Nature's Music Pitch A = 432Hz Tuning. Have your say.....

[PinkAF]

I stumbled across this forum whilest googling 432 hz. I'm no expert, but I do remember reading about 432 Hz being associated with Greek tuning in a couple of music theory and history books I had gotten from the library. I found one of them here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=H-iGSC ... &q&f=false

I am very interested to find more data on the subject. I will tell you that, intuitively I find the sound of the 432 resonates with me.

Here is a link where you can compare the 440 hz to 432 hz.
http://www.omega432.com/music.html

...and another...

http://terugnaar432hz.org/pageID_5832471.html

Here is a rather long forum thread that is full of info on 432.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26839

I find this topic fascinating.

In 1942 Nikola Tesla said to Bergestersser
"If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."

[XippyP]

Hello there. I joined this forum to clear up some misunderstandings I've seen around the internet about Bach's tuning. Everywhere I go when I read about A=432Hz tuning, I hear "Bach this" and "Bach that." These are honest mistakes in the interpretation of historical accounts. Bach really didn't like equal equal tuning.
If there is anything in the world Bach honestly didn't like, it was equal, A=440hz tuning. He tuned every single instrument he ever touched to Werckmeister III at A=415. He couldn't stand working in equal. He thought it sounded terrible
Now, you may be saying. "But why does it say that he tuned his instruments to equal tuning?"
This is an important part of history. Before modern equal tuning was invented, well-tempering was called "equal tuning" because every note and scale was "equally" playable. When modern equal tuning was invented, well-tempering was renamed from "equal tuning" to "well-tempering." This has caused much confusion among many people. Bach disliked equal tuning so incredibly much that he wrote the entirety of The Well-tempered Clavier for the sole purpose of proving that it sounded terrible.

[mwyalchen]

Bach disliked equal tuning so incredibly much that he wrote the entirety of The Well-tempered Clavier for the sole purpose of proving that it sounded terrible.

Possibly an overstatement.

I suspect you're right that Bach did not use what we now call equal temperament; if I remember rightly, there was some interesting work reported in Early Music a few years back, where someone had been through the "48" and shown that the pieces in the more extreme keys were carefully devised so they sounded good in historical tunings available to Bach.

And, this being so, Bach probably would have preferred to hear his work in Werkmeister III tuning - it might well have sounded harsher to him in modern equal temperament; nonetheless, the point of the "48" was to demonstrate that it was possible to write in all 24 keys on a sufficiently well-tuned keyboard.

As for the pitch issue: surviving Baroque woodwind instruments are made in a whole variety of pitches. Modern preference is for A 415, partly because that's about a semitone lower than A 440; but there were plenty of other pitches in use - and the organs in Bach's churches varied so much that his cantatas can be dated and located by looking at how much he had to transpose the woodwind parts to accomodate the organ in the church he was usaing!

I've certainly not seen any evidence that A 432 was a particularly important pitch in the way the early posts suggest; I'd tend to agree with Corwen's objections here.

[pgoggins]

Fascinating topic. I recently wrote a blog article on this, your collective discussion was among the most intelligent that I've seen on the whole 440/432 topic. Drawing on a study done by Gary Meisner, I calculated that to achieve the most harmonious tone, you should actually tune the A over middle C to 431.4757 Hz.

In short, Meisner says that 432 is preferable to 440 because it invokes the "Golden Ratio" of phi. Like pi, phi is expressed as a constant: 1.61803. The Golden Ratio exists in nature in the proportions of our faces and bodies, in the patterns on plants, and in crystal formations. Since ancient times, phi has been used in artwork, architecture, and music to yield very pleasing effects. Using Fibonacci series, Meisner determined that the fifth of the scale (3/8) using Pythagorean tuning, is at 165 Hz when using 440 pitch, and at 162 Hz using 432 - close to phi.

On my blog, I ran the numbers and, for the fifth of the scale to be exactly at phi, you need to set the A over middle C to 431.4757 Hz. I suggest that might be the "perfect" pitch.

My blog: http://dispatchesfromcoconutgrove.blogspot.com/2013/04/nazis-stole-our-tuning.html

Meisner's page: http://www.goldennumber.net/music/

[Corwen]

Fascinating topic. I recently wrote a blog article on this, your collective discussion was among the most intelligent that I've seen on the whole 440/432 topic. Drawing on a study done by Gary Meisner, I calculated that to achieve the most harmonious tone, you should actually tune the A over middle C to 431.4757 Hz.

In short, Meisner says that 432 is preferable to 440 because it invokes the "Golden Ratio" of phi. Like pi, phi is expressed as a constant: 1.61803. The Golden Ratio exists in nature in the proportions of our faces and bodies, in the patterns on plants, and in crystal formations. Since ancient times, phi has been used in artwork, architecture, and music to yield very pleasing effects. Using Fibonacci series, Meisner determined that the fifth of the scale (3/8) using Pythagorean tuning, is at 165 Hz when using 440 pitch, and at 162 Hz using 432 - close to phi.

On my blog, I ran the numbers and, for the fifth of the scale to be exactly at phi, you need to set the A over middle C to 431.4757 Hz. I suggest that might be the "perfect" pitch.

My blog: http://dispatchesfromcoconutgrove.blogspot.com/2013/04/nazis-stole-our-tuning.html
Meisner's page: http://www.goldennumber.net/music/

You don't seem to understand that ratios between notes in a scale are independent of absolute pitch. It is irrelevant how you tune your first note in terms of its absolute pitch, you can arrange the further notes of your scale to embody constants like the Golden Ratio if you want to. Start at any pitch and you can construct any scale you like embodying any ratios you fancy!

If I make a flute, blow hard and the note will jump up an octave, blow harder and the next interval will be a fifth above that octave. This is the harmonic series and that fifth will be a perfect Pythagorean fifth regardless of the length of my flute and the pitch of notes it is producing, its physics. I could tune my flute to any pitch and always get perfect fifths this way because the fifth is defined in relationship to the first note or fundamental, not as any particular pitch expressed in Herz! Fifths don't exist by themselves, only in relationship to another note, and that note can be any arbitrary note we like, in my example I can make my flute any length and therefore pitch I like. The fifth it creates will always be in the same mathematical relationship to that fundamental pitch which is decided by its length.

Also I feel I should remind you that Herz are arbitrary measurements of pitch because seconds are arbitrary measurements of time. Neither has any universal or external reality, they are human constructs used for convenience. There can be no significance to any number in these measurements, we could agree to define Hz as the number of vibrations in 3 seconds instead of 1 second, and all the numbers would be different, but the ratios would be preserved and it is the ratios between frequencies that are important, not the numbers. In our new system where Hz is defined as the number of vibrations in 3 seconds the note currently described as 432 Hz will now be 1296Hz BUT IT WILL BE THE SAME PITCH AND SOUND THE SAME BECAUSE THE NUMBER MEANS NOTHING!!!!!!! Also remember it is the ratios between the numbers of vibrations in any given period that is important in the construction of musical scales not any absolute pitches. If one note is twice as many vibrations in any given period (not necessarily a second as arbitrarily chosen in the units we call Herz) then it will be an octave higher, three times as many and it will be a (Pythagorean) fifth higher. The actual numbers are irrelevant.

What I really don't understand is why so many people are obsessed with this stupid pseudo science 432 bullsh*t when there are fantastic underutilised and almost unknown scale systems such as the naturetone scale based on the tones generated by closed and open ended flutes (and widely used in Scandinavian folk music) or by other instruments that utilise both the closed and open harmonic series such as jew's harps and overtone singing. This scale is natural (hence the name), is not a human chosen scale as it is derived from the physical behaviour of tubes and air or the vibrational modes of strings. If you want to find a healing scale, investigate the Naturetone scale. Or stay obsessing about 432 and prove that there is one born every minute.

[Jack Greenman]

Just to put the "numbers" in perspective with regard to early music: does anyone know exactly when Hertz devised his scale of musical pitch? And when did technology develop measuring equipment capable of determining exactly how many cycles per second an instrument is emitting? Because, obviously, the numbers 440 or 432 wouldn't have had any significance before that. I've heard that Bach used quite a bit of numerology in his compositions, but the Hertz value wasn't one of the numbers involved!

I recently had a key experience with concert pitches. My daughter's choir was involved in a "historically informed" performance of J.S. Bach's Matthew Passion. She told me that they were doing it "about a semitone" lower than modern pitch (which would make it about A=315 Hz, if I've read the earlier postings correctly; a couple of Hertz more or less makes no difference to a singer )

And I must say, the performance knocked my socks off! I'd never heard Bach sounding so magnificent.

However, to contribute to this discussion, the concert pitch was only one of many parameters that distingushed this performance from other Bach cantatas I've heard.
First of all, the entire string section was strung with gut, not wire. And the woodwinds were all replicas without mechanical flaps - the transverse flutes being, of course, wooden. The trumpet parts were played by an independent trumpet ensemble with natural trumpets and kettle drums, such as Bach would have hired for his performances, and even the solo horn was a valveless instrument.

The timbre of the string section was just so smooth and homogeneous, and yet the parts were clearly distinguishable. The natural trumpets have a wildness about them and a slight edginess that the valves of a modern, equal-tempered trumpet just cancel out. I noticed that the oboist swapped instruments for numbers in different keys - I didn't get an opportunity to ask, but this could have been because they weren't equal-tempered, and each one only sounded "right" in one key. And of course, the semitone lower meant that the sopranos' and tenors' high notes were well within their range.

So I can say that this low-pitched performance thouroughly entranced me, but I'm quite certain that this entrancement was due to the smoothness of the gut strings and the intonation of the woodwind instruments, contrasting with the wildness of the natural trumpets and horn, which are definitely not equal-tempered. And you only get those as part of a package with the lower concert pitch. An A=440 performance would have had the usual screeching violins (and sopranos), domesticated brass, and harsh, equal-tempered woodwinds. That would have been inspiring, too - but the "historically informed package," which you might, only for convenience, label the "315Hz version" was just that bit more.

Blessings,
Jack Greenman

[Explorer]

What I really don't understand is why so many people are obsessed with this stupid pseudo science 432 bullsh*t when there are fantastic underutilised and almost unknown scale systems

I think it is the 'maya calender' crowd, they've been lying low a bit after the world didn't end on 21 dec 2012.

[Whitemane]

I recently had a key experience with concert pitches. My daughter's choir was involved in a "historically informed" performance of J.S. Bach's Matthew Passion. She told me that they were doing it "about a semitone" lower than modern pitch (which would make it about A=315 Hz, if I've read the earlier postings correctly; a couple of Hertz more or less makes no difference to a singer )

Blessings,
Jack Greenman

I think you mean 415Hz

Baroque music performed on the instruments it was written for, and at the pitch it was written for is a revelation.

[Jack Greenman]

I think you mean 415Hz

Baroque music performed on the instruments it was written for, and at the pitch it was written for is a revelation.

You're right - I meant 415Hz. Just goes to show how unimportant numbers are - even when we get them wrong, we're still understood!

As to the instruments music was written for, this is not only true of the Baroque! Some time ago I heard an interesting radio programme about the piano in Classical (i.e. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven & co.) music. These gentlemen wrote for (and played) the fortepiano, not the modern concert grand, and the programme included a couple of Mozart sonatas on a replica fortepiano (Hammerklavier) of that era. That, too, was an eye-opener. The shorter sustain of the fortepiano made the very "notey" Mozart style completely transparent; this effect was reinforced by the fortepiano having a very uniform timbre from bass to treble. And it also demonstrated why the Classical composers didn't use the dramatic, long, full chords that the Romantics used - the fortepiano just hasn't got the "weight" for that.
In short, the early pianos offered better definition and homogeneity, the modern ones more volume and colour, and the composers of the respective periods made optimal use of this, while avoiding the drawbacks of their contemporary instruments.

Of course it's a pleasure to hear a good pianist playing Mozart on a Steinway - but it's interesting to note that that's not exactly what W.A. was thinking of when he wrote it!

Blessings,
Jack Greenman

[Ghiúis]

I think it all comes down to what works best for the music that one wishes to make at any particular time.

I also think there isn't much of a point approaching a discussion on this topic from the place that one type of scale system or tuning system is somehow 'better' than another. Because, it all comes down to what works best for the music that one wishes to make at any particular time....

Books have been written on the topic and it has been endlessly debated amongst musicians and theorists and musicologists, and everybody seems to have a point they want to get through, but really folks. In the end, it all comes down to what works best for the music that one wishes to make at any particular time...

does there seem to be an echo in here?

[Whitemane]

I'm reading an introductory text on Indian music right now, and it's insane.

There are no absolute pitches (it's all relative to what the soloist thinks is OK), and pitches within a scale can vary +/- a semitone from what you'd expect, if that is what the soloist wants.

Despite this, it's still magical music.

[katie bridgewater]

I'm reading an introductory text on Indian music right now, and it's insane.

There are no absolute pitches (it's all relative to what the soloist thinks is OK), and pitches within a scale can vary +/- a semitone from what you'd expect, if that is what the soloist wants.

Despite this, it's still magical music.

Despite?

Oh dear...

How about if an Indian musician was reading about western classical orchestral music with it's obsession with fixing pitches, or an Arabic singer was learning about 2 part harmony singing from Iceland? Would you appreciate them saying 'despite'?....

[Whitemane]

I'm reading an introductory text on Indian music right now, and it's insane.

There are no absolute pitches (it's all relative to what the soloist thinks is OK), and pitches within a scale can vary +/- a semitone from what you'd expect, if that is what the soloist wants.

Despite this, it's still magical music.

Despite?

Oh dear...

How about if an Indian musician was reading about western classical orchestral music with it's obsession with fixing pitches, or an Arabic singer was learning about 2 part harmony singing from Iceland? Would you appreciate them saying 'despite'?....

That sounds like argument for the sake of argument.

[Jack Greenman]

Despite?

Oh dear...

How about if an Indian musician was reading about western classical orchestral music with it's obsession with fixing pitches, or an Arabic singer was learning about 2 part harmony singing from Iceland? Would you appreciate them saying 'despite'?....

That sounds like argument for the sake of argument.

Merry Meet, Whitemane,

If I may say so, the use of "despite" in this context was just begging an argument!

Mankind has produced many beautiful and functional things, "despite" many difficulties. Difficulties like those encountered when winning metals from the Earth, or when turning an arid desert into a garden, or when modelling the flowing lines of a beautiful human body in cold, hard marble. In each case, Mankind has developed an idea or a technology, and has reached a goal despite the natural difficulty, and because of the idea or technology.

In music, we are faced with the difficulty of making pleasant, evocative sounds on the basis of the extremely complex physics and mathematics of sound. The ideas and systems that we use to achieve this goal differ somewhat between cultures, but it is because of them that we recognise the music of a strange culture as music, and, unless we are tied to liking only what we have been told to like, can find a beauty (or an order, or a creative will ...) in it.

Western music is beautiful because it is constructed the way it is, and Mongolian music is beautiful because it is constructed the way it is. And so forth.

Blessings,
Jack Greenman

[Whitemane]

It was an infelicitous choice of a word, and I should have been a little more careful, and it is worthy of correction, but not of that sort of polemic.