Fun little test. I did guess all the correct tunings, except for one I was confused by, and that was evident why in the answers. (I personally think it was mostly luck, but some sound samples just sounded more “familiar” to me than others, as I don’t have perfect pitch.)
This A432 stuff is just complete nonsense. Like you point out, it’s just a reference pitch for other notes on the scale, and the frequencies of the other notes are going to depend on temperament, so even if there were to be something special about tuning to A432, you’d need to specify some kind of mystical healing “temperament of life” to go along with it. Pythagereon tuning? Just intonation? Meantone? Werckmeister (and which one)? 12-tone equal? 24-tone equal? A simple reference pitch doesn’t really mean anything, especially as many works will never play that reference pitch.
Which light wavelength would you choose? The bandwidth, even just from our own sun, is enormous.
ETA: oh, I see you chose red. Why red? Anyway, light (a specific band of electromagnetic radiation that we can perceive as light) is rather different than sound, which is pressure waves in matter (mostly the air).
The human vocal range is not quite as enormous in bandwidth, but certainly more than varied enough so that anything you choose will be just as arbitrary as A4 = 440 Hz.
A very quick searchlists the frequency band we perceive as red light as approximately 400-484 THz.
Again, I’m not sure why we would be looking at something measured in THz of electromagnetic radiation as a basis for something measured in just Hz of pressure waves in the air, but I suppose you could get something Aish out of that. I’m not sure the “middle” of the band is anymore meaningful than any other choice. E.g. Why not the lowest red we can see with our eyes? Or the line where it perceptibly changes to orange? Something like that.
At the end of the day, the pitch you choose for a tuning reference is going to be an arbitrary choice regardless.
IIRC, “red” is really a property of our eye structure, not a property of light itself. There’s nothing in the light wave that distinguishes red from the frequencies greater or less than it; it just happens that certain cones in our eyes trigger when exposed to this frequency. There’s no reason why this frequency would be significant when translated to a different magnitude or to a different means of sensing it. Is this correct?
Not exactly - many wavelengths stimulate all 3 cones, just to varying degrees. Red is roughly 620-750 nm while the peak of the longest wavelength cone (“red”) is only at ~570 nm, which is well into the yellow range, almost green. It is just less green than the “green” cone.
If anything, it would be important if one were a multiple (harmonic) of the other (as I understand it part of the argument). And because, as Knorf points out, comparing THz and Hz is many orders of difference. At that point, comparisons don’t make sense and one high-order harmonic isn’t special.
I didn’t say it was special in some absolute sense. I’m just saying it’s the only thing I can think of that would be semi-close to an absolute reference point, other than the human voice (which isn’t as absolute, but at least it’s somewhere to start).
But…brain-scan and brain-damage evidence? Isn’t there still some left/right localization of specific tasks? Didn’t the split-brain patients establish this? Yes, surely, we use both sides of our brains, but speech, for instance, is more based in the left hemisphere than the right.
The article you linked to says this: “The claim that the left hemisphere is the seat of language, however, is a little different. That idea comes from observations that damage to the left hemisphere (for example, due to a stroke) is often associated with difficulties producing language, a problem known as aphasia. Similar damage to the right hemisphere is much less likely to cause aphasia. In fact, for most people, the left hemisphere does play a much more important role in the ability to speak than the right hemisphere does.”
So, yeah, the idea of “right brain creativity” was certainly exaggerated into a load of New Age woo, but the idea of brain hemisphere localization of some faculties isn’t totally hogwash.
Whats happens when a bunch of trendy, but oh so hip musicians tuned to 432 play with a piano? Do they want to spend hundreds of bucks getting the piano specially tuned based on 432?
We have this wonderful pitch reference standard. We have digital tuners that ensures everybody is on the right pitch. Even a 8 year old beginner has an instrument thats in tune. If it ain’t broke don’t F it up.
Actually, I officially give up. The way we see color is so biased toward specific frequencies that there’s no good simple, direct way to relate it to how we hear musical sound.
It’s not really “wonderful”, just a standard. And arbitrary and often ignored, at that.
And that’s really why a singular focus on any particular pitch is rather silly. There’s nothing inherently better about 440 or 432 or whatever. As noted above, European orchestras tend to tune a bit higher (442-445 or so). And there’s nothing really “wrong” with that.
Also, digital tuners can tune to other frequencies. Even the cheap $5 unit I carry around can do that. Nothing’s “broke”, so there’s nothing to F up in the first place.
The important thing is for all the musicians in a group to be in tune with each other and for instruments to be tuned properly to whatever pitch is selected. It’s of secondary importance to get into arguments over which frequency is subjectively better for their purpose than another.
Sorry, I confused you with the OP, and note that you were speculating rather than justifying. That’s a cromulent guess as to the justification.
Loose analogies at best.
Yes, lateralization is a thing, but considering the source of the claims, the explanation is probably bullshit. People can’t be said to be “right/left brained.” Some people are exceptions, and individuals can be more or less lateralized. But just because you are an art major doesn’t make you “right brained,” which is the pseudoscience explanation. And no, the perceived direction of a spinning silhouette does not correspond to your “brainedness.”
Aphasia = production or comprehension, depending on type/location of damage.
Damage to RH language areas can affect prosody, understanding sarcasm, etc. while sparing the ability to understand the actual words.
So if we use a bell curve distribution of the human vocal range, do we include falsetto? Head voice? Children’s vocal ranges, or only adults? So many questions…