Re: [Harp-L] vibrato vs. tremolo 2




On Aug 24, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Jonathan Ross wrote:


The definitions and examples that I offered are consistent with published authority and have merit because they are neither instrument-dependent nor ambiguous.

Yes, but universal definitions are useless here.


s.j.....Well then, by this criteria..ALL definitions are useless here. I suggest we quit using definitions.


These terms are instrument dependent, and divorcing them from that doesn't elucidate or eliminate sloppiness, rather it muddies the waters by divorcing current use from past use. I'd rather that organists, singers, flautists and others be able to understand the terms and texts of their predecessors than force everything into some pointless and unnecessary common current. Unnecessary because only musicians use these terms and then usually only within their own instrument groups--so there is no lack of understanding, rather the opposite.

Without a "single, overarching way of using the terms 'tremolo' and 'vibrato' ", the confusion addressed in this thread continues, our musical language is less clear, and Dekker's question arises again and again.

So what? It simply allows for a teachable moment again and again.


s.j......Teaching what? You just said that universal definitions are useless here? And I think using the word universal is suspect anyway as Earth is only an infinitessimally small micron of the universe. Maybe people on Zirus 3 would disagree with us? Maybe they use the word 'slush'?


We can have a similar discussion about "glissando" and "portamento". ;o)

Fine. This isn't like the mechanics of the harmonica--there is no absolute or definitive answer possible.


Right, especially when there is no use to universal definitions,
smokey-joe



JR Ross





This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.