The most famous theory of the action of the inner ear is the "piano theory" of Helmholtz. The foundation of the theory is the fact that the sense cells of the cochlea stand on the "basilar membrane", a long, narrow membrane, stretched between bony attachments at either side, and composed partly of fibers running crosswise, very much as the strings of a piano or harp are stretched between two side bars. If you imagine the strings of a piano to be the warp of a fabric and interwoven with crossing fibers, you have a fair idea of the structure of the basilar membrane, except for the fact that the "strings" of the basilar membrane do not differ in length anywhere like as much as the strings of the piano must differ in order to produce the whole range of notes. Now, a piano string can be thrown into "sympathetic vibration", as when you put on the "loud pedal" (remove the dampers from the strings) and then sing a note into the piano. You will find that the string of the pitch sung has been thrown into vibration by the action of the sound waves sung against it.

Now suppose the strings of the basilar membrane to be tuned to notes of all different pitches, within the range of {235} audible vibrations: then each string would be thrown into sympathetic vibration whenever waves of its own vibration rate reached it by way of the outer and middle ear; and the sense cells standing over the vibrating fibers would be shaken and excited. The theory is very attractive because it would account so nicely for the great number of elementary tone sensations (there are over 20,000 fibers or strings in the basilar membrane), as well as for various other facts of hearing--if we could only believe that the basilar membrane did vibrate in this simple manner, fiber by fiber. But (1) the fabric into which the strings of the membrane are woven would prevent their vibrating as freely and independently as the theory requires; (2) the strings do not differ in length a hundredth part of what they would need to differ in order to be tuned to all notes from the lowest to the highest, and there is no sign of differences in stretch or in loading of the strings to make up for their lack of difference in length; and (3) a little model of the basilar membrane, exposed to sound waves, is seen to be thrown into vibration, indeed, and into different forms of vibration for waves of different length, but not by any means into the simple sort of vibration demanded by the piano theory. This theory is accordingly too simple, but it probably points the way towards some truer, more complex, conception.

The fact that there are many elementary sensations of hearing is the chief reason why the art of tones is so much more elaborate than the art of color; for while painting might dispute with music as to which were the more highly developed art, painting depends on form as well as color, and there is no art of pure color at all comparable with music, which makes use simply of tones (and noises) with their combinations and sequences.{236}