Re: Req: pitch-to-physical space mappings, refs (Andrew Bell )

Subject: Re: Req: pitch-to-physical space mappings, refs
From:    Andrew Bell  <Andrew.Bell(at)CBR.DWR.CSIRO.AU>
Date:    Wed, 2 Apr 1997 02:58:13 +1000

Stephen McAdams makes an excellent point that >"Spatialization" of >pitch relations would appear to have arisen in the 9th-10th >centuries with the development of notational schemes, but the notion >of pitch "height" only really became accepted in the 17th century >after much debate. Thus pitch as space is a metaphoric convention of >relatively recent invention and would thus not be likely to have a >biological basis. > Yes, how can pitch be spatial if we can't even decide which way is up? I would like to pursue this point, but the reference Stephen provided (to Duchez) doesn't appear to discuss the up/down debate. I have a recollection that Pythagoras considered the musical scale to progress upwards by going down in frequency (increasing string length) but I don't know where to look to confirm this. Can anyone (Stephen perhaps) provide a reference to Pythagoras and the debate on whether high/low frequency corresponds to high/low pitch ? Andrew Bell. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andrew Bell Communication Officer phone +61 6 246 5717 CSIRO Land and Water fax +61 6 246 5800 PO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia 'The spirit in which knowledge is sought... [is] more important than knowledge itself.' (William Bragg, 1939) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University