Klarinet Archive - Posting 000911.txt from 2000/05

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Tone -- a neurological approach
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:48:56 -0400

At 09:52 AM 5/19/2000 -0700, Paul Miller wrote:
> (I wrote)
>> The falacy in your argument is that mathematical terms like "2" ARE
>> quantifiable and universally agreed to. If you could give a specific
>> numerical, graphical frequency distribution that would become the standard
>> defintion of "dark" and that would be accepted in the musical community,
>> then we'd really have something. Frankly, we would all thank you!
>
>Setting a frequency range would be really bad for us because then we aren't
>talking about playing good music (hey there's another subjective
>standard...lol) anymore, we're talking about using physics as a benchmark.
>
It really isn't setting a frequency range so much as a relationship of
overtones and their percentage contibution to the sound. The standard
already largely exists; being able to quantify it would only simplify
matters. It should not alter a musician's approach substantially unless he
made himself a slave to the numbers.

>You are right that there is room for misunderstanding. But that comes when
>people don't realize that they have differing ideals of a dark sound, and
>someone goes and buys a mouthpiece on a friends suggestion that it will
>"darken" their tone, when it actually "brightens" their sound (according to
>their arbritrary scale).
>
See? That is EXACTLY the sort of problem we are attempting to avoid!
And that sort of misunderstanding DOES exist, even if it IS a minority view.

>I still hold that the dark-bright scale is very useful in discussion and in
>performance, even though there is a (minimal) risk of confusion when using
>that scale. All one has to ask, is "what is your ideal sound?" and you can
>hash it out right there without confusion.
>
What sort of answer does this question seek? "Dark as the ace of spades?"
"Medium-dark, with just a hint of musk?" "Bright, with overtones of
cinnamon and cherry?" (Sorry, I got carried away with the metaphor. :-) )
Yes, if you define your terms beforehand, you can use them. But if that is
required, perhaps we need some NEW terms! Either that, or standardized,
universal definitions of the ones we have.

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://homepages.go.com/~zoot14/zoot14.html
Essexville, MI 48732 ICQ UIN 4862265

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org