Note ID - & Tunelab

[Ron Nossaman]

>On the notation thing though........just a uSWAG but....could the notation 
>have been developed due to the plethora of keyboard compasses, offsets on 
>dual organ/clavier keyboards, etc. 

Apparently so, but a re-definition has occurred since then.


>So Ron using your notational, it would seem to me that while A1 is not aprox 
>27.5hz, on a 65 note keyboard, it still is A1, correct?  Then what notational 
>descriptor would you give to C-523.5? or A-440 on that keyboard?  And on a 
>two manual organ with an octave offset, physical or tonal, which A1 is really 
>A1? the one on the top manual or the one on the bottom manual?  How would you 
>notate the difference between A1 on a Bosy Imp. and the A1 on a Wurlitzer 65 
>note thingee? 
>(for that matter I don't know how I would notate the lowest A on the Bosy 
>anyway...perhaps A below A0?)
>
>  Using the current notation system with A-440 being A4 and going up and down 
>from there seems to make sense since there is always an A4 which is the same 
>on all, well OK 'most', keyboards.
>
> But as I said this is just a uSWAG and a couple of questions.
>Jim Bryant (FL)

Ok, here's my point. With A having been designated as an international
pitch standard at 440 cps @ A4, where does that leave us in relation to the
current system? A0 is the lowest note in a modern piano (B'bfr aside), as
it is decreed by the current standard, with G#0, G0, F#0, etc. down to C0
being available for notes below the compass of a modern piano. That's all
well and good except for the C-B range being the default for the octave
numeration range. If A4-440 is the "generally" accepted standard pitch, why
isn't the defined enumeration range A-G#? How does a standard A pitch
logically connect with a C-B octave enumeration range? Is this another
magic varnish sort of thing, or is it just a glandular deficiency on my
part? Wouldn't it be more sane and rational to establish the octave
enumeration range at a defined pitch standard - say, A4 (arbitrarily), for
the sake of argument, and extend the enumeration schedule in both
directions using A-G# as the octave defined by the pitch standard? 

If this was done, the C below the current low A in a modern piano would be
C-1, with that low A being A0, and A4 being @440 cps. 

Ok, so that's probably not the optimal system either. Maybe if that low C
was C0, and A5=440 cps, but I see no sense whatsoever in a C-B octave
enumeration when the pitch standard is defined from A.

Not that it ultimately matters, since I'm obviously not going to remake the
world to conform to my sense of order. That being the inescapable case,
I'll just toddle off now and make do with the accepted system at hand. I
do, however, maintain the right to mutter about the base irrationality of
it all once in a while, and as unobtrusively as I can manage.

Best,

Ron N