Frequencies....Absolutes....Debates...

EDIT BY **** - This thread is a split off from a previous thread, in order to keep both subjects more organized and on track.

How come Music used to indeed be a science, one of the higher orders of Math? What changed to suddenly make it an art?

Certainly music has some absolutes. For example, of you play a C on the piano, it will sound the frequency of a C, always and forever (disregarding improper tuning of course, but for the sake of argument, assume the piano plays in tune). That is an absolute. It is also an absolute that two eighths will make a quarter and four quarters will make a whole note. Granted this is the notation that has been devised over the last few centuries, but it has stayed pretty much constant in Western Concert music. Besides the notational aspect, what of music is absolute? I'd argue nothing. There is no "right" way to make a forte, or no "right" way to interpret "Adagissimo" in Mahler 9. So who do we defer the opinion of "right" to? You can't say there isn't some higher meaning of "right", otherwise Bernstein's recordings and Maazel's recordings and Joe Shmoe's recordings of Mahler 9 would all be of equal merit. Why does Bernstein's triumph as the "superior" recording? What did he use as his "absolute"? THESE are the questions we should be looking after, not "define a tonal center" and all this hulabaloo about tonal and atonal. Who cares? What matters is WHERE are those absolutes coming from, if they exist, and WHY we consider them absolutes, again, if they exist.

How come Music used

Certainly music has some absolutes. For example, of you play a C on the piano, it will sound the frequency of a C, always and forever (disregarding improper tuning of course, but for the sake of argument, assume the piano plays in tune). That is an absolute.

not right. that something happen the way they happen at particular time and defined space does not make them 'absolutes', for if they would anything would be absolute (my farting in a balcony would 'absolute' since if i would fart at the same time and all spatial dimensions were identical i would produce the same fart sound, an 'absolute' fart sound). so, no this is not the case of 'absolute', since thre's no way of arguing for non-absolute using this logic.

actually there's no absolute things at all in a relative physical world. and we live in such. maybe mathemathical truths could be absolute, but this too is not so clear. instead we use 'universal' which means 'in all possible worlds'. none of physical facts, let alone music, is 'universal' in all possible worlds.

There was not first person singular, read again...if you can.:thumbsup:

I know. Hence my "fixing" of your quote. You appeared to applying "tonal western musical values" to the entire planet.... you know, the world in which we live.

Please don't try and tell me the collective "We" (as you used it) - the population of the planet Earth - must all hold the same concept of tonal heirarchy?!

I can read. Can you think? :thumbsup:

Who is OUR??? A bunch of elitist, misinformed composers without lives?:w00t:

No, I meant "OUR WORLD" to mean THE ENTIRE PLANET. Kind-of like what I said.

Certainly music has some absolutes. For example, of you play a C on the piano, it will sound the frequency of a C, always and forever...That is an absolute.

And what, pray tell, is the "frequency" of a "C" ??!

How is it an ABSOLUTE if you'd get different answers from different people?!

An "A" to Bach is WILDLY different than an "A" to you or I? A "Bb" in Europe will be of a different frequency compared to one in North America.

How did THIS happen to a Musical Absolute?!

And what, pray tell, is the "frequency" of a "C" ??!

How is it an ABSOLUTE if you'd get different answers from different people?!

An "A" to Bach is WILDLY different than an "A" to you or I? A "Bb" in Europe will be of a different frequency compared to one in North America.

How did THIS happen to a Musical Absolute?!

In *today's* world it is an absolute, more or less. It just depends on how you make the context of "world", as you stated before in this thread. If you look at "A", the variation is from 440-445, not that big of a difference. It has been largely standardized and thus, "A" can be defined as an absolute pitch through this standardization. I know it wasn't *always* 440, but it was still always an "A".

... it is an absolute, more or less. It just depends on how you make the context of "world"...

Isn't this kind-of contradictory? ... "It's an absolute, sort-of...depending on context"

:P

In *today's* world it is an absolute, more or less. It just depends on how you make the context of "world", as you stated before in this thread. If you look at "A", the variation is from 440-445, not that big of a difference. It has been largely standardized and thus, "A" can be defined as an absolute pitch through this standardization. I know it wasn't *always* 440, but it was still always an "A".

but this is not even close to be a candidte for falling under atribute 'absolute'! it's convention. no chance to reason absolute from convention. it's very very rude logical fallacy.

The pitch we call 'A' and the frequencies we can derive from that pitch when it is played as such IS absolute. Calling the pitch 'A' and saying that 'A' is absolute is logically ill-formed and not accurate. In a few centuries, we could be calling that pitch 'J' if a new tuning system is adopted that uses the pitch we call 'A' today. The underlying sound, the 'pitch' we refer to as 'A' at this moment in history, is absolute. We would always be able to derive the same frequencies from this pitch. We would always hear this pitch the same because of these frequencies. That we may call it A today and J tomorrow is superficial.

of course it's not absolute, it's tautological at best. from the fact that some things happen the way they happen under strict circumstances it is simply tautological to deduce that the same things would happen under same circumstances. if it's absolute, what is not absolute? why do you even need a term 'absolute'?

of course it's not absolute, it's tautological at best. from the fact that some things happen the way they happen under strict circumstances it is simply tautological to deduce that the same things would happen under same circumstances. if it's absolute, what is not absolute? why do you even need a term 'absolute'?

Ummm, because things ARE absolute?

It all depends on the context in which you're talking about. If the local organist has always heard "A" as 440, then he will assume that absolute in everything he does. "A", in every instance, to him, will be 440. But the organist accross the street may have never heard "A" as 440. He always grew up and heard "A" as 442. What's the difference? They're both "A" and they're both absolutes, within their own contexts. If you consider both in the same context, for example, all "A"s in the history of all of music of all the world of all time. Well, then, in that context, there are no absolutes.

So sure, if you want to be a globalist about it and assume everyone's opinion matters (which is an important part of postmodern thought), then there are no absolutes because they become irrelevant to the big picture. But this idea has ALWAYS existed, which leads me back to saying that postmodernism is ridiculous as a "movement" of modern times since the same thought has always been around, for thousands of years. Define the context of what we're talking about here. Isn't that a rule of all meaningful discussion?

no, absolute is analytically and logically inconsistent with idea 'absolute in certain context'.

again, the only science that i think provides statements that could be considered as absolute (which means valid in all possible worlds) is math. 2+2 would equal 4 in all possible worlds we can imagine. so, yes, as our limit, this truth is absolute.

truths that are dependent on worlds that are relative, as our physical world, are never absolute. there's no need to bring this property, strip it of its meaning and use it just because you like the word.

But its not stripped of its meaning. If you say that the New York Philharmonic always tunes "A" to 440, then that is an absolute, forever and always. Just because the Boston Symphony uses 442 does not mean the New York Philharmonic's 440 is no longer absolute.

oh, man, this is ridiculous, i'm out of here...

yes, i know, my farts are absolute.

oh, man, this is ridiculous, i'm out of here...

yes, i know, my farts are absolute.

Please explain how the frequencies produced at 440 are at all subjective. They are measurements of sound that can be reproduced again and again, exactly the same. Just because there are variances in reproducing that sound on an instrument (requiring a tuner or a refined ear) doesn't necessarily mean the sound itself is 'not absolute'. The only thing subjective about the sound itself is what we call it (i.e., 'A', 'C', and so forth). It's simply delusional to say that anything that can be reproduced precisely the same way each time is anything but absolute.

If I went to a sound engineer and asked them to show me an example of a 440 frequency, I'm going to hear the same thing if I went to another and asked them to show me an example of 440. If you could reproduce your farts in exactly the same way, your farts would be 'absolute'. But you likely lack the motor skills in your bum to actually accomplish this. Let me know when you get that working though... I'll alert Guinness.

FYI: This is one of the stupidest threads I've seen on this site.

But its not stripped of its meaning. If you say that the New York Philharmonic always tunes "A" to 440, then that is an absolute, forever and always. Just because the Boston Symphony uses 442 does not mean the New York Philharmonic's 440 is no longer absolute.

"The NY Phil A = 440" ... absolute, okay. I'll give you that.

"In music, an A = 440" is not an absolute.

There are no absolutes in music.

"The NY Phil A = 440" ... absolute, okay. I'll give you that.

"In music, an A = 440" is not an absolute.

There are no absolutes in music.

This is just painful to read. Please understand the ill-formed logic you're creating by this...

Just because we call the pitch that occurs when a frequency of 440 is reached by the symbolic letter 'A', doesn't mean that no 'absolutes' exist. Yes, in Western music we refer to the frequency 440 as producing a pitch we call 'A'. Yes, this symbolism is subjective. We could just as easily call it 'J' or '5' or 'Ooga Booga'.

We can't take the frequency 440 and say it is the same as the pitch with a frequency of 540. It is categorically wrong. These two frequencies are different, thus, the pitch created by these frequencies will be different. This is not subjective.

No matter whether we change the way we measure frequency to some other arbitrary terminology, the simple fact of the matter is anything that represents what we understand now as the frequency of 440 is still going to be that frequency when we apply some other terminology.

Thus, in music and sound there are 'absolutes of sound'. This pitch, no matter what we call it, will still be the same pitch if the frequency of that pitch is 440. Any change to the frequency of the sound or manipulation of the sound is a variable that will change the end result.

No matter what that variable is, it is no more relevant to the discussion than it is to say 2+2 always equals 4 except when we change one or both of the numbers that produce the sum. The end result is that in music, there are absolutes. The question is how important any of these absolutes are in studying music. For now, they appear to hold little to no significance.

are you so ignorant or are pretending to be? absolute is not a term that contrasts subjective. goddamn i'm wasting my nerve cells explaining trivialities. absolute is a term that contrasts with relative. our worl, physical world, is relative! boom! news, yeah?! every physical fact of physical world is relative and not absolute. gee. so hard to understand? you use wrong concept dealing with issue. that's all. no get to school or loose weight. yes, i do not have respect nor patience for idiocies like this.

absolute is a term derived from fricking religion.

read:

''The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is often used as an alternate term for a "God" or "the Divine", especially, but by no means exclusively, by those who feel that the term "God" lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative.''

now, stop it, you make we wanna throw up at your philosphical under-education.

I've listened to classical pieces in which the orchestra is tuned according to the time period of the piece.

If long-gone composers where to listen to their pieces tuned in A440 , ever wonder what they'd say?

now, stop it, you make we wanna throw up at your philosphical under-education.

This is: Silly. Unnecessary. Offensive. Frustrating. :headwall:

Once again, I'm out. :toothygrin:

FYI: This is one of the stupidest threads I've seen on this site.

I don't disagree with you there.

I've listened to classical pieces in which the orchestra is tuned according to the time period of the piece.

If long-gone composers where to listen to their pieces tuned in A440 , ever wonder what they'd say?

They'd probably say. "Gawsh darn it! That friggin' oboe is playing really sharp today.

They'd probably say. "Gawsh darn it! That friggin' oboe is playing really sharp today.

As if they don't do that every day...

This is just painful to read. Please understand the ill-formed logic you're creating by this...

Just because we call the pitch that occurs when a frequency of 440 is reached by the symbolic letter 'A', doesn't mean that no 'absolutes' exist.

...

We can't take the frequency 440 and say it is the same as the pitch with a frequency of 540. It is categorically wrong. These two frequencies are different, thus, the pitch created by these frequencies will be different. This is not subjective.

No matter whether we change the way we measure frequency to some other arbitrary terminology, the simple fact of the matter is anything that represents what we understand now as the frequency of 440 is still going to be that frequency when we apply some other terminology.

I'm not debating that the frequency will be the same....and YES, I'll admit, it's an absolute that 440Hz is 440Hz. (I feel we're leaving the realm of music and entering that of physics, but whatever ;)

My beef is with calling "A=440" an absolute. 440Hz and 442Hz produce - as you pointed out - different pitches. ... How can we call two different things the same thing?! :blink: It's like taking a cat, and labeling it both Cat and Dog. If "A" can be 440 AND 442, musically this is an unabsolute.

:w00t:

I'm getting picky here... and I'll drop it after this, I promise. ;)

I'm getting picky here... and I'll drop it after this, I promise. ;)

Cool. At least we're on the same page now. I see now where you feel the absolute rests, in physics and not music. If we created a Vin Diagram, though, I think frequency would be that gray area where physics and music overlap. The gray area could be considered that area of perception of the sound that you're talking about... where frequencies 440 and 442 would both be considered by the human ear to be identical. It could also be that area where music is grounded in scientific principles of sound that have virtually no impact on how music is created. The latter is how I was taught... but I can see the validity of the former as well.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from on that. :P

where frequencies 440 and 442 would both be considered by the human ear to be identical.

Well, the difference between 440Hz and 442Hz is roughly 8 cents, which is definitely distinguishable. Actually, the ear could distinguish between 440Hz and 440.5Hz or even 440.38Hz (about 1.5 cents is the limit for human ears to distinguish between pitches). So yeah, the human hear would not consider them to be identical.

But now I'm being like everyone and splitting irrelevant hairs just for the sake of being contradictory.