notavirtuoso wrote: guitarmanK1982 wrote:
notavirtuoso wrote:That situation would be a bit harder to tell the difference between players, but then again, there's no fingers touching the stings so there's no tone for them to inject! Just kidding, I just thought that was funny.
So do you admit that the aspects of what we consider to be 'tone' could, in fact, be completely external, and have nothing to do with the player?
I'll admit it but only if you recognize that I haven't used the word tone to describe anything in this conversation. Can timbre be used to describe the differences within the same instrument like we are describing, or only to compare different instruments? If it can, it would be a much better word to use than tone.
The only other qualities I can think of were what I listed about being the recognizable qualities that distinguish one musician from the next. I don't know if what you mean by interpretation (or your interpretation of interpretation
) encompasses that or not. If it does, then our terms mean basically the same thing. Maybe one difference is that my idea of voice comes from the musician in an unconscious manner, where my idea of interpretation is more of a conscious, deliberate application of ideas.
What I mean with regards to interpretation is attention to detail with issues such as dynamics, phrasing, tempo etc etc
Do you mean 'voice' as in the sense of when the player is 'freely' playing (eg more in an improvisatory sense of the word)? I think that most players would be aware of issues such as dynamics etc when improvising, but that the application of them has become 'internalised'.
In the strict sense of the word, 'tone' has nothing to do with player, as tone would be regarding the actual sound the instrument produces, which could be measured in terms of the fundamental/harmonic series etc etc
All the player adds is interpretive effects e.g. vibrato, dynamics etc etc - but with regards to actual tone, there is no change.
Unless, of course, electronic means are used to manipulate the sound (eg an amp, effects etc etc).
Surely we could visualise of two robotic arms (I mean way in the future here) that could be 'programmed' to imitate the exact performance of a known piece of music?
Notavirtuoso - you should get some books on psychoacoustics - there is a good book on this subject by David Howard and Jamie Angus. You should also try 'Perception' by Robert Sekuler and Randolph Blake. It is quite expensive, but worth every penny, and will 'fill in the gaps' that are missed when only musicians talk about issues such as this. It covers all forms of perception - however, the chapter on the human ear is more than enlightening.