Cadmus, Robert R., Jr. (n.d.). The Physics of Musical Sounds.
Vetter, Roger (n.d.). Descriptive Terminology for Musical
Instruments.
I can't really picture how the aerophones work. How does sending air over an edge or a reed set up vibration?
Single and double reeds sound like they work almost exactly the same way. Why make one over another?
Who came up with this incredibly strict and detailed taxonomy?
In the definition of aerophone, chordophone, etc, it says "musical or sound producing instrument", what distinguishes a musical instrument from a sound producing instrument?
Cadmus at one point in the article mentions how subtle changes in an instrument such as “composition of varnish” can change how well a violin sounds (18). I was wondering whether its true that certain older violins sound better than newer violins because the density of the wood at the time was different? (This is a factual question for our guess lecturer) But more importantly how does one know when one violin sounds better than another?
I understand that the number of frequencies is what determines a timber but what determines the various amounts of frequency?
I didn't understand what he meant by harmonic when he explained that if the fundamental of a string is the note C, then the second harmonic will be a C one octave above the fundamental...
.
How do the designers of instruments decide or know how the shape of the box should be to get the desired sound?
"...the structure of the Western musical scale is closely tied to the simple numerical relationships governing the vibrations of a string."
I don't read music and I don't play an instrument. So I don't understand what this means. The example Cadmus gives after this sentence does not help either.
A violin sounds like a violin because..."the string does not vibrate in just one mode at a time, but vibrates simultaneously in many modes."
Why does it do this? Why does a tuning fork have a "single well-defined frequency" but a string doesn't?
I know this may seem like a pretty basic notion, but what exactly is a sine wave? Can anyone explain it to me layman’s terms, although I have looked up several definitions, they all seem to refer to geometry, always a weak subject for me.
After looking through the vast number of musical instruments in Grinnell's collection, I am a little confused on how a musical instrument is defined or a sound producing instrument in general.
What factors play a role in determining "how" an instrument modifies the timber of a sound?
How do the different kinds of wood affect the sound or amplitude of a violin?
I had no idea that music was so mathematical and scientific. The
way that instruments function seems quite complex. Are new instruments
"invented" often, or is most time and effort spent on improving existing
instruments?
Were great early instrument makers such as Stradivari and Guarneri
aware of the actual physics of sound?
How are waves produced that we achieve desirable sounds even with different instruments?
About how many frequencies make the timbre of most instruments? And if a much larger amount of frequencies are combined to make a complicated sound, would it make a different sound or would it just sound like a mess?
I did not understand the part of the Cadmus article about the Slinky vibrating at different frequencies and how this related to sound waves. Could you try to explain sound waves and frequencies? Why are there specific frequencies at which the Slinky vibrates more strongly?
How is it possible for a string to vibrate at different modes simultaneously?
Cadmus has repeated the word “perceive” to define sound in the form of loudness, pitch-timbre. What is problematic about trying to define something that can only be perceived be measured and “shown” quantitatively?
His last sentence implies that the people who make and play the instruments are the ones who will set the standard of excellent music. However, what is the role of the person who perceives the sound and performance (emotions and experiences)?
How does the general improvement in the quality of instruments change one's interpretation of sounds?
Concerning the uncertainty principle, to what extent does the perception involve the actual sound and frequency of that sound and to what extent might expectancy of the sound play? Is there a specific duration in which a note or sound if played for it to be considered or is it something dependent on the listener?
Cadmus spends most of his piece talking about why instruments sound
the way they do but does not exactly explain why humans find the
sounds they make pleasurable or unpleasant. Why do you think humans
don't like sounds "composed of nearly, but not exactly, identical
frequencies" and why is an octave pleasurable to listen to?
Do all people hear sounds the same way? If not, why?
In idiophone > tongue, plucked ... are the instruments called tongue, plucked because they look like tongues and are plucked... or are they plucked with the tongue? (and I'm pretty certain its tanpura
not tambura
under chordophone > plucked.
How does our music department decide what instruments to buy? I noticed some very unique instruments such as a turtle ocarina and did not know if it was a gift or if the college collected interesting instruments.
Why is that ukelele tuner from Czechoslovakia?
Have all the instruments in the collection been played in concerts, or are some of them just for show?
Some of the items in the collection, such as the first cowbell and the hansho, are not for musical use, so why are they in the musical instrument collection?
Would speakers be considered instruments? And if so what category would they be in?
At the end of his essay, Cadmus states that “It seems likely the pinnacles of musical excellence will continue to be inhabited by physicists and engineers, but by the artists who make great instruments and the artists who play them.”(18) Considering the amount of discussion we have had on the relationship between technology and society, to what does one see advances in technology shaping art? To what extent does one see art shaping technology?
At the beginning of this class, we discussed a few definitions of technology. How do musical instruments fit (or not fit) those definitions? Is music a technology?
We have been talking about technologies with ENORMOUS implications for society: writing, transportation, and genetic engineering, for example. Does music have this kind of power to it? What are some ways that music can interact with cultures?
Cadmus says that making instruments is not a purely technical
procedure; rather, it is still an art and the great instruments are
still made by artists and not scientists or technicians. Why can't the
latter make the same quality of instruments as the former as surely
there is a way to make a violin, for instance, sound essentially
perfect?
Each instrument produces sound with a specific timbre that is unique to that particular instrument. My question is how do machines like electric keyboards and other synthesizers work to mimic the timbre of a wide variety of instruments?
Can the physics of sound be related at all to music therapy? How?
The way that a microphone converts sound waves into readable frequencies that can be read on an oscilloscope appears to work the same way as a guitar tuner. I ask, then, how does an electric guitar (which barely produces a sound when strummed acoustically) convert its sound through the cord attaching it to tuners that are designed only for electric guitars?
A violin operates through the vibration of the strings, yet the instrument is technically played, or strummed, with a string. How does the continuing vibration of the string affect the sound produced by the violin when the instrument is being played rapidly?
Cadmus discusses how subtle differences in the manufacturing of certain instruments, such as the violin, can have an effect on the quality of the instrument and its sounds. How much of an actual impact does this have? Can it profoundly alter the quality of the instrument?
At the beginning of the lecture, Professor Vetter discussed the difference between musical instruments and things that produce sound. I gathered that one of the major differences between these two categories lies in how our culture defines exactly what is an instrument. But do we make other distinctions based on the range of sounds that an object can produce? Professor Vetter described how a siren produces musical like tones but we don't consider it an instrument because our culture says its not, but is that because it only gives a narrow range of sounds?
If there are more modes, does that make the resulting pitch (noise) sound clearer or smoother? Is there a classification based on the modes of the musical wave?
Cadmus discusses the uncertainty principle on p. 17. Is Cadmus claiming that in the uncertainty principle, music is not actually being played? I don't understand what he is trying to say regarding the notes actually being there or not. If they aren't there, why do we still hear something?
;
