this is all a bit euro-centric. Medieval Chinese cultures had state-defined reference pitches, the so-called "yeallow bells".

pitch shifter

pitch shifter / pitch shifting is missing right now in the article. --Abdull 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Helmholtz

The sentence "Readers should also refer to Helmholtz: 'On the sensation of tone'" appears twice in the same section, plus there is the issue that there is an actual reference at the end of the article. I am unsure of the best way to edit this section. Should one of the redundant sentences be kept, or should both be removed and a footnote added to the text, directing the reader to the reference material? --psu256 16:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There should be a discussion (or link) about the Helmholtz music notation (c' indicates middle c, c indicates the octave below middle c, etc.) --Mage 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Diameter of string and pitch

I was not aware that the diameter of a string (independent of its mass per unit length) affected the pitch. Does anyone have any references to this new (to me) revelation?--Light current 02:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

rm from article pending references to this phenomenon:

Diameter

Pitch can be adjusted by varying the diameter of the string. A thicker string will result in a lower pitch. A thinner string will result in a higher pitch. The change in pitch is inversely proportional to the change in diameter:

$f\propto {1 \over d}$

--Light current 02:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How about [1]? Surely you've noticed that lower-pitched strings, such as on the bass viol and low notes on the piano, have thicker strings than guitar or violin strings? Arguably, as in [2], it's the density per unit length, rather than the diameter per se, which affects the frequency. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason that low pitch strings are thicker is purely to give them greater mass/unit length. The thickness of the string has no effect whatsoever on the frequency or pitch. Your first reference is wrong. I quote from 'A Textbook of Sound', by A.B.Wood D.Sc, F.Inst.P (British Admiralty Research Labs), Publ:Bell, 3rd Ed 1955 (No ISBN found):

frequency = [sqrt(T/m)]/2l

where T is tension, m is mass per unit length, and l is the length. Notice that thickness is not included in this (or any) equation relating to frequency of vibrating strings.--Light current 03:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vibrating strings- do we need them here?

Do we need to keep this section on vibrating strings in the article. After all, no other sound production methods are included. I suggest its removed to somewhere else!/.

Possibly, but the vibrating string, in the form of a monochord, is the traditional way (in Western theory, at least) to explain pitch relationships. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perception

Simliar to what I have said about color perception, wouldn't it be wrong to say:

In music, pitch is the perception of the frequency of a note.

as this seems more a definition of hearing than pitch?

It seems that pitch might be better described as the frequency of a note (or sound), and that ear's ability to perceive the frequency is how we hear pitch. You could not correctly say that if a note were not perceived it would have no pitch. Similarly the perception of a note does not give it its frequency. -134.250.72.125 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, although there's no great consistency by music theorists on this terminology. I believe the pitch is the perception only; if no one hears it, there is no pitch. The frequency is, however, present if no one listens. Frequency is a scientific measurement, an objective measure, whereas pitch is a perceived meaning of a note. Two notes with frequency 440 and 441 are perceived as the same pitch, because pitch derives from the discriminating ability of the ear. Not all music theorists define the terms in this way, but this is a common way. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if one reads this article this issue is quickly cleared up. Hyacinth 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't notice this edit, Hyacinth. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have yet to figure out how one could edit an article without reading it, but that appears to be the case quite often, as it does here. Hyacinth 09:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the work by Diana Deutsch o the perception of musical pitch? There was an article in Scientific American on called "Paradoxes of Musical Pitch" in 1992 (267: 88-95). Here's a link to the WP article on her. Her website at UCSD is [[3]]. I'm not sure just how much of her work should be mentioned in this article under perception, or just a mention of it and links.

____ citing the distinction between frequency and pitch won't really solve the metaphysical question of the existence of the phenomena. In absence of any measuring devices, and anyone/thing to record what those devices register, the concept of a "frequency" might still make no sense. (Here one could think of a sci-fi scenario where every being capable of perceiving was wiped out in a holocaust. Would there still be "frequencies," or simply vibrations?). This is perhaps not something that the article would have to address, though I think that as it's written it does nicely convey the notion that much of music is perception, and with perception comes subjectivity. The general idea seems to be that pitch standards are attempts to overcome subjectivity, but can never eliminate it (and perhaps we wouldn't want it eliminated). That message seems to come through in the article. C d h 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Too much of the tree-falling-in-the-forest stuff would make this topic too metaphysical, what with être-en-soi and être-pour-soi and all that. How about we just say frequency is something measured by instruments whereas pitch is something experienced by a human ear? What happens when neither is present doesn't concern this article. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ogg files

I just listened to 439Hz.ogg and Sine_wave_440.ogg, and could swear that 439Hz.ogg was actually higher in tone than 440.ogg. In fact, I'd guess that (provided 440 was actually 440) that 439Hz.ogg was around 443 or 444hz. Is it possible that the person who did the encoding introduced some artifacts from the compression, or the source file was suspect to begin with?

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

I added Template:confusing to the one sentence introduction. I think it should explain what that means in a paragraph. Hyacinth 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should. I've taken a stab at it; while I expect what I wrote to be changed, I think it's a better starting point. If anyone reading this wants to edit it further, remember: be clear, don't weasel. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

From the article:

"The note A above middle C played on any instrument is perceived to be of the same pitch as a pure tone of 440 Hz, but does not necessarily contain a partial having that frequency."

If "partial" is supposed to mean a harmonic, or overtone, then why would it? 440 Hz is the fundamental frequency isn't it? I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. Matt 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree it is confusing. Since no one has responded on this for almost a year I'll just remove the confusing part. Pfly 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another confusing sentence

From the article:

"Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound... The human auditory perception system may also have trouble distinguishing pitch differences between notes under certain circumstances."

This doesn't make sense. If pitch is to be defined as the perceived frequency (which I'm not sure I agree with), then if no pitch difference can be distinguished there is no pitch difference. Matt 11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You're right. It should be "...trouble distinguishing frequency differences...". Please change it. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Songs tuned above/below A440

Aren't there some songs that are lowered/raised by a quarter-tone for effect? E.g. Robbie Williams "She's The One" is raised/lowered by a quarter-tone, resulting in B half-flat (or something like that). Does this have to do with the recording itself, or done "in studio"?

85.228.202.42 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were to find a verifiable source for this information, it would probably explain how it was done. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I don't have any sources, except the song itself, although it's a cover, the original was done by World Party. However, the original is in B-flat, so Robin probably recorded it in B-flat, then it was raised a quarter-tone. Still speculations from my side, though.

Frequency of strings

The following section by 67.172.132.5 overwrote a good section of the article, but is not clear. It needs more editing before it adds value to the article: (Woodstone 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

The speed of a wave on a string can be described by two equations,

$c={f \over \lambda }={\sqrt {T \over \mu }}$

where c is the speed, f is the frequency, $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the wave on the string, T is the tension in the string, and $\mu$ is the linear mass density of the string. (If the string is vibrating with it's first harmonic frequency, the wavlelength is twice the length of the string. )

Solving this for f gives

$f={c \over \lambda }={{\sqrt {T}} \over {\lambda {\sqrt {\mu }}}}$

This means that strings are selected based on their linear mass density $\mu$, tuned to the appropriate tension T, and played by changing the wavelength $\lambda$ by changing the length of the string.

dance of the bear

Please fix first paragraph, I think "dance of the bear" was added by accident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.56.173 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

vandalism

I removed a small amount in the 'concert pitch' section. Revoranii 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed merging pitch (psychophysics) to here, since psychophysical pitch and musical pitch are both the same concept. Please support or oppose, with reasons.

• Support – as nominator, of course. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, and in the process I would like to see a clearer explanation emerge of the relationship between pitch and frequency. Pitch (psychophysics) leads with "Pitch is the property of a sound that allows the construction of melodies; pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower", and are quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz), corresponding very nearly to the repetition rate of sound waves. Pitch is not an objective physical property, but a subjective psychophysical attribute of sound." This is not a great start. First it says that pitch can be quantified as frequency (i.e. it's an objective physical quantity), and then it say it isn't an objective physical property. It seems to me that "pitch" may refer to either the perceived tone or the actual (fundamental?) frequency, depending on context. For example, in Pitch (music), especially the section "History of pitch standards in Western music", pitch measurements spoken of in terms of exact physical measurements. Yet elsewhere, pitch is described as a perception. It all seems a bit muddled, but unfortunately I'm not confident I understand it well enough to be any help in fixing it. Matt 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.166 (talk)

It's both, sort of. It's perceptual, but it's quantified by comparison with the pitch of periodic sounds such as sinusoids and complex waveforms. In some contexts, like tuning meters, it's purely a physical thing. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, in that case I think we should reword flat statements such as "Pitch is not an objective physical property." and "Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound." so as to admit the second meaning also. Matt 11:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.109.236 (talk)

Oh, and while we're here, I wonder if the section "Changing the pitch of a vibrating string" should be merged to Vibrating string (if there's any additional material to merge). Matt 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.166 (talk)

I've changed my mind. The contents are rather disjoint, so might as well stay in separate articles, with cross-links. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

are .ogg file accessible?

Why use exotic .ogg files which normal users have no clue how to open. Why not offer more accessible .mp3 files? Isn't Wikipedia about accessiblity?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvanschaik (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are potential legal issue swith the use of the mp3 format. .ogg is open-source, so preferable for a free encyclopaedia. David Underdown (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some talk of using MIDI instead of OGG, here. SharkD (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image of frequencies and equal-tempered scale

Image showing the relationship between notes of the diatonic scale and frequency (in Hz), starting with C1.

User:Dicklyon: I can hardly see what you consider to be the "cruftiness" of this image (or whatever it is you might have meant by "Tufte"). This article is concerning musical pitch, and discusses its relationship to the equal-tempered system and the frequency of A4 (440Hz) in particular. These are hard concepts for general readers to understand, and is conveyed nowhere else in the article using graphics. SharkD (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me stand up for his removal. Tufte refers to the great graphic design guru, Edward Tufte, who campaigns against graphics such as these which show basically nothing. (He classifies such images as "chartjunk".) The "curve" shown is completely uninteresting and adds nothing to the understanding of the subject under discussion here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the image could "say" a lot more with a proper caption. SharkD (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Like what: that as the scale (note names) increases, frequency increases? That's just boneheadedly obvious. The image might be useful as a table, showing the pitches corresponding to named notes, but even that is of little interest here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The image shows how the notes and their frequencies are related—e.g., that they're related logarithmically. It also shows the reference note, A4, in the context of other notes, reducing what might be construed as a bunch of gobbledygook—e.g, "valueless" numbers of hertz—into a meaningful series that form a sequence. It places several subjects discussed in the article (frequencies, hertz, logarithms, cents, notes, equal-tempered intervals, etc.) in the same context. SharkD (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At least look up and read some of Tufte's work before wasting further effort defending this chartjunk. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit; it shows an entirely uninteresting curve which basically says "as the note gets higher, the note gets higher". Imparts no useful information. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely uninteresting. a straight line would also say "as the note gets higher, the note gets higher," but that's not the way musical notes work. I've looked at a lot of Tufte's work, and this chart is actually not very junky in that sense: I see a decently high data:ink ratio there. For example, the grid gets out of the way, but is there to help.

The chart shows an exponential curve or a power curve or a logarithmic curve, depending on which way round you care to turn it. That fact is significant. Even a naive human eye is sensitive to some things like that, and with experience or training, can spot things like little bits of odd-order harmonics distorting a sinewave. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's chartjunk. The frequencies selected are but a narrow range of possible notes. The intended demonstration of logarithmic relations isn't highlighted specifically. The reader looks at it and says "huh", moving on to the next paragraph unenlightened. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The chart demonstrates that frequency does not increase linearly with pitch as one might expect. If this point is not prominent, why is it mentioned in the article? Another thing the chart demonstrates is the difference between the chromatic and diatonic scales. All said, complex ideas should be accompanied by graphic images that mirror the content being discussed. SharkD (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Newer image

Most of the chartjunk has been cleaned off this version of the chart.

Chartjunk, in this context, has a specific meaning. In the previous version, the over-extended grid, the negative frequency label, the labels on the vertical axis showing "harmonics of C1" to 3 significant figures were chartjunk. That stuff is gone.

The intended demonstration of logarithmic relations isn't highlighted specifically. The reader looks at it and says "huh", moving on to the next paragraph unenlightened.

Those with eyes will see what's right there in front of them: an exponential curve. It's mentioned in the nearby text as well.

It shows four octaves of a C major scale, not a machine-made glissando from growl to bat squeak. There could be a reason for limiting it that way, if you think about it. __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think harmonics are noteworthy enough to be represented somehow in the image. Depicting them doesn't take up "more space" or make the image any "busier". They're mentioned in the article, and replacing them with arbitrary values (e.g., 100s of Hz in your image) removes an element of informativeness that the image possessed earlier instead of adding one. As for the number of significant digits, the Tuning table linked to from within the article isn't much less exact than my image. SharkD (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the decimal places from the units of the y-axis if that helps. SharkD (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This one shows the harmonics of C1 as horizontal grid lines.

Looking a lot better. If I may:

• Labeling the axis with hundreds makes it easier to interpolate to find the frequencies of other notes than C. That's pretty much a standard axis presentation for that reason.
• In this day and age, people no longer try to get three place accuracy from graphic analysis, the way any engineer did up til the sixties or so. Graphics can be informative; tables and spreadsheets can be more precise.
• I don't see a need to write the function on the chart. If someone's looking at it, and doesn't "get it" from internal cues (cents, frequency, A440, pitch names) then there's the caption and side text with hyperlinks to guide them.
• The grid is still spilling outside the axes. Again, that happened when we drew stuff on precisely printed graph paper. Nowadays computers can produce a grid where and how it does the most good.

Thanks for putting up this chart. I've made some derivative charts from it, but you started this thing, which I think is useful. __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the intervals of 100s along the axes does away with the emphasis on how important the harmonic series is in music.
• The large number of decimal places emphasizes the fact that frequency doesn't increase linearly, and that there isn't necessarily an integer relationship between different notes' frequencies.

To elaborate, it emphasizes the fact that, simply because middle A (concert pitch) is exactly 440.00Hz, one can't expect that the fundamental or harmonics are also going to be even, exact integers. SharkD (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the presence of the formula serves as a convenient reference for when and if the reader wishes to verify the accuracy of the image his or her self.
• Actually, being able to render the grid across the entire image is a relatively newer development in mathematics software. The more limited "boxed in" look with parallel sets of axes and empty space surrounding them dates back a bit farther back to when computer resources were rationed. I also think the similarity of the image to paper-and-pencil drawings is what gives the image a more tangible feel, as well as evoking feelings of familiarity among the reader, especially a novice one. Also, the grid helps to emphasize the fact that the curve extends beyond the graph's limits, and that that the harmonic relationship between notes continues to the left and right of the axes.
• Finally, I think that having two sets of units for each axis is excessive—to me a clear example of chartjunk—and will only serve to confuse the reader. Also, I think your image is less attractive than mine. SharkD (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The sea of grid lines is not very useful; it would help to heavy and light (major and minor) ones, spaces 100 Hz and 10 or 20 Hz (never 25 Hz please); in the other direction, major ones on the diatonic scale might be helpful to show the pattern better; or major ones on the octaves, perhaps. And what's with the harmonics of C1? Just noise on the Y axis with no discernible relationship to anything else; if you're trying to show a relationship, scrap all the Hz grid line and use harmonic grid lines instead, so you can see what note comes close to a harmonic. And why the different line colors at C4 and A4? Why those two notes called out, instead of say all the As so that the doubling relationship could be shown? Still, the point of graph remain unclear to me. Yes, the relationship between note number and Hz is not a straight line; but does the graph help the user really understand what the relationship is, or why? I don't think so. But maybe it can be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the music-related tables, as well as the MIDI files, in the various articles are in the key of C. There's no point in having a table in C and a chart in D or A. A4 is given special emphasis because it is where concert pitch is set at, and concert pitch is frequently referred to as "A above middle C". So, it is in keeping with the terminology. SharkD (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If both axes are set to use linear intervals, it should be easy for a person to determine the relationship of the data being plotted. And, if there is any ambiguity, the formula is also provided. SharkD (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but it's hard to judge a curve to be exponential just by eye. If, on the other hand, the y axis were logarithmic, i.e. use a semilog plot, then the data points would fall exactly on a straight line, which is much easier to judge by eye, and it would be even more obvious then that it's an exponential relationship, to anyone who knows enough math to know what that means, in which case they'd know what a semilog plot is. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think expecting people to understand what a semilog plot is (or, for that matter, understanding the formula without a plot to show it in practice) is an example of WP:JARGON. If this were a more obscure article then I wouldn't mind it so much. However, this is an article of rather general scope that even grade-schoolers probably visit with considerable frequency. What we're supposed to do here is cater to the general reader (Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, WP:NOT PAPERS), or at the very least the most general type of reader likely to visit this article. And, I don't think the current state of the article reflects this. Writing for "...anyone who knows enough math to know what that means" is certainly not the proper way to go. SharkD (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't see what's so hard to judge about a curve that increases, increasingly. Certainly, they know enough that the curve doesn't form a circle. SharkD (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To continue on at greater length, I think that too many people hang around Wikipedia just so that they can hang around with their pals and pat each other on the back for how much jargon and specialized learning they know, acting as gatekeepers and controlling the flow of information to readers. SharkD (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I owe my workshop lots of time, so can't spend much of it keyboarding and mousing away at the chart just now. I agree 25 Hz minor divisions are vastly suboptimal here, maybe to the point of being retarded. My bad, artifact of how I plotted the SVG. (Most of my inch rulers subdivide by powers of 2, but that's no excuse, is it?)

• I don't see a way to choose between Hz and # of harmonics for the vertical scale. I think labeling the harmonics with freqs in Hz is confusing, no matter what precision the labels show. (Can go into greater length about that if desired.) Different people will look for different things here, which is why I'm still looking for a way to show both.

• To my eyes, this is an exponential curve. Nobody ever learned to read a correlogram by staring at time-domain waveforms, I don't think. (Can get more elaborate about that as well, if it's unclear.) Of course, I've looked at a lot of such curves, both digitally plotted ones and scope traces of analog signals. Can't deny that knowing the formula for the function helps establish consistency. though.

• For a Wikipedia audience I believe a semilog plot would be way over the top, more intellectual narcissism (that self-patting for specialized learning thing SharkD mentions) than effective communication. The grid, and the curve, could extend to the left of the axis, no prob there, but why is there grid below the horizontal one? No purpose served there, not that I can see.

• Attractiveness is tough to judge, and well-known to be subjective. I'll go so far as to say it could be irrelevant here. Clean, clear and uncluttered is attractive to me for graphics like this. You like yours better, go ahead and put it back up, but could the vertical axis become clearer? Not saying my baby is any more beautiful in that regard...

• I don't know about anybody else, but I ain't here for the social stroking. We're editing an encyclopedia, and if a congenial atmosphere helps, so be it. Adversarial processes may work for determining institutional facts, but arriving at brute facts by disputation risks wasting a lot of motion when folks mistake the argument for the reason. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• p.s. Middle C and A440 were called out on the chart in the first place, and I went along with that because they are pretty common reference points familiar to a lot of folks with the rudiments of musical literacy. Different color lines because, well, they're different pitch classes, not even harmonically related in this equal-tempered presentation. If you want to see doublings, check the blue ticks: 4 octaves, 16 non-zero equidistant ticks. Could be shown better, will futz with it soon when I get time. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all the octaves and all the fifths minus the first one are part of the harmonic series for C1 (including C4). SharkD (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty close: more accurately, about two cents. That's the difference between equal tempered fifths and justly tuned fifths, equal tempered ones being narrower by that much. Equal temperament is implied here by the 100 cent granularity of the pitch scale. I was talking about the C and the A not being harmonically related here, not even close. A to C is a minor third, and equal temperament's approximation to justly tuned (i.e. simply harmonically related) thirds is notoriously poor. __Just plain Bill (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the horizontal grid lines are multiples of C1 frequency. I've kept a frequency scale, minor ticks at 10 Hz, separated by some white space from the vertical axis. Lost the red and blue, replacing it with an orange harking back to some old Keuffel & Esser graph paper, or in more modern terms Macintosh/Safari highlight color. (Not sure if that's part of the default color scheme there, or just happened to be on the machine I visited recently.) The PD SVG file is still in layers, making tweaks to different groups of stuff easier for anyone who cares to edit the image. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's much better. Now there's meaningful information in the grid lines, as they show how the note frequencies relate to the root frequency (the original one did that, too, sort of, but the concept was confused by the Hz labels and other noise). Leaving the Hz labels and tics on the side is a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Was confused, didn't know where to look, derived this myself out of desperation

Given that (1) A 440 ("A natural") is the international standard of pitch, (2) the experiential observation that the perceived western "octave" is a doubling of frequency, and (3) that (experientially) twelve pleasing-to-the-western-ear "notes" fit into an octave by the successive multiplications by some fixed factor (as opposed to division of the octave into 12 equal spacings), we hypothesize that the 12th power of some X yields the octave (doubling) factor "2". (Then we try out our hypothesis to see if it yields a truth). Anyway ...

X¹² = 2

ln(X) = ln(2)/12

To get X raise both sides to e, i.e.

e^ln(X) = e^ln(2)/12 = 1.059463

So if we begin with A 440, we multiply 440 x 1.059463 to get 466.164 then multiply 466.164 x 1.059463 to get the next tone, etc. This yields the following table for one octave. (This is what I was after when I came to wikipedia -- the frequencies of the musical tones):

	exp(ln(2)/12) =	1.0594630943593
Tone	Tone	Frequency
A natural	A	440.000
A sharp	B flat	466.164
B	B, C flat	493.883
C (B sharp)	B	523.251
C sharp	D flat	554.365
D	D	587.330
D sharp	E flat	622.254
E	E, F flat	659.255
F (E sharp)	F	698.456
F sharp	G flat	739.989
G	G	783.991
G sharp	A flat	830.609
A	A	880.000

Gratifyingly, we see that middle C, as shown in the much-maligned graph above, is 261.62557 hz, i.e. one half of 523.251.

Bill Wvbailey (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An easier way to get the number (1.059463) is just to take the twelfth root of two. Also, your table suffers from a significant figure problem, in that the starting note is 440Hz, not 440.000Hz, so all the decimals imply a precision which isn't really there. Anyway, human ears couldn't distinguish such precise frequencies, and human perception is at the heart of music. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you were confused, Bill; perhaps more cross-referencing is indicated. Here's the article and section you appear to have been looking for: Equal temperament#Twelve-tone equal temperament. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. Yeah, I just kept the decimal points from the Excel spreadsheet. I was looking this up for a gizmo I'm building re the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child). I noticed that 1000 Hz (and 500 Hz, etc) sounded "flat", or "off" somehow. (I don't have perfect pitch, but I trained as a classical flutist many years ago). I thought I remembered that C was around 510-512 (appears my memory is faulty). It would seem that a trained sense of pitch must be good to a hertz or so. Certainly when we're tuning instruments we're working in the +/-1 hertz or even better precision (relying on the non-linearity of our ears to create the beats, as I remember...).

RE the link, yes, this is a good link. Maybe a bit complicated for a young person looking for the frequencies of the notes... As I came to this page as a newbie to the music articles of wikipedia (most of my editing has been re the history of mathematics and computation etc) maybe my confusion represents a fair indicator of what can happen when a "newbie arrives". Thanks again, Bill Wvbailey (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your confusion is valid and revealing. I think we can beef up our "See also" sections with links to stuff that both is and is not represented in the body of the article. Normally, people don't fill the "See also" with links that are already available in the body. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look in the thread above for a graph of the frequencies. I'm sorry you couldn't find it when you first came to the article. SharkD (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Handy thing about a lot of things mathematical: Without a photographic memory or a cookbook or a reference nearby, you can derive stuff for yourself if you've got the skills and remember a few basic reference points. I used to think I remembered a similar C as well. If you set it to 512 Hz (or 256, or...) then A comes out at 430.54 Hz or so, which is not as much as a half-tone flat, and isn't an equal-tempered quarter-tone flat either. You could probably find some town where that was the A they used, maybe in Baroque-era Europe? You might want to check out just intonation as well. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Definite pitch

I propose that we merge the info from the (so far unsourced) stub Definite pitch into a section here called "Definite and indefinite pitch" where we can talk about different sorts of musical tones such as percussion notes of indefinite pitch, etc. I intend to do it soon if no objections appear. If someone objects that it also applies to pitch (psychophysics), I'd say let's mention it there, too. It doesn't rate its own article, I think, unless someone can point out coverage about it in secondary sources sufficient to make it independently notable as a topic. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This article is still comfortably small at around 21KB. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A new pitch standard?

As I have been in the music businnes as singer for several years now, there has been a significant change in the terms of the orchestra and voice standards pitch. As mesaured in Bayreuth,Germany and in several other german and austrian opera houses in 2006 and 2007 by several singers and instrumentalists, the pich set as standard at 440 Hz is no longer in use. Of course, the individuals, who took the time to hear and tried to determine the standard pitch of the evening, are not professional scientists,but musicians, who had to allign the pitch of their instrument for the orchestra. As determined by these individuals, the pitch was set at the beginning of the piece( opera in most cases) between 443 Hz and 445 Hz. When the piece of music (symphony and opera) was played, the pitch went on to high as 448Hz and 450HZ! So if that is true, then are we,the singers in serious trouble. We prepare our body for at least 2 weeks before the preimere to act somewhat automatic in terms of singing tecnique, when standing on stage and sing on the highest possible art level. When this transition of pitch occours, we are not able to control our act on stage but feel forced to move our full attention to music and try to master the pitch transition on the stage.

So, with that in mind, there is a reason for singers, who are preparing to work on opera like Rheingold or the Flying Dutchman,to prepare yourself - to begin their routine on at least 445Hz!

Tomy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.129.63.131 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Ogg file

Can anyone please upload a 261.62Hz (Middle C)audio file? Vikky2904 (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving references

I'd like to see the parenthetical references to 'Samson 1977', 'Malm 1967', 'Sachs & Kunst 1962' and 'Burns 1999' changed into the cite book format and introduced into the main References section with relevant page numbers placed as inline citations so they show up in Notes. Anybody know the titles of all of these books? I tried to look up Samson 1977 and fished around in Jim Samson's Music in Transition but wasn't fully satisfied I was seeing valid support from Jim for the statements made here about Scriabin, hexachords, Bartók, Casella, etc. Let me poll the other editors here before I try and figure out all the books so mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Samson" paragraphs have nothing to do with Repetition pitch, so I think they might well be excised. Repetition pitch might be merge-able with definite and indefinite pitch, but if not should just go to See also: It's also a bit unclear as written... Sparafucil (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for clarity, to the point of taking out whole sections that fail to deliver their message. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

History of pitch standards in Western music

From 19th and 20th century standards: "The most vocal opponents of the upward tendency in pitch were singers..." I loled. Hard. Seriously though, I'd really appreciate it if an expert could expand the coverage of the history of pitch standards as it relates to specific composers. While I'm dreaming, I'd also like to see a discussion of the history of pitch standards outside of the western tradition. Gyro Copter (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See the note above by Tomy. Though I suppose that playing at a higher pitch is harder for the musicians as well (sore fingers, numb lips, etc.). SharkD (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pitch perception changes w/volume?

I was all set to pull out my half-a-degree from Berklee and explain that the article was confusing loudness curves with pitch perception, and speculate about loudspeaker quality in the 1930s, but what do you know... sine waves of varying intensity really are perceived with different pitches. The Olson reference is to the second half of a topic, and the first half isn't part of the Google Books preview. A newer and more net-accessible reference is the book "Acoustics and Psychoacoustics" by David Martin Howard and James A.S. Angus, section 3.2.6, pp 135-7, which has a nice chart, some details on the effects of non-sine waves, and another tidbit about duration vs. pitch. Someone who knows more than me should cite it here. JayLevitt (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to note the doppler effect with this, or perhaps simply to link to that page as a "see also" reference. --Dulcimerist (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tension equation

Pitch/tension formula: the equation indicates the string tension for two sounds an octave apart to have a weight (tension) ratio of 4:1. A string hung with x pounds will produce frequency f when plucked, and the same string hung with 4x pounds will produce frequency 2f, an octave higher. - - Has the formula been scientifically proven by controlled lab experiment? The reason I ask is because I tried an informal test using steel wire and found it required 5x pounds for an octave - 4x produced closer to the seventh, not an octave. The other ratios were 2x produced the 4th and 2.5x produced the 5th. - - The one conclusion my experiment and the formula both indicate is that Pythagoras, reported to having produced an octave with only 2x weight, was either in error or was misrepresented. He may have had the same problem as I – a commercially available wire (or rope, in Pythagoras’ case), weighted just enough to produce a measurable sound, was not strong enough to support 5 times that weight before breaking. Maybe that’s why he abandoned the tension method and went to the length method. But I’d like to know where my experiment went wrong in relation to the formula. - Rtrsr Rtrsr (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Supposed problems

However, there are two problems with this practice. First, in standard Western equal temperament, the notion of pitch is insensitive to spelling: the description "G4 double sharp" refers to the same pitch as "A4". Second, human pitch perception is logarithmic with respect to fundamental frequency

Why are these problems for Helmoltz or scientific pitch notation (especially the second "problem"; these notations are logarithmic too). Why is the first a problem for calling things by their frequencies? 68.239.116.212 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense, so I took out the unsourced assertion of problems. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi!

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)

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Standard concert pitch

---

Merger proposal

The first page of Pitch (psychophysics) looks very similar to this page. Can they/should they be merged? Perhaps into Pitch (sound), which redirects to Pitch (music). Facts707 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Inline audio

I removed Template:Inline audio given that there are no inline audio links (Template:Audio) but rather a floating box link (Template:Listen). Hyacinth (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MIDI and logarithmic scale

Sorry, I don't think the link beteen MIDI and the logarithmic perception of tone distances is appropriate. The tone number used in MIDI commands simply corresponds to keys on a keyboard: MIDI means "musical instrument digital interface". Hence referring to MIDI is just an indirect way of saying that the relation between (piano) keys and frequency is logarithmic, or - mathematically equivalent - for any two keys having a certain distance, the ratio (not the difference!) or frequencies is the same. Or in less abstract terms: all octaves are 1:2, all fifths are (roughly) 3:2. Rbakels (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement is given in the context of microtuning. There are commands in MIDI to specify other frequencies than just those assigned to fixed keys. The room between the integer key numbers is filled in a consistent logarithmic manner. So it is an appropriate part of the definition. −Woodstone (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What means "Justin Beiber sucks"?

If I look at the article "pitch" in the English wikipedia, the second paragraph begins with "Justin Beiber sucks pitch allows the construction ...". I wanted to delete this shit, but the editing page shows me the sentence correctly beginning with "Pitch allows the construction ...". Why am I not able to edit these words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.61.237 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2010

That is because "DASHBot" reverted the vandalism less than a minute after 60.229.252.69 pressed "Enter". Click on "History" in the main Article for details. — Glenn L (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pitch vs. Tone

Paolo.dL (talk · contribs) added the following note, The word tone is frequently used as a synonym of pitch or note, e.g. in expressions such as "7-tone scale", "12-tone scale", or "12-tone equal temperament".

On the other hand, the Tone disambiguation page recognizes a connection between Tone and Timbre as does the [Timbre]] article. There is also a Tone control redirect which is not really pitch related.

There are redirects to this article from Tone (music and acoustics), Tone (signal) and Tone (signaling). To my ear, these terms are ambiguous and can refer to either Pitch or Timbre. I have redirect them to the Music and Audio section of the Tone disambiguation page. --Kvng (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Those redirects are bogus and useless, so I proposed deletion of them. Tone as a synomym for pitch is also bogus, that is, very non-standard. I suggest we fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My general sense is that the (mis)use of "tone" to mean "pitch" or "note" is more prevalent among those whose first language is Germanic or Scandinavian. Anecdotal and probably wrong, but there it is. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

etymology/idiom "high" and "low"

What is the etymology for terminology such as "high pitch"? In particular, what does "high" and "low" mean with regard to sound and frequency, how did it ever relate from the notions of vertical height (of up and down)? Is there a psychophysical basis for it? This certainly isn't the only idiomatic use of height in English, is it also common to other languages? (Should we even consider whether different explanation is needed to not presume knowledge additional to English competency from readers at the intro?) The online etymology dictionary laments the musical meaning of "pitch" as obscure, yet to me it seems a reasonably natural extension of the idiom since "pitch" already had a meaning of inclination - relating to differing height - anyway it has no mention of musical meanings of "high"/"low". Also, exactly how are words like "tone" or "note" not synonymous with "pitch"? It would be great if articles like this, on fundamental music topics, could introduce some of the jargon used therein. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding questions. Cognitive linguistics may point in the general direction of some answers. In particular, Embodied cognition#Cognitive science and linguistics is a decent start. Short answer: "It's complicated." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other question: a tone is a steady sound that has a clear pitch. A note is an element of music, often conceptualized as more dynamic than a tone, but usually having a clear pitch. Pitch is an attribute of a tone or a note. Often a tone or a note is described by its pitch (e.g. a 2200 Hz tone). Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Instrument size, thus weight and position, likely plays a part (a bass is giant and sits on the floor, a violin is tiny and is rested upon one's shoulder). If I remember correctly studies indicate there is little if any perceptual basis. Hyacinth (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any citations but I, too, recall that perception studies have not established any connection between spatial and pitch "up/down-ness". However, although instrument size may have come to reinforce the concept, it seems unlikely that would have had a lot to do with establishing it in the first place, since graded sizes of instruments did not come unto use until the late-15th or 16th centuries, long after the concept of pitch "height" had become established during the era in which all music was vocal music. On the other hand, perhaps bass singers were typically shorter than tenors? But in the days when church-choir sopranos were typically boys, surely the opposite relation should pertain. It is also interesting that many ancient Greek sources (so I am told—once again I am at a loss for a source) refer to "height" of pitch in terms of the relative position of the strings of the lyre which, when held in playing position, have the thickest strings uppermost, and the thinnest closer to the ground. Hence, "high" meant just the opposite of our modern understanding, though of course the modern guitar has its strings positioned in just the same way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a start at finding some relevant scholarship, if anyone cares to do something with it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, Bill, thanks for that. Unfortunately, all this particular source does is to confirm that the metaphor exists; it does not point to any research on any perceptual basis for that metaphor. Still, it's a start.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was hoping someone with time, interest, and access to resources could drill down into that hastily found result, to find out why it might be so. Bet someone has studied and written something on it, and that it is findable. Likely suspects might include Lakoff, Rosch, Ortony, Barsalou, Cox, Johnson, Johnson-Laird, Green & Butler, Cook, und so weiter. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pratt 1930 came up on google. It mentions "the conspicuous fitness of such phrases" as ascending cadences, and that the metaphor is common to "almost every known language." I don't know whether or not the same can be said for other height metaphors (e.g., growls of the "lowly" - malintentioned). The result from the psychophysical experiment Pratt performed is that sounds genuinely are perceived as coming from a source located higher or lower in space if the sound oscillation is made more or less rapid. He argued cultural priming did not confound this. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You an also see strings vibrating at a lower or higher frequency, as well as notice that tightening them increases their pitch. On the other hand, the pipes on a pipe organ get taller (and fatter) as the notes get lower and lower. (Similarly, a tuba is bigger than a piccolo, and a trombone is lengthened in order to achieve lower notes.) SharkD  Talk  14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, how does "tightening" equate to altitude? On the other hand, your comment on organ pipes getting "taller" is a brilliant counter-argument to the notion that "high" out to refer to shorter wave-length notes. Come to think of it, "shorter wave-length" also suggests "less tall", and therefore "lower", doesn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the notion comes from singing. Try singing a high note and a low note. Almost automatically you will raise your head for the former and lower it for the latter. −Woodstone (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, with a little voice training, a singer will extend the neck (not by much) for low notes. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tightening means increased or higher amounts of tension. A lower frequency in just about anything implies less energy. SharkD  Talk  18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In physical fact, a communications theory professor once told me that more power can be delivered at low frequencies. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more energy is required to produce the high pitched tone. Or ocean waves, electromagnetism, etc. SharkD  Talk  21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but this is unlikely to be the motivation of the people who started using "high" and "low" to refer to different musical pitches. I doubt they were thinking in terms of energy or power. More likely they were sensing something, but what? I don't think Pratt 1930 does more than speculate about that, which is why I believe more concrete answers may be found in more modern work in cognitive science or perception. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you can *see* the strings vibrate more quickly, and *feel* the tension in the strings (not to mention having to blow harder or tighten the lips in woodwind or brass instruments). All things musicians were perfectly able to realize centuries or millennia ago empirically. SharkD  Talk  23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

These are all very nice hypotheses—now all we need is a reliable source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Reliable sources may be findable in the realm of embodied cognition, as hinted above. I will keep my eyes open. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the source I linked not reliable? (Carroll C. Pratt, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 278-85, 1930) Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me at a quick glance. Whose job will it be to put it into the article? Nicely done, thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My father, a native Polish speaker, referred to voices being "thicker" or "thinner". I think he meant lower or higher. FrankSier (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I just started reading Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. There is also a copy of their Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought in the house, but that one is a real doorstop, and will have to wait a while. UP and DOWN play a big part in that embodied cognitive view; it will be interesting to see if they have anything to say about THICK and THIN. Cheers!

Regarding pointing to "research on any perceptual basis for that metaphor" as noted by Jerome Kohl earlier, p. 14 of Metaphors We Live By, in the chapter titled "Orientational Metaphors," says:

"In each case, we will give a brief hint about how each metaphorical concept might have arisen from our physical and cultural experience. These accounts are meant to be suggestive and plausible, not definitive."

It is still early pages for me in that book, but I will keep open eyes for something more substantive, and report back here if I find anything relevant. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)