Re: Tone

[Ron/datadigr <rdg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Robb,

Saturday, January 18, 2003, 11:32:21 PM, you wrote:

RB> Because something is hard to define does not at all
RB> mean that it is subjective.

True. I never said that "tone" is subjective. I said nothing of the
sort. I said that "good" tone is subjective.

RB>  ~Color Vision~ is hard to
RB> define [there are two oppossing theories accepted as
RB> stop-gap ~facts~], but they aren't subjective or
RB> relative [though one or both might be wrong]. We just
RB> haven't developed the constructs to measure or
RB> quantify it [and I don't care much, personally, if we
RB> ever do- but don't spoil the chase].

I agree. We can measure color vision and know it exists. What we
can't do is define "good colour" and "bad colour". That area is pretty
subjective.

RB> Tone is real [as real as anything else, often called
RB> ~real~: air pressure, speed limit, lack of sleep]. 
RB> It's not like; ~groove~, ~smart~, ~good musician~ or
RB> ~pretty~.

Tone is real and that tone exists is not up for grabs. Tone exists.

RB> It's is, in principal, measurable, and everyone can,
RB> in a progressive, linear fashion, improve theirs. It
RB> still will vary in quality, quanity and degree. All of
RB> which will be open to argument and debate.

Well, if quality of tone is up for debate, why isn't "good" and "bad"
tone. Or are bad and good not factors of quality?

And even if you could measure "tone" and I agree you can to a fair
degree, and we're getting better at measuring things all the time, how
do you measure "good" tone. What parameters do you use to define it? I
mean beyond "it works for me" or "I like it" or "it moves me".

I mean, measuring "tone" is what makes amp modeling work.

But, does _everyone_ find what you would hold as "good" tone, good.
And if not, why not? If so, why? Those are my questions.

Are people'
s whose opinions on good and bad tone simply not possessing some
"thing" that precludes their ability to correctly measure bad and good
in thier own life? Are there certain frequencies, say, that _everyone_
finds (or _should_ find)awful and others that _everyone" finds or
should fine appealing or "good". Why do some folks _love_ bagpipes
and wax eloquent about the tone, while others call it
an "agony bag"?

RB> Aside from the fact that all perception is essentially
RB> second-hand, ~tone~ has as little to do with ~opinion~
RB> as does ~who won last weeks game?~
RB> Paul Delay does indeed have nice tone.

There goes the slipped in premise. You went from the "existence" of
tone itself right through to "nice tone" without any explanation or
definition at all--just a slipped in assertion, like there's no
diffference between the two. No slam on Paul Delay--he's a great
player in my books, a real inspiration.

RB> By any
RB> definition.

Ok. Give me even _one_ definition of "good tone" that is
unarguably, as in "a priori", sufficient. Provide one definition of
"good tone" that is so essential to the construct that it precludes
any reasoned argument.

RB> And I don't need to have a handle on the
RB> final definition to say that.

Not to say, but you do to support the argument. Assertions are easy to
come by.

RB> Again; the definition, and the construct for
RB> ~measuring~ it are not yet developed- that doesn't
RB> make it subjective or up for grabs. One man's ~Tone~
RB> is NOT another man's car-alarm at 3 a.m~.

One man's "tone" is not one man's car alarm--except in those cases
where the tone actually _is_ a car alarm, but one man's "good tone"
most decidedly can be another man's car alarm.

Best regards,
 Ron/datadigr                            mailto:rdg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx