Musical questions and answers thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ferneyhoughgeliebte
    Gone fishin'
    • Sep 2011
    • 30163

    Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
    Sorry to point this out, Ferney, but you can't spell 'buggers'.
    I can, but don't.

    Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
    Of course. But t the folk singers I have in mind would rarely, if ever, have heard a piano.
    Excellent point
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

    Comment

    • ahinton
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 16122

      Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
      There's a scientist on a respected internet site who claims that "there's no such note as B#" - which rather beggurs up the "Moonlight Sonata".
      Does he also claim that there's no such note as E#? Either way, he's presumably never tried to play the Moonlight Sonata, stll less the finale of Alkan's Concerto for solo piano...

      Comment

      • ferneyhoughgeliebte
        Gone fishin'
        • Sep 2011
        • 30163

        Originally posted by ahinton View Post
        Does he also claim that there's no such note as E#? Either way, he's presumably never tried to play the Moonlight Sonata, stll less the finale of Alkan's Concerto for solo piano...
        Yes, he does (IIRC - he certainly says that there isn't an Fb). He's an amateur guitarist.
        [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

        Comment

        • BBMmk2
          Late Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 20908

          Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
          There's a scientist on a respected internet site who claims that "there's no such note as B#" - which rather beggurs up the "Moonlight Sonata".

          That’s most strange, Ferney. What was his thinking behind this?
          Don’t cry for me
          I go where music was born

          J S Bach 1685-1750

          Comment

          • ahinton
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 16122

            Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
            Yes, he does (IIRC - he certainly says that there isn't an Fb). He's an amateur guitarist.
            Ah, well that explains everything! Presumably he'd likewise have no truck with the triple accidentals occasionally employed by Alkan and Ornstein (although, in the latter case, I can;t say that I'd entirely blam him because the notation schemes that Ornstein used in those days - the 1910s - made some of his music very difficult to read)...

            Comment

            • Richard Barrett
              Guest
              • Jan 2016
              • 6259

              Equal temperament with 72 pitches to the octave (twelfth-tones) is able to approximate to just intonation up to the eleventh harmonic (and therefore trivially to the twelfth) to within 5 cents, which is closer than most of us can hear under normal circumstances. I first came across this fact in the writings of the late great James Tenney.

              Comment

              • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                Gone fishin'
                • Sep 2011
                • 30163

                Originally posted by Brassbandmaestro View Post
                That’s most strange, Ferney. What was his thinking behind this?
                To be fair to the man, it's probably best if I link to the actual lecture:

                NOTE FROM TED: We've flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event, because it appears to fall outside TEDx's curatorial guidelines for its assertions ...
                [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                Comment

                • Pabmusic
                  Full Member
                  • May 2011
                  • 5537

                  Originally posted by Bryn View Post
                  Let alone an 'in tune' one.
                  Quite.

                  Comment

                  • vinteuil
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 12671

                    Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
                    We are familiar with the solution, of course. Often called ‘equal temperament’, it is a system of tuning compromises that arose largely in the 17th and 18th centuries.
                    ... "equal temperament" was of course only one of the solutions found. There were many 'good temperaments' found that suited various keys and pieces better than others, but which worked in all available keys. Early music keyboard players get used to negotiating their way around Werckmeister, Kirnberger, Vallotti, Rameau and others. The 'well tempered' keyboard of Bach's 48 is unlikely to have been in equal temperament.

                    .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werckmeister_temperament
                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .







                    .
                    Last edited by vinteuil; 26-07-18, 16:24.

                    Comment

                    • Richard Barrett
                      Guest
                      • Jan 2016
                      • 6259

                      Originally posted by vinteuil View Post
                      The 'well tempered' keyboard of Bach's 48 is unlikely to have been in equal temperament.
                      Here is Bradley Lehman's rather fascinating account of his theory regarding the temperament of Bach's 48: http://www.larips.com/

                      Some other scholars regard it as too speculative, but to me it seems pretty convincing.

                      Comment

                      • Bryn
                        Banned
                        • Mar 2007
                        • 24688

                        Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                        Here is Bradley Lehman's rather fascinating account of his theory regarding the temperament of Bach's 48: http://www.larips.com/

                        Some other scholars regard it as too speculative, but to me it seems pretty convincing.
                        And you can hear the results in , for instance, Richard Egarr's recording of the 48. However, Bach's squiggles only appear on the title page of Book 1, so even if Lehman's solution is correct, might Bach not have changed his mind re. what tuning regime he favoured by the time he finished Book 2?

                        Last edited by Bryn; 26-07-18, 14:26.

                        Comment

                        • Serial_Apologist
                          Full Member
                          • Dec 2010
                          • 37325

                          Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                          Ah, well that explains everything! Presumably he'd likewise have no truck with the triple accidentals occasionally employed by Alkan and Ornstein (although, in the latter case, I can;t say that I'd entirely blam him because the notation schemes that Ornstein used in those days - the 1910s - made some of his music very difficult to read)...
                          Can you think of any explanation for uses of double, let alone triple accidentals, though? One assumes some deep theoretical reason for their use; but I was upset, on purchasing the score of Messiaen's early piano Préludes, to discover that, far from eschewing key signatures, a product of diatonic tonal relations, which to my mind would have validated his embrace of a modal approach to his harmonic and melodic thinking, not only did he go for the most difficult keys in these pieces, but in many places he indicated double sharps. What's wrong with a good old natural a single tone up was my opinion? This man wants to have his cake and eat it. In the end I gave them away to a professional pianist and friend.

                          Comment

                          • ahinton
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 16122

                            Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
                            Can you think of any explanation for uses of double, let alone triple accidentals, though? One assumes some deep theoretical reason for their use; but I was upset, on purchasing the score of Messiaen's early piano Préludes, to discover that, far from eschewing key signatures, a product of diatonic tonal relations, which to my mind would have validated his embrace of a modal approach to his harmonic and melodic thinking, not only did he go for the most difficult keys in these pieces, but in many places he indicated double sharps. What's wrong with a good old natural a single tone up was my opinion? This man wants to have his cake and eat it. In the end I gave them away to a professional pianist and friend.
                            Messiaen's Préludes are wonderful pieces! - but they are very overtly tonal. The only need for double accidentals is when placing text in a specific tonal context; the same could be said of the mercifully far rarer triple ones although I suspect that it's far harder to justify these.

                            Comment

                            • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                              Gone fishin'
                              • Sep 2011
                              • 30163

                              Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                              The only need for double accidentals is when placing text in a specific tonal context
                              Yes - such as a piece in E major which modulates to G# major: you'd need the Fx as a leading note for the modulation. (I had a student who once used precisely this modulation in one of his compositions - he wrote a series of about eight Gs alternating sharp and natural symbols in front of each. He was a pianist, of course.)
                              [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                              Comment

                              • jean
                                Late member
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 7100

                                Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
                                I'm impressed that you continue your online argument, jean - I'd've made my polite excuses and left long before now...
                                Wise I am sure. But as can be seen elsewhere too, I am not very good at that.

                                And then, look what an interesting discassion my intransigence has spawned here!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X