C=256 hz? Heads up? Not bloody likely

[David Skolnik]

Andrew -
At least Mr. LaR---che's imprimatur is relatively visible in this endeavor, 
as opposed to the unseen hand in many others. I wonder if you could wade 
through the Schiller site...no don't stop just at tuning, run through Mr. 
LaR---che's economic, scientific, and political theories as well...and then 
get back to us.   Reading LaR can, I suppose, provide hours of speculative 
amusement, trying to separate fact from raving.  I think of it as playing 
at the edge of a black hole.  With this group as with Scientologists, I 
remain relatively paranoid.  It's like the Harry Potter stories.  They 
should simply be referred to as "you know who"s.  I would not want to see 
any extended discussion of this man's ideas on this list, public as it is, 
unless someone with impeccable credentials took the time to de-mythify the 
extensive claims.   The truth is, the history of tuning has always been a 
struggle, and political, and subjective, if not arbitrary.

As far as a response to a request for such tuning, the issues as they 
affect structure, tone and stability, should be discussed totally apart 
from any connection to these tuning theories.  It makes no difference what 
the origination of the request might be.

David Skolnik



At 07:21 AM 10/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Fellow tuners,
>I had this sent me: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/music/revolution.html
>
>We've probably been aware of this for some time.  Question is, has anyone 
>been impacted by this, especially in requests for historic/"sensible" 
>tunings pitches?
>
>Andrew

and
>Wouldn't moving a piano 10 hz lower to circa A4=430 hz result in a loss of 
>resonant power?  It seems to me that you would have to re-scale a piano to 
>the target pitch if you chose to lower it like that.  What would be your 
>response to such a request?
>
>Andrew