G
GOYA
New member
I'm being obtuse
Silly me. I thought you were just trying to be acute.

(I thoroughly apologize for that. I should try to be more complimentary)
I'm being obtuse

Silly me. I thought you were just trying to be acute.
(I thoroughly apologize for that. I should try to be more complimentary)
The question is meaning less without context. How I choose to answer it was correct in every regard. In fact it was perfect, more perfect than any other answer you will get on the subject. The fact that the answer isn't the one you wanted to hear is the issue. Maybe you should put some context to the discussion, or should we move on to define love, art, and awareness now we are done. Those are harder to define as they have no root in science that can be clearly defined.Define it.

There's more than one.
It can be thick or thin.
Horn or bell-like.
Muted or ringing.
Harmonically complex or a simple sine wave.
So many different qualities, timbres, the different chops needed to get the most out of all the different instruments out there.
Tony Rice has good .............................................
The fact that the answer isn't the one you wanted to hear is the issue.
You assume I didn't want to hear your answer and that is not the issue, if there is an issue. Actually, I expected to hear objective answers and I expected subjective answers. I also expected answers that weren't answers at all. So far so good.


The degree of presence or absence of higher partial frequencies relating to the harmonic series above the fundamental of a sound pressure wave.
Would you like me to explain that to you?
For our purposes, I would add the qualities of attack and decay to this definition.
Muttley took care of the dictionary part of it. As for the other part, it comes down to something I hear Steve Martin say, but which I'm sure he stole from someone:
Talking about sound is like dancing about architecture.
The quote is "Talking about music...", and I did some research on it a while back; it appears that Steve Martin is indeed the originator.
I've heard it attributed to Frank Zappa. Since Mr Zappa was quite an aphorist, I'll persist in the belief that he originated it. You may recall his remarks about rock critics: "Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, in order to provide articles for people who can't read."
But that issue is probably unresolvable (at least to my satisfaction, which would be that the quote came from FZ -- any other outcome wouldn't satisfy ME).
It's by no means definitively attributed to anyone:
http://home.pacifier.com/~ascott/they/tamildaa.htm
Wow. Thanks a lot. That's a real trove of information. Perhaps this is one of those aphorisms (for example, "everyone talks about the weather but nobody ever does anything about it", attributed most frequently to Mark Twain -- who denied he ever said it) that is assigned to whomever is in the eye of the person quoting at the time of the quotation.
I feel vindicated that FZ is at least a contender. I have never come across a direct source (not surprisingly!) but remember reading something 'way back when that made the attribution.

Two things: The quote is "Talking about music...", and I did some research on it a while back; it appears that Steve Martin is indeed the originator.
It's by no means definitively attributed to anyone:
http://home.pacifier.com/~ascott/they/tamildaa.htm