Klarinet Archive - Posting 000140.txt from 2007/03

From: "Forest Aten" <forestaten@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Bright and dark sounds
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:26:37 -0500


> Dan,
>
> The issue is that we have not developed a common language to define tonal
> characteristics.
>
> We have agreed on the definition of notes that relates the frequency to a
> note name. Comparing this to optics, we know that what people call "red"
> is
> light with a wavelength something in the range of 620 to 700 nanometers.
> Actually, people don't generally measure this quantity but anecdotally and
> experientially arrive at this by listening to what others call red.
> Another
> optical concept perhaps more aligned to defining the tone quality is the
> saturation value of light. I think this may be an element of what you are
> missing in your description of sound. Since all this is qualitative
> though
> it takes some agreement on terms and then learning what we mean by this,
> much in the same way we learn what red is and learn the range of saturated
> values of red, i.e. by experience and feedback from others.
>
> This is clearly difficult to do, but someone should take a shot at
> defining
> the particular characteristic that constitutes this value of tone so we
> can
> all talk about this in the same way. I have never been particularly happy
> with bright and dark, but like saturation of colors, I have formed an
> opinion on what constitutes these qualities of tone.
>
> Dan, you are so articulate, maybe you should propose some common language
> here.
>

Here here....

Which is what I was trying to get to...

Forest

------------------------------------------------------------------