Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:39:43 -0500
From: Edward Branham
Subject: Re: [CB] Lowest Notes, etc.
I can't follow this argument very far at all.
How does one define the differing sounds of the smaller and
larger drums of a bongo pair - or between bongos and congas without
using concepts such as pitch and tonality?
Doesn't a particular .22 caliber starter pistol have definite
and definably different tone, pitch, attack, decay, and other musical
qualities than a particular 16 inch battleship cannon? Part of my
military training included learning to identify weaponry by their
sound. For instance, as similar as the Ak-47 and M-16 may seem to
be in form & function, they are very easy to distinguish from each
other as they are discharged. Can't those sounds be further
shaped by barrel extension/shortening, use of larger/smaller charges,
use of silencers and other attachments (just as some brass use mutes at
times)?
Is the confusion you see rooted in the seemingly uncontrolled
nature of and the apparent lack of a fundamental pitch in impuse
oriented acoustic events?
Let's look at the other end of the scale then. Do tympani
and steel drum based "acoustic events" have no pitch? To extend
this point of view ... bells, piano, marimba, harp, hammered dulcimer,
guitar, and many others are percussion instruments that
exquisitely shape an 'impulse' acoustic event of
striking or plucking. The physical characteristics of the
item being plucked or struck determine the pitch, tonality, etc.
Where's the difference? I would be willing to bet that highly
musical interpretations of many works in any repertoire could be
performed by a 'firearms choir' just as it could be by a bell choir,
steel drum band, or harpist.
The difference to me seems to be only in the duration of the
fundamental tone and the degree of controlability of the particular
'acoustic event'. For instance, guitar technique of slide, string
bending, plucking technique etc. generates an infinetly more malleable
resultant from the plucked string than
the roar of the battleship cannon. But deny the potential
musicality of such sound sources? I can't see where to draw the
line.
> I am seeing confusion between the simple perception of an
acoustic event
> (explosion, metronome beat, drum beat, 64' 'note', etc.) and the
> assignment of musical qualities -- especially pitch --
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Fred
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:07:21 EST
Subject: Re: [CB] Lowest Notes, etc.
Reply-To: contra-new2@contrabass.com
In a message dated 11/16/04 9:42:07 PM, Ed writes:
<< For instance, as similar as the Ak-47 and M-16 may seem
to be in form & function, they are very easy to distinguish from
each other as they are discharged. Can't those sounds be further
shaped by barrel extension/shortening, use of larger/smaller charges,
use of silencers and other attachments (just as some brass use mutes at
times)? Is the confusion you see rooted in the seemingly uncontrolled
nature of and the apparent lack of a fundamental pitch in impuse
oriented acoustic events?>>
Edward-
This is a good point, but there really is a fundamental pitch of
sorts. This type of impulse sound is comparable to the spectrum
of a single RADAR pulse. Its transmitted frequency is often in
the gigahertz range, but its spectrum consists of components that are
spaced around that frequency by an amount related to the pulse width.
If you can think of translating the radar pulse frequency to
zero, the resulting waveform has a fundamental frequency related to the
width of the impulse, but it isn't a tone because it doesn't repeat
more than a small number of cycles.
In the case of a RADAR pulse, the countermeasures people can
tell a lot about the transmitter by the shape of its spectrum, just as
you can identify the different weapons.
Fred
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:44:41 -0800
From: Craig
Subject: Re: [CB] Lowest Notes, etc.
Hi, Ed.
Comments below.
Edward Branham wrote:
>I can't follow this argument very far at all.
>
>How does one define the differing sounds of the smaller and
larger drums of a
>bongo pair - or between bongos and congas without using
concepts such as pitch
>and tonality?
One doesn't use 'pitch' in this case - these are sounds with no
dominant fundamental of any significant duration. It is customary to
use the more generic 'low tone / high tone'.
>Doesn't a particular .22 caliber starter pistol have
definite and definably
>different tone, pitch, attack, decay, and other musical
qualities than a
>particular 16 inch battleship cannon? Part of my military
training included
>learning to identify weaponry by their sound. For
instance, as similar as
>the Ak-47 and M-16 may seem to be in form & function,
they are very easy to
>distinguish from each other as they are discharged.
Can't those sounds be
>further shaped by barrel extension/shortening, use of
larger/smaller charges,
>use of silencers and other attachments (just as some brass
use mutes at
>times)?
Of course the characteristics of a sound are objectively shaped
by the physical dimensions of the source. 'Musicality' on the other
hand, is entirely subjective. John Cage tried to show (or did show,
depending on one's point of view) that silence was 'music' - the
expressive value of the space between notes carried to it's logical
extreme. The question of musicality of very low sounds, by the way, was
raised several posts earlier in the thread - not by me.
>Is the confusion you see rooted in the seemingly
uncontrolled nature of and
>the apparent lack of a fundamental pitch in impuse oriented
acoustic events?
No, the confusion was in the use of terminology. Again,
referencing earlier posts.
>Let's look at the other end of the scale then. Do
tympani and steel drum
>based "acoustic events" have no pitch?
They do have pitch -- their emission spectrum has a fundamental
peak that can be measured. There are other strong peaks that are not
necessarily harmonically related, which gives these instruments their
distinctive sounds.
>To extend this point of view ...
>bells, piano, marimba, harp, hammered dulcimer, guitar, and
many others are
>percussion instruments that exquisitely shape an 'impulse'
acoustic event of
>striking or plucking. The physical characteristics of
the item being plucked
>or struck determine the pitch, tonality, etc. Where's
the difference?
The difference is in the spectrum -- the amplitude of
non-fundamental peaks, and whether those peaks are harmonically related
to the fundamental. Fortunately in the case of plucked or struck
strings, there is a harmonic relationship. Else a harpsichord would
sound like a set of miniature tubular bells. An interesting concept,
actually...
>I would be willing to bet that highly musical
interpretations of many works in
>any repertoire could be performed by a 'firearms choir' just
as it could be by
>a bell choir, steel drum band, or harpist.
The 1812 Overture, not 'with cannon,' but 'for cannon'? Yikes!
Would the fundamentals carry over a safe distance? ;-) I have had the
(mis)fortune of hearing "Flight of the Bumblebee" 'performed' on a
blender. I suppose one could sample a bumblebee's buzz and use that as
the 'instrument', adjusting the pitch as needed. How about the "Minute
Waltz" on clock chimes and alarm bells?
>The difference to me seems to be only in the duration of the
fundamental tone
>and the degree of controlability of the particular 'acoustic
event'. For
>instance, guitar technique of slide, string bending,
plucking technique etc.
>generates an infinetly more malleable resultant from the
plucked string than
>the roar of the battleship cannon. But deny the
potential musicality of such
>sound sources? I can't see where to draw the line.
No one can say objectively where the line belongs, which was my
point -- thank you for helping me to re-state it more clearly.
Measurable characteristics of 'pitch', etc. are components of -- but do
not define -- the objective term, 'musicality'. I inadvertently added
to the confusion by calling pitch a 'musical quality'. Pitch is a
quantity. The qualities that define musicality vary from culture to
culture, person to person and generation to generation. Charles Ives
comes readily to mind when I think of those who pushed the envelope in
that regard.
Fortunately for musicians, there is broad agreement within a
culture on the definition of 'music'. However, people who can scarcely
distinguish one pitch from another are nonetheless capable of drawing
amazingly fine distinctions between 'music' and 'noise'. Just ask any
teenager and his or her parents. ;-)
Craig
***End of Contrabass Digest***