A440 and the Tritone — the Devil's tuning and also His interval too!
Definitely don’t say A440 three times in a row... A440! A440! A…
One of these days I'm for sure gonna do an in-depth post myself about this very subject. Fascinating! I have actually been in live performance situations where followers of the A432 Cult have refused to play with anyone tuned to A440. When asked — why? personally, I've never been given a rational methodical answer or argument that I can follow. Honestly, I am really open to having this explained to me, it's just that no one has ever been able to do that yet. I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, the music history I learned in university (yeah yeah, I know how that sounds, like I know it all) is different to what you point to in your article…
Bach, wrote a compendium of pieces in all keys called (translated into English) The Well-Tempered Clavier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier). It was composed in two parts before 1722, and published as a complete work in that year. It was a big deal back then because a/ the idea of a unified system of 24 musical keys was a new, emerging contemporary idea, and Bach was a composer at the forefront of this technique. The Well-Tempered Clavier basically demonstrated how to do this — write in these 24 keys. And b/ because Bach (and other travelling composers of the time) noticed that their works sounded differently in different cities around Europe because there was no agreed system of tuning… there was “Well-temperament” tuning, “Meantone temperament” tuning, and several other competing tuning systems. Not to mention that, let’s say, that the tuning fork used to tune the organ in the cathedral in Heidelberg, would be tuned to a completely different note than the tuning fork used to tune the organ in the cathedral in Saltzburg (for instance).
So… and this is the point… nobody, not even the most experty of experts knows for sure what the A4 note of this piece was intended to be tuned to in 1722!!!!! People have theorised. But no one knows for sure. At very best, and this is still a stretch, experts can say that A4 was somewhere between 420Hz and 460Hz. That's more or less the range of geographical tuning variance for A4 in central Europe at the time (I'm just coming to that now).
And, for sure, almost all music around Europe at that time was tuned differently depending on what city or country you were in… tuning was more linked to what other musicians in your location did, than any unified system. Bach (and other well-travelled composers) recognised this. And The Well-Tempered Clavier was an attempt to establish the 12-note well-tempered tuning system as standard. It worked. It’s what all modern diatonic harmony is based upon (so all the songs by The Beatles, The Beach Boys etc etc).
Add to this that Hertz (Hz), as a unit of measuring frequency cycles was established in 1935, and named after a German who lived in the second half of the 19th century…
I mention this because one of the most popular modern-day New Agey explanations as to why A432 should be the angelic-harmonious standard and not the demonic A440 — is that (and you’re gonna have to google this and delve into it yourselves ‘coz right at this moment the name evades me) someone quite recently (second half of last century) discovered a hidden cypher in the bible that reveals (in Hertz) the exact frequencies (again I emphasise in Hz) of the Solfeggio frequency sequence, which are apparently the notes and pitches that are exactly in tune with the healing energies of the universe. And to align with this A4 needs to be 432Hz. NOT 440Hz — which is out of alignment with this healing frequency sequence. Really? In the Bible, there is a hidden reference to Hertz cycles, a system introduced in 1935????
Let’s be clear, I’m certain about the healing capabilities of electromagnet waves (sound), I don’t dispute that at all. But enough with the fairy tales, the conspiracy theories and the history re-writes. When someone can show me some data and field studies that back up that data, I’ll change from A440 to A432 (or whatever). Until then, I keep an open mind and stay away from the A432 Cult.
I think we're pretty much in violent agreement here, Nic! As far as I can recall, I first wrote about this and linked to a reference about a year ago and relied heavily on this article (it was a topic in my music theory classes, but I didn't remember a lot of the specifics).
This paragraph sticks out since it references a theory that was about a hundred years in the future at the time:
"The Stuttgart Conference of 1834 resulted in the recommendation to standardize A4=440 Hz based on the work of Johann Heinrich Scheibler, who invented the tonometer as a means of measuring absolute pitch and theorized A as equal to 440 Hz. In England, efforts by the Society of Arts Committee to adopt this standard in 1850 were derailed by adherents to Philosophical Pitch in a preview of the battle that would one day rage between proponents of 432 Hz and those of 440 Hz."
So, as I understand it, there was some means of tonal "frequency" measurement, albeit somewhat crude and not explained in terms of electromagnetic wave theory that Hertz would propose a century later. Not sure what a "tonometer" is, but it apparently was some rudimentary means of measuring tone relativity, which we know understand as waveform frequencies.
Michael, firstly thank you for introducing this topic, really, too many people just avoid it OR simply start ranting about the unbelievable benefits A432...
I'm for sure going to look into this. I don't want to say I am 'right' because I don't know, maybe the history I learned is inaccurate...?!? What I will say is as follows.
Firstly I was at university prior to, let's say, the Progressive Left's Dogmatic Invasion of Education. So there is very little chance that I was being fed re-written historical dogma, that fits a progressive agenda (that the White Patriarchy tried to hijack the tuning of modern music to cause psychological disruption and control the masses). There's a small chance the history I was taught was inaccurate, but it is small.
Secondly, just using rational critical thinking, follow this thought process...
Heinrich Hertz (after whom the unit of frequency cycles is named)was born in 1857.
So how could a conference in 1834 suggest a frequency measured in Hertz 23 years before the man after whom the unit was named was born?
At very best someone at some point in the future (so after Heinrich Hertz was active as a physicist, so sometime after about 1890 or so), could have retrospectively measured whatever a tonometer was measuring, and eventually after 1935 (100 years later) said, yep, that tonometer in 1834 in Stuggart was saying A4 was 440Hz...
At some point I'm definitely going to research deep into this subject and write an article, I just don't know when. It fascinates me.
For now, I keep an open mind and keep my bullshit detector calibrated to A440
Yes, I recall a quite spirited discussion in my music theory classes! Most of the class was young - 19 - 25 ish. The instructor, an extremely talented professional jazz musician (and Berklee grad I think), brought up the subject in an amused manner. I was auditing the class because I was old enough to get free tuition. Since Danny (the instructor, who also had a Master’s in Audio Engineering) and I were the same age we often shared an amused smile over the antics of the young students. I think the 432/440 debate is long since settled, whether one’s belief systems agree or not. I view the argument as subjective and mostly irrelevant. The “industry” has been built on A4=440 for a long time now, it isn’t going to change.
BTW - I think the author kind of “retconned” the Hz measurements into the discussion of 1834 not because they were actually discussing a waveform technology discovery that wouldn’t occur for another 100 yrs, but because they didn’t know (or didn’t research) what the prior terminology was. Was it “A4=??” on a tonometer?” Or was it “This particular tuning fork is the correct note for A4!” Yeah good luck getting the “tuning fork industry” (if such existed) to agree on that all over Europe (not to mention the rest of the world…)…
One of the reasons I still like REM so much is I consider Michael Stipe's voice as a lead "instrument" on their tracks and not just a unique vocal. It's hard for me to put that into words (pun not intended), but i'm always drawn to the way he uses it.
Second, RIP Dickey Betts. His melodic answers to Duane's fierce stylings on the AB early tracks and liver performances are fantastic. And "Jessica" is still a mainstay on my playlists. Another part of my youth has passed away.
I thought for sure it was going to end up being about a conspiracy that Chordify tries to get money out of artists by adding yellow warning labels..."get your tuning properly standardized or we'll kill this puppy!"
It's amazing that Modern English are still around and doing well. I guess doing well. They are touring, but they all could have major health issues. I don't want to assume the wellness of others.
Anyway, fun piece and I read more guitar tech stuff than I usually do!
Actually, (or “ackshually”…) I envisioned a lunchroom with some capricious quants sitting around laughing about having tweaked the latest Chordify software update so that songs would randomly display tuning once or twice where A4 “does not equal” 440Hz, then go back to standard tuning. One of them would say, “I think we got that Michael Electric asshole again, he was totally on a rant today”. Then they’d all laugh and laugh. Good times….
Just to add another strand to the Chordify yellow warning triange algorithm thread... it could be that the algorithm is detecting a track that has had varispeed added at some point during the recording process, usually during the final mastering... just sayin' 🤷♂️ Rick Beato talks/rants about it a bit here...
That actually makes a great deal of sense - the mixing process itself in the studio could induce the algorithm to “hear” something that either isn’t there or is only there transitively. That brings up the question of how the algorithm “decides” on a tuning. Is it an average of the sum of all tunings whether accurately sampled or not? Or is it the “most often heard” variance from standard reference. Mixing/mastering could induce errors in either case.
A440 and the Tritone — the Devil's tuning and also His interval too!
Definitely don’t say A440 three times in a row... A440! A440! A…
One of these days I'm for sure gonna do an in-depth post myself about this very subject. Fascinating! I have actually been in live performance situations where followers of the A432 Cult have refused to play with anyone tuned to A440. When asked — why? personally, I've never been given a rational methodical answer or argument that I can follow. Honestly, I am really open to having this explained to me, it's just that no one has ever been able to do that yet. I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, the music history I learned in university (yeah yeah, I know how that sounds, like I know it all) is different to what you point to in your article…
Bach, wrote a compendium of pieces in all keys called (translated into English) The Well-Tempered Clavier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier). It was composed in two parts before 1722, and published as a complete work in that year. It was a big deal back then because a/ the idea of a unified system of 24 musical keys was a new, emerging contemporary idea, and Bach was a composer at the forefront of this technique. The Well-Tempered Clavier basically demonstrated how to do this — write in these 24 keys. And b/ because Bach (and other travelling composers of the time) noticed that their works sounded differently in different cities around Europe because there was no agreed system of tuning… there was “Well-temperament” tuning, “Meantone temperament” tuning, and several other competing tuning systems. Not to mention that, let’s say, that the tuning fork used to tune the organ in the cathedral in Heidelberg, would be tuned to a completely different note than the tuning fork used to tune the organ in the cathedral in Saltzburg (for instance).
So… and this is the point… nobody, not even the most experty of experts knows for sure what the A4 note of this piece was intended to be tuned to in 1722!!!!! People have theorised. But no one knows for sure. At very best, and this is still a stretch, experts can say that A4 was somewhere between 420Hz and 460Hz. That's more or less the range of geographical tuning variance for A4 in central Europe at the time (I'm just coming to that now).
And, for sure, almost all music around Europe at that time was tuned differently depending on what city or country you were in… tuning was more linked to what other musicians in your location did, than any unified system. Bach (and other well-travelled composers) recognised this. And The Well-Tempered Clavier was an attempt to establish the 12-note well-tempered tuning system as standard. It worked. It’s what all modern diatonic harmony is based upon (so all the songs by The Beatles, The Beach Boys etc etc).
Add to this that Hertz (Hz), as a unit of measuring frequency cycles was established in 1935, and named after a German who lived in the second half of the 19th century…
I mention this because one of the most popular modern-day New Agey explanations as to why A432 should be the angelic-harmonious standard and not the demonic A440 — is that (and you’re gonna have to google this and delve into it yourselves ‘coz right at this moment the name evades me) someone quite recently (second half of last century) discovered a hidden cypher in the bible that reveals (in Hertz) the exact frequencies (again I emphasise in Hz) of the Solfeggio frequency sequence, which are apparently the notes and pitches that are exactly in tune with the healing energies of the universe. And to align with this A4 needs to be 432Hz. NOT 440Hz — which is out of alignment with this healing frequency sequence. Really? In the Bible, there is a hidden reference to Hertz cycles, a system introduced in 1935????
Let’s be clear, I’m certain about the healing capabilities of electromagnet waves (sound), I don’t dispute that at all. But enough with the fairy tales, the conspiracy theories and the history re-writes. When someone can show me some data and field studies that back up that data, I’ll change from A440 to A432 (or whatever). Until then, I keep an open mind and stay away from the A432 Cult.
I think we're pretty much in violent agreement here, Nic! As far as I can recall, I first wrote about this and linked to a reference about a year ago and relied heavily on this article (it was a topic in my music theory classes, but I didn't remember a lot of the specifics).
https://producerhive.com/editorial/432hz-vs-440hz/
This paragraph sticks out since it references a theory that was about a hundred years in the future at the time:
"The Stuttgart Conference of 1834 resulted in the recommendation to standardize A4=440 Hz based on the work of Johann Heinrich Scheibler, who invented the tonometer as a means of measuring absolute pitch and theorized A as equal to 440 Hz. In England, efforts by the Society of Arts Committee to adopt this standard in 1850 were derailed by adherents to Philosophical Pitch in a preview of the battle that would one day rage between proponents of 432 Hz and those of 440 Hz."
So, as I understand it, there was some means of tonal "frequency" measurement, albeit somewhat crude and not explained in terms of electromagnetic wave theory that Hertz would propose a century later. Not sure what a "tonometer" is, but it apparently was some rudimentary means of measuring tone relativity, which we know understand as waveform frequencies.
Does this sound about right?
Michael, firstly thank you for introducing this topic, really, too many people just avoid it OR simply start ranting about the unbelievable benefits A432...
I'm for sure going to look into this. I don't want to say I am 'right' because I don't know, maybe the history I learned is inaccurate...?!? What I will say is as follows.
Firstly I was at university prior to, let's say, the Progressive Left's Dogmatic Invasion of Education. So there is very little chance that I was being fed re-written historical dogma, that fits a progressive agenda (that the White Patriarchy tried to hijack the tuning of modern music to cause psychological disruption and control the masses). There's a small chance the history I was taught was inaccurate, but it is small.
Secondly, just using rational critical thinking, follow this thought process...
Heinrich Hertz (after whom the unit of frequency cycles is named)was born in 1857.
So how could a conference in 1834 suggest a frequency measured in Hertz 23 years before the man after whom the unit was named was born?
At very best someone at some point in the future (so after Heinrich Hertz was active as a physicist, so sometime after about 1890 or so), could have retrospectively measured whatever a tonometer was measuring, and eventually after 1935 (100 years later) said, yep, that tonometer in 1834 in Stuggart was saying A4 was 440Hz...
At some point I'm definitely going to research deep into this subject and write an article, I just don't know when. It fascinates me.
For now, I keep an open mind and keep my bullshit detector calibrated to A440
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz
LOLOLOLOL!
Yes, I recall a quite spirited discussion in my music theory classes! Most of the class was young - 19 - 25 ish. The instructor, an extremely talented professional jazz musician (and Berklee grad I think), brought up the subject in an amused manner. I was auditing the class because I was old enough to get free tuition. Since Danny (the instructor, who also had a Master’s in Audio Engineering) and I were the same age we often shared an amused smile over the antics of the young students. I think the 432/440 debate is long since settled, whether one’s belief systems agree or not. I view the argument as subjective and mostly irrelevant. The “industry” has been built on A4=440 for a long time now, it isn’t going to change.
BTW - I think the author kind of “retconned” the Hz measurements into the discussion of 1834 not because they were actually discussing a waveform technology discovery that wouldn’t occur for another 100 yrs, but because they didn’t know (or didn’t research) what the prior terminology was. Was it “A4=??” on a tonometer?” Or was it “This particular tuning fork is the correct note for A4!” Yeah good luck getting the “tuning fork industry” (if such existed) to agree on that all over Europe (not to mention the rest of the world…)…
A couple of comments ...
One of the reasons I still like REM so much is I consider Michael Stipe's voice as a lead "instrument" on their tracks and not just a unique vocal. It's hard for me to put that into words (pun not intended), but i'm always drawn to the way he uses it.
Second, RIP Dickey Betts. His melodic answers to Duane's fierce stylings on the AB early tracks and liver performances are fantastic. And "Jessica" is still a mainstay on my playlists. Another part of my youth has passed away.
I agree with both, Jim - Michael Stipe’s voice is instantly recognizable. And the musicians from our youth aren’t as immortal as we once thought.
I thought for sure it was going to end up being about a conspiracy that Chordify tries to get money out of artists by adding yellow warning labels..."get your tuning properly standardized or we'll kill this puppy!"
It's amazing that Modern English are still around and doing well. I guess doing well. They are touring, but they all could have major health issues. I don't want to assume the wellness of others.
Anyway, fun piece and I read more guitar tech stuff than I usually do!
Actually, (or “ackshually”…) I envisioned a lunchroom with some capricious quants sitting around laughing about having tweaked the latest Chordify software update so that songs would randomly display tuning once or twice where A4 “does not equal” 440Hz, then go back to standard tuning. One of them would say, “I think we got that Michael Electric asshole again, he was totally on a rant today”. Then they’d all laugh and laugh. Good times….
I hope you acquired ownership for Michael Electric on Substack for when you make your grand expansion!
Haha - nice try! I won’t be baited into yet another copyright post!
Just to add another strand to the Chordify yellow warning triange algorithm thread... it could be that the algorithm is detecting a track that has had varispeed added at some point during the recording process, usually during the final mastering... just sayin' 🤷♂️ Rick Beato talks/rants about it a bit here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJPjMlwB0s
That actually makes a great deal of sense - the mixing process itself in the studio could induce the algorithm to “hear” something that either isn’t there or is only there transitively. That brings up the question of how the algorithm “decides” on a tuning. Is it an average of the sum of all tunings whether accurately sampled or not? Or is it the “most often heard” variance from standard reference. Mixing/mastering could induce errors in either case.