*weeps shaking his head violently, vomiting repeatedly and at the same time soiling pants, screaming, 4 octaves higher than normal,*

"WWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYY are you tipping it baaaaaaack!

"Turn down the bass a couple octaves."

this piece has jumps of seventeen keys (more than two octaves) played as runs and trills of sixteenth notes, the upper note of which is that bell-like sound you hear. the video doesn't do justice to the astounding speed, dexterity, and accuracy his right hand has in making those jumps consistently and quickly. at 1:40 there's a third note added in between the jump.

>> ^Kraz:
Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.

It doesn't say anything about it, which is why the first popes took the most recent and celebrated work on geography and cosmology at the time, that of Ptolemy, as the base of their temporal doctrine. Later some Aristotle was thrown in retroactively by Thomas Aquinas, on the epistemological level. To make an analogy, this means that if the Christ would have been born in the 17th century, the first popes would have used Newton's Laws of motion and gravitation. They would have then condemned Einstein as a Heretic for his special and general Relativity.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact.

Theories explain known facts and predict (as yet) unknown facts. Theories are not facts, but their predictions can be taken as such until proven otherwise by experiments.

Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.

Accepted scientific theories are never "defunct": they are expanded, generalized, etc. For example, euclidean geometry still has good predictive value under certain circumstances, as when the surface you examine is sufficiently flat. So are Newton's Laws of motion a good appromixation when speeds are not near the speed of light. Pythagoras' theorem still holds and his divisions of the octave still divide the octave.

How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?

Scientists admit their errors all the time. Einstein admitted that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. When they're stubborn, death makes their outdated views irrelevant, as with Einstein vs. Quantum mechanics. In religions, being dead makes you a Saint, and your opinions that of God himself (or close enough).

The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Wow, postmodernism at its 1st century's best! It's true that ultimate, absolute knowledge by observation is now thought to be impossible, but careful observation over many centuries has shown that those who don't learn can't know and are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Maybe they don't prove anything, but they don't need to, since empirical science doesn't need and can't have "proofs" in the same sense as logic and mathematics. There are facts and theories that explain the particular facts. The theory that explains all of the particular facts and that is consistent with the greatest number of other accepted theories in other fields of knowledge, is said to be the most adequate. It is not impossible that new facts should reveal a hitherto less adequate theory to now be the most adequate &mdash it happens &mdash and sometimes two or more theories will seem equally adequate. But not all theories can fit the facts and be globally consistent. Of course, if you reject all of science or all of empirical science, then you may as well go live with the Amish, 'cause it's not God that gave anyone the knowledge required to build the computers we both used to transmit these electronic messages.

^ i think i will share in that shame by singing along.

like, two octaves lower.

holy falsetto, batman.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'astounding, sound, high, octaves, insane, notes, trumpet' to 'astounding, sound, high, octaves, insane, notes, trumpet, 70s' - edited by swampgirl

Rugil, the melody for the Star Spangled Banner (which was written as a poem and only set to music later) is an English drinking song. It's easy for me to imagine a bunch of drunks singing it badly as it has a range of well over an octave so it's a bitch to sing. Personally I'd rather we had an anthem that most people could actually sing in tune.

Good - but it needs to be played one octave higher and I think it would capture more the feel of the original.

Keyboard is a Roland FP-3. Same as mine! so...upvote! And, looks like I better go home and practice...

BTW, it provides a different drum sound on each of its 88 keys, so you really do have drums on all octaves if you want to use them.

Actually drumming on a keyboard is easier then playing keyboard on a keyboard. A midi drum kit generally doesn't carry different octaves of drums. This leaves only the need for the user to get down the timing, unlike piano playing where notes matter. That said, it was a good play, sure beats (no pun) having to enter your drum sequences by mouse.

This instrument consists of more than 4 octave tuned bronze bells, originating in the Low Countries: Flanders ca. 1480 (North-France/Belgium/South- Netherlands). Worldwide, there are about 600 instruments. You can find them in North-America (30%) and Europe (65%) but also in Japan, Philippines, South-Africa and some other countries.
* You can learn to play this instrument! The oldest carillon school, founded in 1922 at Mechelen Belgium, was sponsored by Americans Herbert H. Hoover, John D. Rockefeller, and William Gorham Rice.
* If you have just a few bells, played by computer, without carillon keyboard and not played by a musician called "carillonneur"... it is NOT a carillon, it is a CHIME!

She's not controlling the pitch merely by stretching the string. Actually she's getting most of the pitch by hitting harmonics. You can produce these on a guitar, or most other stringed instruments. They are merely points along the string where you can touch a moving string, and change the pitch by adding sort of a standing harmonic wave. The easiest one to hit is one octave and obviously that's right in the middle of the string. On a guitar there are other good places like the 5th and 7th fret.

Still, on a single string, to be able to hit that many notes is quite an accomplishment.

That is an amazing project! Do you have a page for your work on wiki? I'd be interested in knowing how you are going about it, and what some of your findings are!

In reply to your comment:
“I'm starting a project to actually measure the vocal ranges of various singers for their Wikipedia entries. It's amazing how many 4 octave ranges become 3 and change when actually measured - like those seven foot tall guys in the NBA. But Yma does have an amazing voice. ”

I'm starting a project to actually measure the vocal ranges of various singers for their Wikipedia entries. It's amazing how many 4 octave ranges become 3 and change when actually measured - like those seven foot tall guys in the NBA. But Yma does have an amazing voice.

Definitely NOT Audrey Hepburn singing. Audrey Hepburn was a superb actress, and one of the most beautiful women, perhaps ever, but she had a notorious tin ear and limited singing range. If you really want to hear her singing, listen to "Moon River" from Breakfast at Tiffany's. Blake Edwards wrote that song specially for her, and kept the range to basically one octave.

The singer you hear here is Ms. Marni Nixon, see her IMDB entry here... http://imdb.com/name/nm0633262/.

Ms. Nixon, in addition to providing the singing voice for Audrey Hepburn, also did so for Natalie Wood in "Westside Story", and for Deborah Kerr in "The King and I".

Have to correct the record here, for so-called "Ghost Singers" like Marni Nixon never received the credit they deserved onscreen. In fact, their contracts usually contained a non-disclosure clause with severe penalties in perpetuity.