Klarinet Archive - Posting 000313.txt from 1996/11

From: David Blumberg <reedman@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: Rough, smooth, dark, bright-Who?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:25:06 -0500

Is it Bonade (as in the ligature) or Benade? (see below)
You wrote:
"As I have posted before, this (the statement about dark and light) is not
true in the relative sense. Certainly, there is no good definition of dark
and light absolutely. But "darker" and "lighter" (or "brighter") ARE well
defined as has been experimentally proven by Bonade in his work on the
cutoff frequency of wind instruments."

David C. Blumberg
Reedman@-----.com

----------
From: Klarinet - Clarinettist's Network on behalf of Jonathan Cohler
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 1996 10:49 PM
Subject: Rough, smooth, dark, bright

Dan makes excellent points on the tongueing and roughness/smoothness in
Mozart. I take issue, however, with his statement about "dark" and
"light". See below.

At 4:37 AM 11/14/96, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:
>I received the note below from Craig Hill in Australia who comments on
>my use of the word "rough" when speaking about the character of the
>surface of the music achieved through tonguing as contrasted with
>slurring.
>

[Stuff cut]

>Craig is quite right. The word "rough" does not describe what it is
>I am trying to picture with words.
>
>The traditional reference to a line played without interruptions
>(i.e., slurred) is "smooth" and Craig uses the German "smooth as
>oil." So we are in agreement about a word-picture of what is
>attempting to be achieved when no articulation is used.
>

[More cut]

>And Craig is right that "rough" is too negative a word. Perhaps
>more and less textured is less severe, but it also (for me)
>has less imagery.
>
>Just like "dark" and "light" are essentially meaningless when
>referring to clarinet sound.

As I have posted before, this (the statement about dark and light) is not
true in the relative sense. Certainly, there is no good definition of dark
and light absolutely. But "darker" and "lighter" (or "brighter") ARE well
defined as has been experimentally proven by Bonade in his work on the
cutoff frequency of wind instruments.

Instruments with a higher cutoff frequency are uniformly categorized as
"brighter" in blind tests, and lower cutoff frequency gets categorized as
"darker". In fact, large changes in cutoff frequency on a particular note
of an instrument is immediately recognized by the listener as a change in
the fundamental "darkness" of the tone quality as well.

Therefore, I'll say it again, lest there be confusion over this matter. It
is an objectively verifiable, consistent, and well-defined and uniformly
agreed upon statement to say:

Clarinet A is darker than Clarinet B

There is no ambiguity there (to any significant degree). Of course, if the
average cutoff frequencies of two instruments is very close (<50Hz), the
judgement call becomes more and more difficult.

See my previous postings on cutoff frequency etc....

>
>Yours for a more picturesque and accurate speach when referring
>to clarinet things,
>

Agreed!

>Dan Leeson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig Hill
>> 163 Bambra Rd
>> Caulfield Sth
>> Victoria 3162
>> Australia
>> Tel/Fax: + 61 3 9532 9703
>>
>====================================
>Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
>(leeson@-----.edu)
>====================================

-------------------------
Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net