In article <slrndaos8p.qi1.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-06-12, Melodious Thunk <replyto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <slrndan8bi.24t.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Albert Silverman
><slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-06-11, Joe Roberts <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Peter ...
>>> >
>>> > Ignore the likes of Silverman and take the suggestions offered in
the other
>>> > message. Especialy consider the parts about the online resource and
looking
>>> > into an introductory music course. You'll not only learn, but if
you love
>>> > music you'll also love the learning.
>>>
>>> Hopefully *Peter* will be able to learn the distinction between a
*note*
>>> and a *tone*!
>>
>> Why don't you elaborate on what *you* mean by 'tone' and 'note'?
>>
>> In your posts, you seem to use 'tone' to refer to a single pitch. That
>doesn't match
>> contemporary use of the term. For example, many instrumentalists will
>have to stop and think
>> about what you mean, when you refer to 'a tone.' What, you mean *my*
>tone, or the other guys'
>> tone? 'Tone' for instrumentalists refers to a set of qualities, not an
>individual pitch; and the
>> latter is often referred to as a 'note'. If you repeat it often enough,
>the player will
>> eventually figure out you're referring to a specific 'pitch' and,
>probably, will wonder why you
>> didn't just say 'note' in the first place.
>
>This is really very simple. A "tone" is a vibration at a specific
>frequency.
>
>What is there to argue about?
>
>
>>
>> In the U.S. at least, there are no firm distinctions between the terms
>'tone', 'pitch', and
>> 'note';
>
>WRONG!
>
>A tone has no implication of lasting for any particular length of time.
>
>In contrast, a note does carry such an implication, as in the definition
>given in *my* dictionary:
>
> "A character indicating the relative duration of a tone by its
shape,
> and the pitch by its position on the staff"
>
>What is there to argue about?
>
>The distinction between "tone" and "note" is *very* clear, your
>multiplicity of meanings to the contrary notwithstanding. Your are simply
>attempting to muddy the waters, which are clear.
>
>
> and each of those terms has varying meanings according to context. And I
>don't find that
>> the musicality suffers due to this ambiguity, as long as one makes
>their context clear.
>
>Ambiguity has no place here, despite your attempts to insert it.
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where ambiguity is relevant
>and clarity is irrelevant
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
