Voices and strings: Close cousins or not?

  • A. Askenfelt
Chapter
Part of the Wenner-Gren Center International Symposium Series book series

Abstract

It is obvious that the singing voice and the strings not are close cousins, as long as we restrict our comparison to external properties like the sound generating mechanisms or the appearance of the bodies. However, at the same time as there are large differences with regard to how the sound is generated and controlled, there are indeed some striking similarities in the output from the two instruments which justifies a formal cousin-ship. In particular, they both seem to possess a remarkable freedom in the shaping of the sounds.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Askenfelt, A. (1982). Eigenmodes and tone quality of the double bass. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, STL-QPSR 4 /1982, 149–174.Google Scholar
  2. Askenfelt, A. (1986). Measurement of bow motion and bow force in violin playing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 80, 1007–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askenfelt, A. (1989). Measurement of the bowing parameters in violin playing II: Bow-bridge distance, dynamic range, and limits of bow force. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 86, 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Askenfelt, A. & Janssen, E. (1990). In Askenfelt A. (ed.), Five Lectures on the Acoustics of the Piano, Royal Swedish Academy of Music, Stockholm, 39–57.Google Scholar
  5. Askenfelt, A. & Hammarberg, B. (1986). Speech waveform perturbation analysis. J. of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benade, A. H. (1976). Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Dudley, D. & Strong, W. (1990). A computer study of the effects of harmonicity in a brass wind instrument: Impedance curve, impulse response, and mouthpiece pressure with a hypothetical periodic input, Applied Acoustics. 30, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production, Mouton, The Hauge.Google Scholar
  9. Hagerman, B. & Sundberg, J. (1980). Fundamental frequency adjustment in barbershop singing. J. of Research in Singing, 4 (1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  10. Helmholtz von, H. (1877). On the Sensations of Tone (English ed.), Dover, New York, 1885, reprint 1954.Google Scholar
  11. Hutchins, C.M. (1967). Founding a Family of Fiddles. Physics Today, 20, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marshall, A.H. & Meyer, J. (1985). The directivity and auditory impressions of singers. Acustica, 58, 130–140.Google Scholar
  13. Mathews, M.V. & Kohut, J. (1973). Electronic simulation of violin resonances. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 53, 1620–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McIntyre, M.E., Schumacher, R.T. & Woodhouse, J. (1981). Aperiodicity in bowed string motion. Acustica, 49, 13–32.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer, J. (1972). Akustik und musikalische Aufführungspraxis Verlag Das Musikinstrument, Moral, J. & Jansson, E. (1982). Input admittance, eigenmodes, and quality of violins. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm STL-QPSR 2–3/1982 60–63.Google Scholar
  16. Sundberg, J. (1979). In J. Sundberg (ed.) Vår hörsel och musiken, Royal Swedish Academy of Music, Stockholm, 78–101.Google Scholar
  17. Sundberg, J., Friberg, A. & Frydén, L. (1989). Rules for automated performance of ensemble music. Contemporary Music Review, 9, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sundberg, J. (1987). The Science of the Singing Voice, Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Wenner-Gren Center 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Askenfelt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations