bulerias1981
Oud Junkie
Posts: 770
Registered: 4-26-2009
Location: Beacon, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: John Vergara Luthier Lord of the Strings instrument making and repair
|
|
Adjectives to describe sound
"Adjectives to describe sound" is something I deal with on a daily basis. I am always searching for the right words to describe what I'm hearing under
my ear (the place you hear the best) or what I'm hearing in front of me. Obviously language has it's limitations in describing what an instrument
produces since what's happening is so magical.
I am including a list of adjectives used in the book "The Violin Maker" by John Marchese written about an award winning violin maker in Brooklyn, Sam
Zygmuntowitcz. In the book they mention Norman Pickering, a well known physicist and acoustician in the violin world. He compiled a limited list of
adjectives which was shared on page 92 of the book:
"Rough, hollow, thin, pure, flutey, metallic, resonant, dry, somber, clear, even, uneven, brilliant, wolfy, elegant, lively, raw, sonorous, muted,
dark, light, plumy, tubby, harsh, punched, aggressive, silky, silvery, golden, noble, constricted, smooth, mellow, bright, dull, piercing, shrill,
nasal, fuzzy, scratchy, rich full, weak, powerful, sweet."
Knowing the rich overtones that the oud produces, we've heard many amazing sounds violin players and makers are not even aware of. So, please feel
free to share some words you like to use to describe your ouds.
|
|
|
journeyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 492
Registered: 12-28-2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There is one I like that describes one of my favorite sound qualities of the oud's lower register. It is best heard on Anouar Brahem's earlier
recordings. I call it a "throaty" sound. -Roy
roypatterson.com
|
|
|
BaniYazid
Oud Junkie
Posts: 225
Registered: 8-20-2010
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
"deep" is often used
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The 16th C German lutenists gave names to their strings alluding to the sound that they made. In Virdung's 'Musica Getutscht' published in 1511 the
names for six courses - from bass (#1) to treble (#6) - are Gross Prummer (or Brummer), Mittler Prummer, Clain Prummer, Gross Sancksait, Clain
Sancksait and Quintsait which translates to : Big Growler (or Snarler or Grumbler), Middle Growler, Small Growler, Big Singing (or melody) String,
Small Singing String and Fifth String. (The sixth string is named the fifth because at one time it was the top string for a five course lute -
standard until the end of the 15th C).
Later in the 16th C the three German bass strings were named Gross, Mittel and Klein Bomhart (or Bombard) (a Bombard being a siege mortar cannon) - as
given by Hans Gerle 1546 and Mattheus Waissel 1592.
Interesting that the names given to these early plucked bass strings - that today are assumed to have been made from plain twisted animal gut -
suggests that they sounded loud and 'raspy' (explosive even) contrary to current experience with thick gut bass strings. The early lute basses were in
octave tuned pairs which would have helped to brighten the sound but not the late 16th C lute strings that were unison pairs down to the 6th
course.
How about the early oud? The strings are named - from bass to treble - as Bamm, Mathlath, Mathna, Zir and Hadd. How do these names translate into
English? The name 'Bamm' when pronounced phonetically suggests a loud percussive noise to me?
The problem with spoken language is that mere words can mean totally different things to different people. So for example what tone colour is 'golden'
supposed to be?
|
|
|
bulerias1981
Oud Junkie
Posts: 770
Registered: 4-26-2009
Location: Beacon, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: John Vergara Luthier Lord of the Strings instrument making and repair
|
|
When journeymen describes Anour Brahem's sound on the basses as "throaty" I feel like the idea is more or less conveyed. I understand what sound hes
talking about. Of course it's hard to measure.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't - so, why not post comparative sound clips of these descriptive sound 'colours' so that we all might at least have some kind of objective
measure of their meaning?
|
|
|
bulerias1981
Oud Junkie
Posts: 770
Registered: 4-26-2009
Location: Beacon, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: John Vergara Luthier Lord of the Strings instrument making and repair
|
|
jdowning, not a bad idea at all! We can categorize sound by types. There certain types of sounds that I am very familiar with and have distinct
qualities. I started recently studying violin over the last year, and even after working with violins for 8 years only until now have I begun to know
what a good sounding violin is and how to compare different sounds.. I guess you have to be a player to really know.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
To this end we might follow the practice of wine connoisseurs (or even wine snobs!) and hold violin 'tastings' where violinists with sufficient
experience to appreciate the tonal nuances of their instrument would, in the same room, listen to say half a dozen violins by various makers and then
describe in words - without consultation between themselves - the tonal characteristics of each violin.
At the same time the sound of each violin would be recorded to allow each recorded signal to be frequency analysed so, in the event that there might
be some agreement among the auditors, it would be possible for anyone to determine graphically the particular audio characteristics associated with
each sound description.
Perhaps Norman Pickering has already undertaken similar auditory experiments?
Always best to treat what one reads in books about violins with some caution. For example the Hill book 'The Violin Makers of the Guarneri Family
(1626-1762)' in Chapter V - on the Tonal Aspect - refers to the writings of English Lutenist and Viol player Thomas Mace ('Musick's Monument', London,
1676) and implies that Mace is referring to the violin as well as the viol and lute when he wrote " As first, It is a New-made-Instrument; and
therefore cannot yet Speak so Well, as it will do, when It comes to Age, and Ripeness; yet it gives forth a very Free, Brisk, Trouling, Plump, and
Sweet Sound".(The Hill brothers took this quote out of context and changed 'As first' to 'At first')
What Mace was actually referring to is a unique instrument that he had invented - called a 'Dyphone' or double lute. Poor Mace was almost stone deaf
at this time and could not hear the sounds of a normal lute. He could hear the sound of this much louder instrument but only through his teeth that he
placed on the edge of the Dyphone to pick up the sound board vibrations. Must have been awkward to play let alone judge the sound colours of the
instrument!
Having read with amusement some of the descriptions of taste coming from the wine experts we might find something like this coming from the violin
sampling events:
" A Strad of 1684 - from a vintage year production of 25 violins. Clear dichroic varnish to the eye. A noble, golden toned fiddle with sweet, silvery
upper harmonic accents. However the rather wolfy lower frequencies suggests this instrument may have gone past its prime 150 years ago".
Just kidding!
Of course violins are violins and ouds are ouds - as acoustically different as chalk from cheese.
[file]33799[/file]
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
