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)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~