Talk:Musical acoustics/Archive 1

Comments merged from "physics of music"

Could someone please fix the graphs so they don't wrap funny (with a wide screen)? I don't know how to do it... - Omegatron

Anyone watching this page? I just redid the sound article and ran across this one. Seems like there's a lot of overlap. I wonder how to best tidy things up. - kmccoy 07:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well it is more oriented specifically to music, explaining harmony, etc. I am not sure if they should be merged or just refer to each other. - Omegatron 13:37, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I made some links to other pages to get more attention towards it. We'll see what happens. - Omegatron 13:47, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

While I know it's a somewhat contentious issue (and might not belong on this page anyway) I find some of the terminology a little odd here - what's called the "temperate scale" is more often (in some circles, anyway) called an "equal-tempered scale", and to say it's the usual scale used in Western music ignores the fact that this is a relatively recent development. Various unequal temperings were far more common until recently. And of course, that only applies to instruments with a fixed scale - the vast majority of instruments use more flexible intonation and will bend tones to fit the prevailing harmonies. Might not belong on this page at all, but if the "temperate scale" is mentioned here, I would think that some of the other cultural information would fit in as well. Jaddle 1:21, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on "musical acoustics"

Just a start, very simple and maybe teh perspective is wrong, so I expect people to edit and expand the article! I have used the term Musical Acoustics, instead of Music Acoustics, because there already was a link to that (previously empty) article from acoustics. --Blondel 22:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Today this article seems to be wiped, but I can still get here from my watch list... I have found there already exists an article physics_of_music, which is well written and to the point. --Blondel 09:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have merged content at physics of music with the stube here and removed the merger notice. Musical acoustics seemed the better title. --Cjnm 16:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Halftones in the scale and the evolution of harmony

I am more or less opposed to this whole section (and a lot of the "trio theory" section above), and I will remove it in a few days if there is no discussion. My reasons:

1. The semitone (and smaller intervals) existed in Greek scales in the 4th century BC, and possibly before. They did not gradually appear; they have been a part of the diatonic scale from the beginning.
2. "Trio theory" (this page is the first time I have heard it referred to as such) only applies to music of the western tradition from a little before the common practice onward. While it is certainly possible to harmonize folk tunes, gregorian chant, or essentially any melody for that matter, with the three primary chords of western tonality, they are not necessarily (and in many cases, necessarily not) the harmonic basis for these melodies.
3. Chromaticism appears and disappears at various points in western music history; perhaps in the relatively brief period between the early baroque and the late romantic you can ascrive some sort of "evolution", but this ignores several earlier developments (especially the greek enharmonic genera, referenced above), as well as their continual presence in other ethnic musics.
4. "Trio theory", as you describe it, is identical to the theory outlined by Arnold Schoenberg in his 1934 essay "Problems of Harmony" (it can be found in his book "Style and Idea"), but the same phenomena were described also by Hermann Helmholtz in 1865, and Kepler's "Harmony of the World" wasn't far off from it in the 17th century, and I could probably find older examples; is there a good reason that it is being given a funny name and attributed to Bob Fink here? (There are probably more original ideas in his theoretical writings than this, I'm not familiar with him, but I don't think this is really one of them.) And again, this "evolution" theory completely ignores the history of scales.

- Rainwarrior 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. We do object to its removal & here present our views after your numbered reasons.

No one wrote the semitone didn't exist in prehistory. We're talking about scales -- not isolated semitones. (edit: I have numbered and reorganized your points. Interspersing makes it impossible to reply in a readable manner, or include others in the discussion. - Rainwarrior)

The many flutes found in Jiahu China in 9 B.C. (one still playable) were described by the archaeologists in "Studies in Music Arcaeology III" as spanning a period of 1200 years then, wherein 5-note (pentatonic flutes) gradually developed to diatonic and other 7 and 8-note flutes. Therefore, factually speaking, it was gradual in entering the scale. If it happened in that prehistoric time, then it is no longer just "theory" to assume the same evolution could have existed elsewhere, if not everywhere. See: http://www.greenwych.ca/9ooo-1.htm#Update

2. You completely miss the point of the trio theory -- It is not about western music. It is clearly written as a description of the likely way in which the diatonic scale evolved in prehistory. The diatonic (or the pentatonic) didn't spring into being all at once.

From the point of view of the scientific method, the parallels between acoustics (overtones of the most widely found intervals) and the most widely found scales in prehistory (pentatonic and diatonic) cannot be ignored as coincidence but must be examined as a possible cause-and-effect. Science abhors "miracles of coincidence" as an explanation of things.

3. Repeat: The trio theory (in the books published about it since 1958) is about trying to reconstruct the process (if one existed) by which music evolved from random sound to scales in prehistoric times. The examination of overtones reveals a likely cause-and-effect.

You clearly have not read anything of this theory with any care. It is absurd to say the theory denies the existence of chromaticism in early times, or even in prehistory. Before characterizing a work, learn what it says. The book by Fink (1970) Origin of Music which elaborates the trio theory, has a large section on the Greek genera as various forms of downward leading-tones, and you can read a bit about it by the same author in his website: http://www.greenwych.ca/natbasis.htm -- scroll or search for "modes" or "Greek" to find it.

4. "Identical"? I doubt that since:

1) You demonstrate that you know little about the trio theory, or assume it says things it never says, and:

2) I doubt if Scheonberg ever wrote about those three intervals in regards to explaining the evolution of music in prehistoric times. I suggest you quote the relevant passages, as we'd be interested to see that.

3) As for Helmholtz, we've read him cover to cover, and he has never come up with these parallels to the scales or anything like the trio theory! If so he wouldn't have asked the question "If the ancients already accepted two semitones in the scale, why didn't they introduce more?" (Sensations of Tone, Dover edition, p. 280.) He didn't know the answer to that. The trio theory does.

4) Finally, the trio theory clearly announces (see the same webpage above) that everything from semitonal chromaticism, to dissonance, to long and short scales, to various forms of harmonic practice -- all existed from prehistory to the present.

But you fail to recognize dominant tendencies of a development in an evolution. For example: In the faces of a family, often we see a family "resemblance." But it is also true that we can see specific differences between each member of the family. Underneath the whole matter lies a genetic tendency -- despite the differences -- for each family member to look alike. The flaw in your argument is that you act as though you're using the existence of the differences to deny that there is a genetic dominant underlying tendency for them to look alike (in most cases) and throughout generations. I.E.: You use various music techniques and practices, the use of various harmonic methods, or other facets of music occurring at different times and places -- to deny the underlying tendency for a longer-range unfolding of an acoustic tendency toward the scales we now find so widespread in time and place and being so parallel to acoustics. You see the trees, but not the forest.

There are so many more errors of fact and understanding in your remarks that correcting them at length would be an enormous task.

It is, anyway, proper to include the matter as Fink has probably written more on the Origin of Music than anyone in the last 60 years. His place in this literature and his books in hundreds of leading research libraries 'round the world require a treatment of his work, whether you agree with it or not.

Fink's credentials includes being asked by Nature Journal -- the leading science journal in the world -- to serve as a juror regarding music in prehistory; He is published in many scholarly journals, including Archaeologia Musicalis; articles in other media (Scientific American; Times of London); Also:

Fink is writing a soon-to-appear 2007 article in a new musicology journal in Turkey;

Fink was asked for an article and was published 2003 in the proceedings of a world conference on music archaeology: Studies in Music Archaeology III;

He was cited seveeral times in the Mass. Inst. of Technology book The Origins of Music;

Invited -- all expenses paid -- to a biomusicology institute conference in Vienna to speak on music origins; -- and on and on.

Read these following URLs and then get back to this discussion only when you know some more -- all of the last 20 years or more of archaeological development in music seems to have escaped you entirely. Western music cannot any longer claim the diatonic scale. The pentatonic and the diatonic are the oldest widespread scales, clearly non-western. Before you propose to slash & burn what people write, learn about the subject more fully.

http://www.greenwych.ca/evidence.htm (Harmony 4,ooo year ago)

http://www.greenwych.ca/babies.htm (Clip on natural basis of consonance)

http://www.greenwych.ca/cycl-5-2.htm (The 7-note solution -- how scales evolve)

http://www.greenwych.ca/drone.htm (ancient counterpoint)

http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-compl.htm (Neanderthal Flute)

The conclusions of that archaeology/anthropology work above support in every way the parallels described in the trio theory, and serve as a serious body of data which now corroborates that theory and its acoustic-based explanations and predictions. It is far more fact than theory at this point.

"The person who does not read learns no more than the person who cannot read." (Anon) -- 65.255.225.43 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an article called "musical acoustics". None of the material from this lengthy section on "trio theory" really falls under this category. Trio theory may indeed be an important theory to some, but that doesn't justify its inclusion on a page where it doesn't belong. Start the article Trio theory and put the information there.

No, I have not read about "trio theory" with care or at all. All of my comments on this talk page were in response to what is written in this wikipedia article, which I tried to indicate in my original post. Thank you for pointing out to me that because I have not read Robert Fink, I am effectively illiterate. That was an excellent way to make your point.

At this point I do not wish to attack the validity of "trio theory", which I never claimed to know in detail, but instead wish to attack its use in this article. It is not relevant. It is a theory of musical history, not of acoustics. It does not appear in the usual acoustics textbooks, and it does not even appear in the usual music history textbooks.

As far as I can tell from all of the information you have provided, "trio theory" is the work of one man. From the content of your argument, the frequent linking of a single website, your continued anonymity, and other factors, your inclusion of this material in the article looks intended to be promotional, rather than educational.

Finally, there is no need to spend five hours meticulously editing your talk page post. While you are editing, no other author is able to effectively reply, and when you continually make minor edits you are preventing response in a timely manner. These discussion pages are about discussion of the article page itself. They are not published, they are not part of the article. In the case of discussions, a swift reply can save a lot of typing, and it is usually better to make your point quickly, and correct misunderstandings as they come up, rather than to continually change the text of what you said while the person you are addressing might be trying to read it and reply to it. - Rainwarrior 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been asked to participate in this discussion by Ms. Norton.

On the one hand, you claim the trio theory exists in Helmholtz, is identical to writings by Schoenberg and others. Yet, now you claimed it is the work of just one man. Make up your mind. The trio theory is one explanation for the existence of a "natural" scale.

That it's the work of one man should be irrelevant, as many things in Wikipedia often are necessarily the work of one person. But that aside, your claim also simply isn't true -- indeed, items in the Wiki article about "The Natural Scale" and the "Trio Theory" were not written by the same person (if you read the history of the article). Yet you took out all those and other parts by other writers as well.

Several people wrote on the same tack. That being true, it falsifies your wish that the general view is held by only "one man," and negates part of your reason for removing these sections. Indeed, many others as well (Sir James Jeans, for one) have written about the scale being "natural," and about the relationship of overtones to the evolution of the scale, although not identical to the trio theory.

The Trio theory simply raises other issues about a natural scale; was written over a half-century ago; and was resisted or ignored by the proponents of the atonal system of music which generally had a stake in denying any natural foundation to the scale. Still others have denied those denyers in those decades.

If you want to deny the theory's factual basis, contribute something verifiable indicating another view. Calling it "promotional" rather than educational doesn't cover-up what is likely censorship. How would you know anyway, since you won't read any of it "with care"? My books are mostly sold-out anyway. Just a handful left. What's left to promote, except educational facts? Try READING it!!

The Int'l Herald-Tribune music critic (Henry Pleasants, author of Modern Music & All That Jazz) favourably reviewed the trio theory in the 70's and the British Jazz Journal editor wrote about the Origin of Music in 1971 that it should become a classic if given the exposure it deserves. In Canada, the view was lauded by the editor of Performing Arts in Canada magazine, and I received a 2-page article on my musical work. Again I got a spread in the Ottawa Citizen music section. The view has received a reasonable depth of public debate. I point out that the "usual textbooks" on the music of the 2oth century were so biased at promoting atonal music that they also, until relatively recent times, failed to mention much of anything of jazz, popular music, or broadway, not to mention the natural scale. So what's your point?

In the Wikipedia article, you've left in the acoustic discussion and definitions of consonance and dissonance, beats, Helmholtz, and other matters regarding the perception of sound, which are matters of acoustics as much as the evolution of the scale is. The trio theory is nothing if it isn't about such acoustics -- as overtones, beats, perception and the like are all in the trio theory -- it's all about acoustics and is part of modern contributions to the science of acoustics.

Your condemnation of something you now admit you haven't even read shows a knee-jerk reaction in you removing the material. Obviously, you are proud of your ignorance. I suspect it is a matter of disagreement with the the whole idea that a scale "can" be natural -- a view that is also recently supported by newer archaeological evidence. Especially since you offer no arguments WHY it doesn't belong under "musical acoustics, which is now suspiciously and suddenly your new "reason" for removing it.

In my opinion, that is a suppression of information about musical acoustics. If YOU want to start an article on the clinical aspects of NON-musical acoustics in general, without regard to history and views about musical acoustics (or concentrate an article just about acoustics in concert halls) then go for it. The term "musical" includes the acoustics of the scale, as well as the effects in history of acoustics, just as Helmholtz and the classical acoustic science writers dealt with it. If anything belongs under the title "Musical acoustics," then it's the material you vandalized or censored -- and if censorship, should not be tolerated.

So the material will be restored, and I hope will continue to be. You moved the material under a title that effectively hides it. Like putting an article about planet Saturn under the name of one of its moons. Ridiculous. If you agreed to move it to a title like "The Natural Musical Scale" or merge it it into "Musical scales" it might be worth looking at. As it stands, I think you hope it will be nominated for deletion by personalizing it.

After claiming the trio theory was "identical" to what Schoenberg, et al, wrote You wrote, and therefore appear to lie through your teeth in doing so: "Trio theory is a theory of the origin and nature of music proposed by musicologist Bob Fink." Not by Schoenberg now?? Not by Kepler anymore? There is something dishonest, arrogant and bullying about your behavior and contradictory "reasoning" in this matter. At best, unscholarly, slipshod and incompetent -- and persistently grasping at any straw reason available to your imagination to quash rather than assist revision or compromise regarding the material presented.

I would like to see other opinions here about keeping that material here.

Bob Fink 65.255.225.33 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus regarding staying or moving we'll abide by it. C. Norton 65.255.225.33 05:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My first comments were about material in the article itself. At that point, I assumed that "trio theory" was confined to the short section about the building of a diatonic scale from the three lowest prime tones in the harmonic series. This construction is covered in many places, including (but not limited) an essay by Arnold Schoenberg which can be found in Style and Idea (my books are in storage at the moment, but I believe the essay is called "Problems of Harmony" if you want to look it up), which is my favourite description of that construction. There are other good explanations of this kind of construction, and not all of them even involve overtones (Harry Partch has an interesting take on this). As such, I saw the attribution of this relatively late name "trio theory" to this construction inappropriate. My other two points in that comment were not made with the understanding that everything in that section of the article belonged to trio theory.

Now, after a response was crafted to these first comments, it was made clear to me that "trio theory" covers a lot more (or at least is part of something else that covers a lot more, I don't know, you haven't defined the term for me yet). I don't know how much more, but at least everything I had addressed in my first comment. So, at this point, no, I no longer found it appropriate to use the term as narrowly as in the first. If I could read your book, I would, but I do not currently have access to a good library (this will change in a week or so, I am in the process of moving), but I have read each article that has been linked in this article. I never refused to read your book, I just said that I hadn't. However, the material that was inserted into this article I had read, and did comment on as I understood it at the time.

I said that I no longer wished to discuss the validity of "trio theory", and this was for a few reasons. The main reason was that I that I had more recently come to the conclusion that this material doesn't belong under "musical acoustics" at all. This was simply a later realization. There were more than two months between my comment and your reply; I had a different idea of the relationship of this material to the article when I returned.

Another reason is that the nature of your response was full of rhetoric and every bit of reference to back up any statemnt was a link to your website. If you want to argue the validity of your own work, cite an author other than yourself. At the point of your reply, I had made no changes to the article based on my comments, and really at that time wanted to discuss the ideas. Your ideas do seem interesting, but the direction this discussion was taking was entirely unproductive, and I didn't think it was worth continuing: especially because I think now that none of this belongs in the article, as per above.

I think the relationship between 5-limit harmony and the diatonic scale belongs this article, but not under the name "trio theory" (though it would not be inappropriate to cite and link Trio theory among other citations for it). The history and evolution, however, doesn't belong. If anything it's an application of acoustics to a theory of history, but because something involves an musical acoustical idea doesn't make it appropriate for a definition of musical acoustics.

I would appreciate comments on this from others. - Rainwarrior 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To Rainwater: Thanks for your explanation.

I have to get back to my work and research on upcoming articles. The part of the article "Musical acoustics" that contains a description of my theory was put together by several people, including help from my publisher. I was happy with the work others did on it, and will leave it to those who wish to maintain the article to deal with changes if there is still not enough clarity about why that view is in the musical acoustics article. Anything and everything can always be improved. I do not do any editing because many Wikipedians have a strong aversion to people writing about their own work. So I will avoid it, other than suggesting minor details of dates, or sources, etc.

My publisher Ms. Norton has a different view than mine. If people in the Wikipedia community want to define musical acoustics as very narrowly as you do, then so be it, is her view. We await such a consensus, if it comes. Helmholtz and others who brought acoustics into publication, however, did devote considerable space to deal with acoustics in the evolution and history of music and scales, not only just about musical sound, and they appear to me to have originally defined the matter far more broadly than you wish to do so. So would I.

Regarding my theory and its validity: You first brought up the validity issue. The validity of any theory requires evidence. I have, despite your strange opinion, cited "other authors" and their work as evidence for the theory's validity. Please read the facts.

There is Prof. Anne D. Kilmer, and the oldest known song she deciphered; There is reliance on Helmholtz body of work, and there are present day journals and news articles about me and my views. You seem to repeatedly NOT NOTICE or read that information above and in the article. I wonder why?

There is the Neanderthal flute, written about by many others, but which corroborates my views and predictions. There are many published reviews by others of my work. There are the Chinese 9,ooo year-old flutes which clearly show my theory was accurate in its predictions that even in prehistoric times the stages of musical evolution would reflect an evolution from pentatonic to diatonic. Virtually all the archaeological evidence appeared well after my writings, and is consistent. There is Prof. Sandra Trehub and her studies on consonance and dissonance regarding babies, as well as her citing me in her paper presented at the Origin of Music world conference in Italy (about 10 years ago).

All of this evidence is not my doing, but is evidence developed by others, and they have virftually all been cited in the musical acoustics article and certainly in this discussion. It is flatly untrue when you say that my sources of evidence are cited only from me. My sources and evidence are only from others, and not me. Beyond that, I used facets of simple acoustics already well established.

That they have been copied onto the Greenwich website does not make them "our" material. They also exist in other authors' library books, journals, news articles -- in significant quantity. I listed the websites so you would read about these other authors and evidence. Further, I never asked you to read my book. Just those webpages. I am only one of many who have written about the increasing parallel relationship between acoustics and musical evolution. It's time you stopped claiming otherwise.

--Bob Fink65.255.225.45 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you and your publishers have been inserting your theories into wikipedia articles, this is a violation of wikipedia policies. Relevant policy may include Conflict of interest, Neutral point of vies, Original research, Verifiability.

With regards to citations, there are many references for the existance and content of historical writings, archaelogical evidence, etc., but what you do not have citations for is the conjecture you hang upon them. If you cannot cite someone other than yourself holding your theory, you should not be allowed to put them into this wikipedia article, as per policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own theories; you've already got a perfectly good website dedicated to that, and that's where it belongs. - Rainwarrior 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)