Klarinet Archive - Posting 000222.txt from 2005/08

From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Vibrato, color, vibration (was Stolzman & Copland Concerto)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:52:50 -0400

Vibrating the sound. Substituting your definition for sound: vibrating the
pressure vibrations in the air? But the vibrations are already vibrating!
Certainly one redundant way to interpret the statement. Sure, though, it
can have a non-redundant meaning. A non-redundant really confusing meaning.

I've decided I really like the term fluctuation. If it's good enough for
Grove and Harvard, it's good enough for me. A fluctuation in pitch seems
much clearer than a vibration in pitch.

Ya gotta love the English language,

-Adam

At 01:43 PM 8/12/2005, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>Adam Michlin wrote:
>
>>I have to take slight issue with your re-definition of the word
>>"vibration". Vibrating the sound, using the dictionary definition, is a
>>redundant statement since the sound is already vibrating. Scientifically,
>>you may want to consider the term "timbre modulation" although that
>>sounds a bit too pretentious to me.
>
>No, the sound is a result of pressure vibrations in the air. That doesn't
>mean that vibration can't also be applied to other things.
>"Vibration" just means a regular variation: the pitch can vibrate, for
>example, although real vibrato is rarely so regular as theoretical vibration.
>
>Physically, of course, a vibration in pitch might simply come down to an
>alteration in the wave form of the pressure vibration, but I don't know
>enough details on acoustics to pronounce too firmly on this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org