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

[joe leone <3n037@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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