>Thanks for the response Reg but what I described as dampening is a fairly
>standard definition, one which can be found in Vennard, Zemlin, etc. In
>fact, Riggs usually refers to this as vocal cord shortening, a term which
>Lloyd has problems with. Personally, I don't care what word we use as long
>as we agree on what it means. We could call this phenomenon FREGSTSFGHE and
>that would all right with me.
>
>Randy Buescher
Dear Randy and All,
I understand and appreciate your words, but wonder if we've really
made any progress. A specific action requires a specific term as I 've tried
to suggest. The unclear action still has an unclear name.
Similarly with those who have difficulty with my contention that 'what you see
and what you think, is not objective'. Magicians and illusionists have made a
killing for years by using this human frailty, and one could even suggest that
the road toll is a result of the same misconception. Things are often not as
they first appear! Of course some have no doubt that singing is spiritual,
and
therefore not subject to the level of proof required by Thomas the Apostle.
It's not my view, but I can certainly see why some may hold it!!!!!!
I was going to leave it there but I feel there are just two points
to be made. One is that standardisation of terms is a worthy goal, thereby
disagreeing with your Teutonic tongue twister. This means Vennard too, but
his wonderful work is of archival significance and therefore sacrosanct.
Unfortunately his out of date material appears not to have been removed,
but simply explained away as in 249 and this can lead to incorrect
conclusions.
So the second relates to Vennard. I understand the
tendency for us all to interpret material such as to appear to prove our
contentions, but I must point out that in Vennard 249, he seems to move
away from his original damping descriptions of 247 and 248.
For those without Vennard.... fifth edition 1968.
249..." Without the aid of the Fastax camera this was
interpreted as " damping or dampening ." These words apply to holding a
string so that it cannot* vibrate, and they implied a comparison with the
finger
of a violinist moving along the string to raise* the pitch. It was assumed
that
somehow the glottis was pressed together at the back end, and that as the
pitch rose the damping was increased until finally only a small part of the
'strings' was allowed to vibrate. This was regarded as the pitch mechanism
in which the cords were shortened to raise the pitch. The aryvocalis fibres
were thought to have something to do with it. We now know that actually
the vocal cords are lengthened (by stretching) to raise the pitch, and this
illusion of damping is an effect of longitudinal tension, rather than a cause.
We also now know that damping occurs only in some singers, not all. "
**[ Where I have placed the asterisks in lines 3 and 4 the
implied comparisons are in conflict.] A different meaning for each word.
It appears to me that Vennard is suggesting that damping is merely
touching the string to stop it from activity, while the second,
dampening, is pressing the string to the board to alter the pitch.
And notice the reference to updated information as in,
'This was regarded as ' and, 'We also now know that...'
I am not intending to have the last word by any means, merely pointing
out that in the second last line Vennard describes his previous assertion
as an "illusion". Just like the felts on a piano which are also incorrectly
termed dampers, the "brakes" on a car are not the "shock absorbers",
as we refer to them in Australia. (USA dampers I believe.)
The brakes stop the vehicle, while the dampers control the
otherwise destructive and dangerous vertical oscillation of the wheels.
The felts on a piano, too, are not dampers, but brakes.
It is not at all my intention to be pedantic but simply to try and show that
there are important reasons why standardization is to be preferred over
exclusivity, which quite clearly suggests keeping those, _not_ included,
uninformed. So with William Vennards' reference to _illusion_ it would
appear that we have come the full circle.
Regards Reg.
|
