Music tuned to 432Hz wtf!?

[TomViolenz]

Mr. 3rd, why not respond to the fact that the example you posted was fraudulent??

You link to some example that shows a phenomenon of cool patterns in order to wow people and convince them of you Magick. Yet this behaviour only comes about because they finely tuned the dimensions and surface in the experiment. If they would have made it a little bigger, it would have stopped working for 432Hz, but might have worked with 440Hz.
Now I say this is fraud. Why?! Because they didn't come to these dimensions by accident (far to unlikely), so they made it specifically like this. BUT they did NOT point that out, instead they claimed it's some magical effect of 432Hz.

Are you only against science Mr. 3rd or also agains logic and honesty? Please tell

[LKB3rd]

I am against getting into pointless arguments. Reject it if you want. Think what you want.

[re:dream]

Now that I will do.

[yur2die4]

I never said I rejected it. I just felt there wasn't any point going through the trouble of retuning something. I don't buy into it's supposed significance, but I don't think people can't make aesthetically pleasing sound from it. It is just one factor in many. If someone makes or performs music poorly, they can't magically gain credibility by saying 'hey, did you notice I was tuned to 432????'. I think it is great practice for people to explore things outside the norm. Someone might reject both frequencies. The whole point is, music is music and we as listeners are great interpreters of abstract ideas. Everything works in one way or another. I'm not into smoking, but this is like kids asking each other if they can feel the oregano from the cupboard kicking in.

[stringtapper]

I am against getting into pointless arguments.

Meaning that you concede that arguing against TomViolenz's point is pointless?

If so I agree wholeheartedly.

[LKB3rd]

I am against getting into pointless arguments.

Meaning that you concede that arguing against TomViolenz's point is pointless?

If so I agree wholeheartedly.

If you get satisfaction out of winning a forum argument .
To me this is all food for thought. If your brains aren't hungry, then carry on and I wish you luck.

[TomViolenz]

I am against getting into pointless arguments. Reject it if you want. Think what you want.

So you have no problem if my take away is that you are a fraud, who doesn't respond to accusations, or that you are willfully ignorant?!

[TomViolenz]

I am against getting into pointless arguments.

Meaning that you concede that arguing against TomViolenz's point is pointless?

If so I agree wholeheartedly.

If you get satisfaction out of winning a forum argument .
To me this is all food for thought. If your brains aren't hungry, then carry on and I wish you luck.

You were the only one here that had any arguments for the hypothesis that 432Hz has special characteristics.
So if you concede that these arguments were fraudulent (as I showed, and you didn't counter), then we can say: Myth busted?!
Good, Science 1000000 Pseudo science 0
Yet again!

Wish you lots of luck with intelligent falling as well, if you catch my drift...


And if your brain is hungry you should feed it good nurturing knowledge instead of junk food hokus pokus!

[stringtapper]

I am against getting into pointless arguments.

Meaning that you concede that arguing against TomViolenz's point is pointless?

If so I agree wholeheartedly.

If you get satisfaction out of winning a forum argument .
To me this is all food for thought. If your brains aren't hungry, then carry on and I wish you luck.

The satisfaction comes from observing people intelligently engaging the actual substance of each other's points. Something TomViolenz did in addressing your point but which you certainly did not in responding to his point.

In other words how about you actually address the substance of Tom's response to your initial post. He made a very good point and I'd like to see if you have a rebuttal. It's not about being right. It's about thinking through issues.

[andydes]

I'd like to say that there is a fine like between science and mysticism.

One of the points I am making is that there is no reason (except arrogance imo) to say one is more valid than the other. I think mysticism or magic or any number of terms for it may have a better chance of explaining how the universe works than science. Quantum physics looks more like mysticism than traditional science these days.
As far as choosing to use whatever you want for musical tuning, I totally agree. But to say that it's silly or hippy dippy or any of the criticisms you'll see when this topic comes up indicates arrogance and closed mindedness in my opinion.
You're never going to learn anything if you/we are convinced you/we know it all. We clearly don't know crap about the world around us, as demonstrated by the magical gravity argument. That isn't personally directed at anyone in the thread btw.

The difference isn't arrogance, it's evidence. If scientists thought they understood everything, they'd be out of a job. The whole point is to find out what we don't know.

You mention quantum physics, which is so utterly bizzare, that half of the early pioneers hated what they'd discovered. They published anyway. Hardly arrogant or closed minded.

[TomViolenz]

I'd like to say that there is a fine like between science and mysticism.

One of the points I am making is that there is no reason (except arrogance imo) to say one is more valid than the other. I think mysticism or magic or any number of terms for it may have a better chance of explaining how the universe works than science. Quantum physics looks more like mysticism than traditional science these days.
As far as choosing to use whatever you want for musical tuning, I totally agree. But to say that it's silly or hippy dippy or any of the criticisms you'll see when this topic comes up indicates arrogance and closed mindedness in my opinion.
You're never going to learn anything if you/we are convinced you/we know it all. We clearly don't know crap about the world around us, as demonstrated by the magical gravity argument. That isn't personally directed at anyone in the thread btw.

The difference isn't arrogance, it's evidence. If scientists thought they understood everything, they'd be out of a job. The whole point is to find out what we don't know.

You mention quantum physics, which is so utterly bizzare, that half of the early pioneers hated what they'd discovered. They published anyway. Hardly arrogant or closed minded.

How can the scientist be so arrogant to use all these facts I don't understand? I want everything to be intuitive, that's why I believe in water memory and don't get vaccinated and think the diameter of the moon has a special influence on the way we hear music. Because the universe is speaking to ME!

Did I get that about right Mr. 3rd?!

[amillionwinters]

to quote the article on collective evolution:

[…] I wouldn’t say that my experience of 440hz music has turned me into an aggressive person, but I can understand how an entire population being exposed to music that is more mind directed as opposed to heart directed—not to mention all of the materialistic and ego-driven lyrics in most popular music—is a perfect combination to maintain a more discordant frequency and state of consciousness within humanity.

is the author implying that all of humanity's problems are due to us rocking out to ill-tuned music?

[Nokatus]

since for example no scientist can explain something we all accept and are affected by constantly, like gravity, only measure its effect, we might as well call it magic too.

If there is something that can't be presented as an adequate and complete model at the moment, but its effects can be scientifically measured and those measurements themselves can be verified and reproduced, that's not a fault in the scientific method. That's exactly how science operates: gradually building upon actual observation and research data, constantly testing the notions, sometimes discarding them as new ones emerge. Again, this isn't a fault.

In contrast, these alleged mystical effects of 432 Hz tuning can't be measured, and there are even disagreements as to what they specifically should be. Consequently, there is nothing to build a scientific theory upon. If one then says "but hey, I have an open mind, and I'd like to consider this being possible -- after all, science doesn't know everything... yada yada" it's basically saying "I don't care if even the effects themselves can't be verified or observed, the actual reason I like promoting this random shit is because it feels nice, maybe even makes me special in a way."

To recap, OF COURSE science doesn't know everything, that's the whole point of its existence. Using that as an argument in the above manner is an instant red flag. As soon as the remarkable effects of 432 Hz become so apparent as to actually, you know, uniformly being able to observe them in the slightest, the research will undoubtedly follow. (Seriously.)

Everything I've seen presented as "proof" of the 432 Hz thing has either been anecdotal and/or in the realm of placebo, or numerological hocus pocus (disconnected from the actual phenomenon of sound pressure propagation in our atmosphere, finding ad hoc number ratios that range from anything significant sounding to anything... pretty insignificant), or glaringly biased "demonstrations" or "measurements" like the one you linked to. Typical pseudo fluff.

This isn't about being attached to a random frequency like 440 Hz. That's completely irrelevant. It's about recognizing pseudoscientific rhetoric and understanding that such comments devalue the work of some truly awesome people who are actually working hard to understand our universe better.

As a side note... This is quite a nice summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... tern_music

[Forge.]

I kind of like the idea.

432 itself isn't some magical number, but it's interesting to think about the idea of changing the reference point, so that every single harmonic in every single note in every single chord is vibrating at a different frequency.

We know everything in the universe vibrates at different frequencies, right down to the quantum level, and different vibrations have effects on other vibrations... in the same way that ripples in a pool of water interact and bounce off each other and change each other into something else, then congregate in some areas more than others and become bigger waves. In fact this is what acoustics is all about, and why people spend so much money on bass traps etc.

The cymatics example is a good one - because even though as Madlab pointed out it changes according to materials and environment etc, but that doesn't make the entire point invalid, it just means the root or reference frequency would need to change according to the circumstances. But there are still certain frequencies that create geometric patterns in certain situations, and that is definitely interesting.

So 432Hz is just one particular reference point that someone has decided is "THE" frequency for them for some reason, but the idea should probably be more about changing the reference point according to the situation - like tuning a room.

And actually I'm not at all convinced there's any reason to assume that there couldn't be some kind of physical effects on us.

What if on some level a whole bunch of vibrations resulted in a standing wave at a frequency that happens to have a harmonic relationship with the frequency that cancer cells vibrate at and the vibrations stop them from attaching to healthy cells? Just a thought....

[Nokatus]

I don't see why this has to turn into one of those hardline sceptic things where everyone who dares talk about it must be a feeble minded new age idiot. It's just aesthetically interesting, in the same way it's interesting to look at sand mandalas.

Saying that it's aesthetically interesting is in a whole another ballpark of reasonable discussion, in my opinion . Yes, trying different tunings is definitely aesthetically interesting. Personally, it's just the new age rhetoric and deliberate biased presentation (of anything) that gets to me. Claiming significant causal relationships where none can be shown, or conveniently forgetting to mention "oh, these results are just caused by our test arrangement, and if we change some basic values like the measurements of our test elements, the results will be different." I find such stuff dishonest.

But aesthetically interesting, I'm with you on that one.

And then there's stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=669AcEBpdsY