Entertainment desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 4[edit]

key[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VklccWgI19k

Good evening, this song is in D minor or E-flat minor ? 198.105.103.203 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the name of this song[edit]

There was a song that was on the Top 20 or 40 Europop chart this past summer. The music video takes place at some lodge in Sweden (as evidenced by a flag or two) and has all these elderly people partying, well raving, really, and ends with them all running naked in the snow. For the life of me I can't remember the name of it. Does anyone know the name of the song I'm referring to? 188.29.166.78 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - Dada Life - So Young So High! Such a gentleman 22:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and thanks for warning me not to watch that video. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the frequencies of Young temperament?[edit]

I tried to search online and didnt found it. If you can't tell it just post the same but for another well tempered tuning.201.78.142.86 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here for example: "Pitch, Temperament & Timbre" (Dolmetsch online). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, there is a search box on the top right of the page. If you enter the term you're looking for in the box and press enter, you're taken right to the page you're looking for, if the page exists. In this case, it does: Young temperament. Before realizing the obvious, I also stumbled across the page Inharmonicity, which was very interesting to me, maybe also to you. --NorwegianBlue^talk 10:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP might have found that page, but unfortunately it doesn't give any explicit frequencies. In the set of tables I linked to, someone had made the conversions from various interval-based concepts to actual frequencies in Hz (using the A440 (pitch standard); I found no table using another basis). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pitches in Hz should follow directly from the second table of the article. For example, for C, which is three semitones above A, and has an offset from equal temperament of +6 according to the table, the calculation should be 440 ^((3*100 + 6)/1200) = 525.068. The whole table, then becomes:

Note	Difference	Equal temp.	Young temp.
A	0	440	440
B♭	+6	466.164 Hz	467.782 Hz
B	-2	493.883 Hz	493.313 Hz
C	+6	523.251 Hz	525.068 Hz
C♯	0	554.365 Hz	554.365 Hz
D	+2	587.330 Hz	588.008 Hz
E♭	+4	622.254 Hz	623.693 Hz
E	-2	659.255 Hz	658.494 Hz
F	+6	698.456 Hz	700.881 Hz
F♯	-2	739.989 Hz	739.134 Hz
G	+4	783.991 Hz	785.804 Hz
G♯	+2	830.609 Hz	831.570 Hz
A	0	880 Hz	880 Hz

However, when I try the same calculations using the base frequency of 262.513 for C as was given in the page you linked to for the frequencies of Young temperament (262.513, 276.557, 293.997, 311.127, 329.256, 350.018, 368.743, 392.882, 414.836, 440.000, 466.690, 492.769), I get slightly different values (262.513, 277.161, 293.981, 311.822, 329.221, 350.413, 369.538, 392.871, 415.752, 439.965, 467.745, 493.274) than in the linked article. Maximum discrepancy is at Bb, 1.055 Hz. So either there's something wrong in my understanding or application of the calculations, or there is an error in either the linked page or our article, or there is round-off error somewhere. --NorwegianBlue^talk 13:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a PDF of the original publication in Philosophical Transactions: Outlines of Experiments and Inquiries respecting Sound and Light. The section about musical temperament begins on PDF page 39 (printed page 143, section XVI "Of the Temperament of musical Intervals").

Young describes an ideal temperament and a practical temperament that is "nearly the same":

Ideal

It appears to me, that every purpose may be answered, by making C:E too sharp by a quarter of a comma, which will not offend the nicest ear; E:G#, and Ab:C, equal; F#:A# too sharp by a comma; and the major thirds of all the intermediate keys more or less perfect, as they approach more or less to C in the order of modulation. The fifths are perfect enough in every system. The results of this method are shown in Table XII.

Practical

In practice, nearly the same effect may be very simply produced, by tuning from C to F, Bb, Eb, G#, C#, F# six perfect fourths; and C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, six equally imperfect fifths, Plate VI. Fig. 52.

Ideal

Here are my interpretations of the intervals Young mentions:

C:E is a harmonic major third plus 1/4 of the syntonic comma: (5/4) × (81/80)^(1/4).
E:G# and Ab:C are equal intervals that combine with the C:E interval to make a perfect octave: each is 2² × 3^(−1/2) × 5^(−3/8).
F#:A# is a harmonic major third plus a syntonic comma: (5/4) × (81/80).

I don't yet understand how the the rest of the pitches are distributed, and I can't get my attempts to match the tables. However, using the vibrating string length results in Table XII.A, I calculate the following:

pitch	vibrating length	A440 frequency	cents from equal temperament
C	100000	262.574	6
C#	94723	277.202	0
D	89304	294.023	2
Eb	83810	313.297	12
E	79752	329.239	-2
F	74921	350.468	6
F#	71041	369.610	-2
G	66822	392.946	4
G#	63148	415.808	2
A	59676	440.000	0
Bb	56131	467.789	6
B	53224	493.338	-2

It looks like the cents table in Young temperament is based on this ideal method. The text under the table says Young later changed the tuning of Eb, so that explains why the Eb value is different than what I calculated.

Practical

Other descriptions of Young's temperament I found online seem to be based on the practical method. Here's how that works:

The Pythagorean comma P = 2⁻¹⁹ × 3¹².

Sort by 3^ to see the order of fourths and fifths.

Sort by A440 frequency to see ascending pitches again.

pitch	2^	3^	`P`^	A440 frequency	cents from equal temperament
C	0	0		262.513	6
C#	8	-5		276.557	-4
D	-3	2	-2/6	293.997	2
Eb	5	-3		311.127	0
E	-6	4	-4/6	329.256	-2
F	2	-1		350.018	4
F#	10	-6		368.743	-6
G	-1	1	-1/6	392.882	4
G#	7	-4		414.836	-2
A	-4	3	-3/6	440.000	0
Bb	4	-2		466.690	2
B	-7	5	-5/6	492.769	-4

The Dolmetsch site uses this method.

--Bavi H (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Kyle Gann's website, there is a table of the cent values of Thomas Young's temperament of 1799. Gann says he keeps his grand piano tuned to this temperament. I have taken the cent values from Gann's table, and calculated the frequencies (assuming A at 440 Hz) and the cent offset from A440 equal temperament. Except for Eb, the frequencies closely match the ones in Bavi H's first table, and the offsets agree with our article, when rounded to the nearest cent.

Pitch	C	C#	D	Eb	E	F	F#	G	G#	A	A#	B	C
Cents (Young temp):	0	93.9	195.8	297.8	391.7	499.9	591.9	697.9	795.8	893.8	999.8	1091.8	1200
Assuming A=440 Hz	262.564	277.199	294.004	311.847	329.228	350.461	369.589	392.925	415.785	440.000	467.782	493.313	525.128
Difference, cents	6.2	0.1	2	4	-2.1	6.1	-1.9	4.1	2	0	6	-2	6.2

If anyone's interested in hearing what this and other non-equal temperaments sound like, the recording "Six degrees of tonality" (review) by pianist Enid Kathan may be of interest (available on Spotify). Unfortunately, there is no comparison of Young temperament with other temperaments, but Beethoven's piano sonata no 31 in Ab major in Young temperament sounds beautiful to me. Mozart's Fantasia no 3 in D minor is used for comparing Quarter comma meantone, Prelleur 1731 temperament and Equal temperament. Parts of it sound pretty awful in Quarter comma meantone, while Prelleur 1731 sounds good to me. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those tables here give pitches just from Cx to Bx, I was asking for the formula or more notes frequencies, and not just 12.201.78.194.30 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "formula" for calculating above and below that one-octave range is trivial: You double the frequency for a note placed one octave higher, quadruple for two octaves higher, octuple for three octaves higher, and so forth: If c′ (or C4 or middle C) measures 262.564 Hz, then you get: 525.128 Hz for c′′, 1050.256 Hz for c′′′, 2100.512 Hz for c′′′′, ... Likewise, you halve the frequency for a note lying one octave lower, quarter it for two octaves lower, divide by eight for three octaves lower, ... >> 131.282 Hz for c, 65.641 Hz for C, 32.8205 Hz for C͵ and so forth. You can use the same simple calculation for all other 11 notes of the scale from subsubsubcontra to sopraninissimo. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didnt knew young temperament followed the formula Cn+1 = Cn *2. Thanks201.78.194.30 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cadell[edit]

Wasn't Simon Cadell in a Play For Today (television) programme called "Mr Axelby's Angel"? I didn't see it listed in his bio.

Thanks!

F. Hanson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.132.253 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 1974 ITV Playhouse called "Mr. Axelford's Angel" - but he wasn't in it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald McDonald vs. Big Bird and Grimace vs. Mr. Snuffleupagus[edit]

Not an appropriate question for a reference desk, so let's not even start

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The yellow bird and his best friend face off against the McDonald and his best friend. Who would win in a fight: Ronald McDonald fights Big Bird while Grimace takes on Mr. Snuffleupagus. Who wins? Stoned stoner (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with you, are you stoned? μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]