re: TONE [ain't ~sound~]

Okay Tom, I'll give you the point on ~semantics~ and
we'll call it square. I should have said ~This is not
ONLY semantics~[or, ~I'm NOT splitting hairs here~,
would have been more apt]. 

> ME: Those, above, are examples of someone's
>~sound~. Not
> their ~tone~. This is NOT semantics. If a
> student carelessly drags his bow across their violin
> they ruin their ~tone~ [and no one will yet care
> about their ~sound~].
> ______________________________________
> Tom: We're discussing words, therefore
> it's semantics, yes?  What else could it be -- it
>ain't corn muffins?

> Having said that, of course I agree with your
> general premise that ~tone~ is not ~sound~.  

Me: Good. I win. Nyah. Nyah. The rest of your comments
concerning ~apparent tone~ [effects, recording,
amplification] is another way of saying ~things done
to someone's tone after they've produced it~, and is,
afaic, beyond this discussion [plus you're the expert
there and I'm not that nuts].

>   but you are making newbies think that ~Tone~ is
> something like
> ~groove~ or ~style~ <snip>
> _________________________________________
> No I'm not.  Not sure how you read that into my
> comments, but if
> that's how my comments were interpreted, I will
> happily clarify:
> "tone" has nothing to do with "groove" or "style." 

No. No. I meant that those things [groove/style/~she's
easy~] are all relative things and can never be given
a meaningful definition that we'd all agree on. Tone
can, in principal. Ala my metaphor with the violin
teacher not taking any bunk about objective
definitions: ~Just stop schlepping the dang bow across
the cello, it kills your tone~ 
> RE the "one man's ceiling" comment:
> A few days ago someone here on the L stated that
> they thought SBWII
> had lousy tone.  Other folks jumped in and
> disagreed, contending he
> had terrific tone.  

Exactly my point. One of them is wrong [Ak! He made a
value judgement! Call out the Generalization Guard!].
I think we all [95% of us who take harp seriously]
know which one. That can be measured by, say- - -
voting - - - or by measuring how much air leaks out of
his hand-cupping, etc. Eventually we could come up
with agreed upon criteria that would consistently
conclude; ~SBWII had big tone~. It wouldn't mean you
had to like him or his ~sound~ [Truth be known, he
bores me a little]. But we are not asking if he
dressed well or was a master musician [up for debate].
That's the reason I'm defending this seemingly small
point.  That people on harp-l will argue about
something isn't evidence that ~tone is relative to
what your preferences are~. No it isn't.
> I can think of no better way to support my 'ceiling'
> statement than
> that.  

I believe you. And like you anyway. :->

>Because if even the great SBWII (whom, BTW, I
> think had outstanding tone,) can be disagreed
>about, then it's clear that there
> are no absolutes. 

Sorry. That's not logically consistant. That's missing
a few steps to make it ~clear~. As stated above.  

>Whether we want to admit it or
> not, there are
> always going to be differing opinions about what
> constitutes "great
> tone."  No biggie.

We were talking about if ~tone~ was something that
happened pre-amplification/recording etc, and if it
could have objective criteria. ~GREAT tone~ is
debatable because ~GREAT anything~ is. ~Big,
desireable tone~ isn't subject to opinion. If you get
it you can apply it to any style or kind of music- and
it's worth defining [knowing what it is to your own
satisfaction] and pursuing. Don't let em fool ya kids;
it's not ~all good~.

Thanks Tom. I appreciated your reply [enjoyed the
~Bing~ reference]. Later.
> _____________________________________________
> Here are some absolutes:
> - -If you play stiffly, from note to note,
> concentrating
> on the area between your molars and the harps
> edge; youíll probably have worse tone- - If you have
> enough skill and knowledge to play smoothly,
> and concentrate on the areas between your diaphragm
> and the back of your knuckles; youíll probably
> have better tone.
> - -If you cover only enough of the harp with your
> lips
> to isolate your hole; youíll probably have worse
> tone. If you place the harp as deeply in your mouth
> as
> possible and open as widely as possible- while
> still being able to isolate the desired hole; youíll
> definitely have better tone.
> - -If you have thin, small, stiff dry lips; youíll
> probably have worse tone. If you have large soft,
> pliant
> lips that make a good seal on the harp [and not
> dry-mouthed]- youíll probably have better tone.
> - -If you hold your harp with two fingers on each
> side
> of the harp; youíll probably have lousy tone.
> If you form a cup around the harp that allows you to
> totally control where ANY air goes/escape; you'll
> probably have better tone.
> - -If you understand the music that you are playing
> on
> many different levels [and therefore know what
=== message truncated ===

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

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