Someone on this thread (or another; can't remember exactly lol) posted a link to an article on music writen/played in 440Hz vs 432Hz.
The article was something completely new to me, opened my eyes to a whole new aspect of music of which I had previously been blissfully ignorant and gave me much food for thought. Regrettably, whilst doing so, I also felt overwhelmed with argument and counter argument and technical/musical jargon that mostly went over my head.
What also was new to me were some of the comments from hardcore 'classical only' fans underneath.
Here's a particularly juicy 'prime cut' for you to masticate upon
"I argue that you guys don’t realize one thing: over 99.5% of people who have grown up with ‘music’ (at least in the USA) have no clue about the difference made by a few hertz shift in tone. They also have zero musical sophistication, preferring music that goes I V I V I V I to music that actually moves. You can’t just use regular people in this study because they have no understanding of what they hear. Plus they can’t really identify with 440 Hz versus 432 Hz because most of them are absolute rookies when it comes to music. They only know anything about ‘music,’ in which they normally only really pay attention to the words and don’t understand at all how the melodies, bass, counterpoints, etc affect the emotional sense of the tune. Plus, most modern music has so little music in it. Counterpoint is basically gone in the 21st century UNLESS you’re a music scholar or a classical / postclassical musician"
Of course, he's right in that I have no idea about the difference made by a few Hertz shift in tone (theoretically, although I strongly suspect I could hear/feel the difference, even if I didn't understand the reasons why). Similarly, I have no idea as to whether I prefer music that goes I V I V I V I because I've no idea what that means
I'm *sure* he must be mistaken that counterpoint is non-existent in the 21st century outside of classical music, but since I don't know what counterpoint actually is, I have no way of finding songs to refute his argument
Having said all of this, I do feel I am extremely musically sensitive. The previously unnoticed details I identify in songs when I have got a good new piece of audio equipment, and my sense when something is "off" or just different is very finely tuned and acute I believe.
His argument seems to be predicated upon the assumption that lack of theoretical knowledge (and professional experience perhaps) leave one unable to discern musical subtleties or structural changes in the composition of a song.
To employ a loose analogy, as someone with a love of science (although patchy in my knowledge), I can absolutely say that deeper understanding of theory leads to deeper understanding and appreciation of real world phenomena. However, to extend that argument to claim that the proletariat are fundamentally unable to discern the effects of centripetal force, gravity or pitch shifting would be to merely parade my own ignorance and prejudice.
I might not understand the physics (for example) of circular motion, but I know that I feel a pull in a certain direction when a car goes around a corner.
And if my fingers slip whilst climbing a tree, a PhD in aeronautical engineering is not required in order for my mind to extrapolate information from my situation and determine that the ground is rushing to embrace me like a loving mother, a long-lost brother, or an extra-marital lover. (humour)
