Who is this guy Helmholtz?

http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory1.htm halfway down the page...

'Invented' by Helmholtz, based on the notation that German musicians
had already been using for centuries. Almost everyone uses it almost
all the time, it doesn't need any explanation, you can look it up
inside of 30 seconds virtually anywhere. Why anyone would need a
personal tutorial is beyond me.

If one of us knows what is 'Lumma impropriety' and is asking 'what is
Helmholtz notation' and the other knows Helmholtz notation and is
asking 'what is Lumma impropriety', who is the more misguided?

Oh yeah, and Helmholtz wrote a book called 'On the Sensations of
Tone', you might like to read it some day.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
> Oh yeah, and Helmholtz wrote a book called 'On the Sensations of
> Tone', you might like to read it some day.

You know, Tom, that is just incredibly bad manners.

> http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory1.htm halfway down the page...
>
> 'Invented' by Helmholtz, based on the notation that German
> musicians had already been using for centuries. Almost everyone
> uses it almost all the time, it doesn't need any explanation,
> you can look it up inside of 30 seconds virtually anywhere.
> Why anyone would need a personal tutorial is beyond me.

What's even more amazing is that someone playing 'name that
tune' on the tuning list would balk at a simple and
straightforward question about something possibly tuning-
related. I've read almost every message posted to this list
in the last 10 years, and I don't remember "Helmholtz notation"
ever having been mentioned.

-Carl

Hi Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" wrote:
>
> > http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory1.htm halfway down the
page...
> >
> > 'Invented' by Helmholtz, based on the notation that German
> > musicians had already been using for centuries. Almost everyone
> > uses it almost all the time, it doesn't need any explanation,
> > you can look it up inside of 30 seconds virtually anywhere.
> > Why anyone would need a personal tutorial is beyond me.
>
> What's even more amazing is that someone playing 'name that
> tune' on the tuning list would balk at a simple and
> straightforward question about something possibly tuning-
> related. I've read almost every message posted to this list
> in the last 10 years, and I don't remember "Helmholtz notation"
> ever having been mentioned.

Indeed, why would you have? It's quite unclear from
the context which *version* of the "Helmholtz notation"
was meant. Opening my copy of Helmholtz (which lives
on my desk) to his Chapter XIV. "Introduction of More
Precise Notation", the footnote at * on page 277 (of
the Dover paperback edition) makes it quite clear that
Helmholtz himself meant one thing by lowercase letters
in the first two German editions, and quite another
from the third German edition onwards. The present
usage (which has c an octave above C) he ascribes to
A. von Öttingen, saying it "is much more readily com-
prehended". The translator of the English edition,
Alexander Ellis, indeed calls it "Herr v. Oettingen's
notation". From which I take it that Helmholtz himself
thought his own notation defective, and was quite happy
to give credit to another where due.

Given our dedication to clarity and exactitude, I find
it sad to think a member of this list would write:
> > "Almost everyone uses it almost all the time,
> > it doesn't need any explanation, ..."

"It" does if "it" is wrong.

Regards,
Yahya

> > What's even more amazing is that someone playing 'name that
> > tune' on the tuning list would balk at a simple and
> > straightforward question about something possibly tuning-
> > related. I've read almost every message posted to this list
> > in the last 10 years, and I don't remember "Helmholtz notation"
> > ever having been mentioned.
>
> Indeed, why would you have? It's quite unclear from
> the context which *version* of the "Helmholtz notation"
> was meant. Opening my copy of Helmholtz (which lives
> on my desk) to his Chapter XIV. "Introduction of More
> Precise Notation", the footnote at * on page 277 (of
> the Dover paperback edition) makes it quite clear that
> Helmholtz himself meant one thing by lowercase letters
> in the first two German editions, and quite another
> from the third German edition onwards. The present
> usage (which has c an octave above C) he ascribes to
> A. von Öttingen, saying it "is much more readily com-
> prehended". The translator of the English edition,
> Alexander Ellis, indeed calls it "Herr v. Oettingen's
> notation". From which I take it that Helmholtz himself
> thought his own notation defective, and was quite happy
> to give credit to another where due.
>
> Given our dedication to clarity and exactitude, I find
> it sad to think a member of this list would write:
> > > "Almost everyone uses it almost all the time,
> > > it doesn't need any explanation, ..."
>
> "It" does if "it" is wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

Thanks, Yahya.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
the guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz (in english)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz (in german)
> in the last 10 years, and I don't remember
the so called
> "Helmholtz notation"
http://www.claviersbaroques.com/CBExpertHelmholtzNotation.htm
> > From which I take it that Helmholtz himself
> > thought his own notation defective, and was quite happy
> > to give credit to another where due.
> >
He just overtook that old standard notation of labeling notes
as it was at H's time already common in use since centuries
genrally.

Regards
A.S.