info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How?
267 views
Skip to first unread message
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 14, 2019, 1:09:57 PM9/14/19
to
Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
only rising.)
The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
[u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
frequency formant.
If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
happen?
My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
only rising.)
The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
[u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
frequency formant.
If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
happen?
My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 14, 2019, 2:09:06 PM9/14/19
to
experiments concerning the production of intonation patterns.
If you can't, then there is no reason to credit your idle speculations.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 14, 2019, 4:44:16 PM9/14/19
to
Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 15, 2019, 9:03:57 AM9/15/19
to
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:44:16 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:09:57 AM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
> > question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
> > up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
> > only rising.)
> > The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
> > [u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
> > frequency formant.
> > If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
> > people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
> > but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
> > of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
> > parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
> > happen?
> > My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
> > relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
> > determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
> > in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
> > the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
> >
> > I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> > weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
>
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:09:57 AM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
> > question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
> > up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
> > only rising.)
> > The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
> > [u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
> > frequency formant.
> > If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
> > people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
> > but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
> > of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
> > parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
> > happen?
> > My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
> > relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
> > determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
> > in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
> > the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
> >
> > I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> > weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
>
> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
(without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
you use the techniques that comprise singing.
The three cavities in the vocal tract, the shapes of two of which are
modified by muscular activity, cause the resonances (formants) that
the auditory receptive bits of the brain interpret as vowels.
Daud Deden
Sep 15, 2019, 10:30:57 AM9/15/19
to
Unlike other animals, mammals have a hard palate separating oral and nasal pathways, allowing simultaneous breathing and feeding (such as human infants simultaneous suckling and inhaling-exhaling).
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 15, 2019, 2:10:07 PM9/15/19
to
JASA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of_America
Acoustics isn't really the issue here. Acoustics is more about concert
halls etc. I understand a lot about these too, by the way. Reverb
etc., from age 17 or so.
But this is the combination of articulatory phonetics and acoustics.
Acousticians are not necessarily the experts on this issue.
Babies about 8 months old already know about this. They experiment
with the pitch, loudness and phonations or their voice. I know from
recent, direct observation, having two granddaugthers, whom we have
around at least a day every week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of_America
Acoustics isn't really the issue here. Acoustics is more about concert
halls etc. I understand a lot about these too, by the way. Reverb
etc., from age 17 or so.
But this is the combination of articulatory phonetics and acoustics.
Acousticians are not necessarily the experts on this issue.
Babies about 8 months old already know about this. They experiment
with the pitch, loudness and phonations or their voice. I know from
recent, direct observation, having two granddaugthers, whom we have
around at least a day every week.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 15, 2019, 2:10:07 PM9/15/19
to
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
Why don't you just answer the question?
Or else, why don't you ask someone really knowledgeable in the field
(you clearly are not) to give an opinion about this?
You cannot always hide behind academic qualifications, sometimes you
just have to come up with real answers, about the matter at hand.
Why don't you simply admit you misunderstood an essential point here?
Is that really so hard? It happened to me, and then I admitted it and
learnt from it. Why can't you?
>No doubt you can cite multiple articles in JASA detailing careful
>experiments concerning the production of intonation patterns.
Exact intonation patterns wasn't the issue here. That you use that as
an evading technique just shows that you do not properly understand
this issue.
It's not about the patterns, it's about how they are produced. Vocal
cords or vocal tract, that is the question. Don't you see that?
>No doubt you can cite multiple articles in JASA detailing careful
>experiments concerning the production of intonation patterns.
I don't even know what JASA is, and I don't really care, because it
isn't the point here.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
Or else, why don't you ask someone really knowledgeable in the field
(you clearly are not) to give an opinion about this?
You cannot always hide behind academic qualifications, sometimes you
just have to come up with real answers, about the matter at hand.
Why don't you simply admit you misunderstood an essential point here?
Is that really so hard? It happened to me, and then I admitted it and
learnt from it. Why can't you?
>No doubt you can cite multiple articles in JASA detailing careful
>experiments concerning the production of intonation patterns.
an evading technique just shows that you do not properly understand
this issue.
It's not about the patterns, it's about how they are produced. Vocal
cords or vocal tract, that is the question. Don't you see that?
>No doubt you can cite multiple articles in JASA detailing careful
>experiments concerning the production of intonation patterns.
isn't the point here.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 15, 2019, 2:22:38 PM9/15/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
>> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
>
>Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>(without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>you use the techniques that comprise singing.
And that is wat it is: nonsense. Talking and singing are not different
in this respect. PTD grossly misunderstand what he might have read
about it.
Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
noise. Voice isn't.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
>> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
>
>Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>(without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>you use the techniques that comprise singing.
in this respect. PTD grossly misunderstand what he might have read
about it.
Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
noise. Voice isn't.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 15, 2019, 2:23:48 PM9/15/19
to
>The three cavities in the vocal tract, the shapes of two of which are
>modified by muscular activity, cause the resonances (formants) that
>the auditory receptive bits of the brain interpret as vowels.
Yes. But that doesn't include intonation, the pitch of the voice.
>modified by muscular activity, cause the resonances (formants) that
>the auditory receptive bits of the brain interpret as vowels.
That's where you go wrong.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 15, 2019, 2:35:39 PM9/15/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:22:36 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:
It is quite dangerous and worrisome that scholars continue on wrong
tracks of thinking, just because it is an amateur who tells them how
it is, and they despise amateurs and look down upon them. Truth and
facts should be independent on who presents them.
For the same reason, there is still an error in
https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'têm'. Because
it was me who pointed it out. And John C. Wells is too arrogant to
believe anything told to him by someone without an academic title. But
I am right and he's not, nor are the 'experts' and 'native speakers'
he claimed to have consulted (but whom he probably misunderstood).
scribeva:
tracks of thinking, just because it is an amateur who tells them how
it is, and they despise amateurs and look down upon them. Truth and
facts should be independent on who presents them.
For the same reason, there is still an error in
https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'têm'. Because
it was me who pointed it out. And John C. Wells is too arrogant to
believe anything told to him by someone without an academic title. But
I am right and he's not, nor are the 'experts' and 'native speakers'
he claimed to have consulted (but whom he probably misunderstood).
António Marques
Sep 15, 2019, 3:31:01 PM9/15/19
to
Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:22:36 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> scribeva:
>
>> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>>> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
>>>> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
>>>
>>> Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>>> identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>>> (without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>>> you use the techniques that comprise singing.
>>
>> And that is wat it is: nonsense. Talking and singing are not different
>> in this respect. PTD grossly misunderstand what he might have read
>> about it.
>>
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
> It is quite dangerous and worrisome that scholars continue on wrong
> tracks of thinking, just because it is an amateur who tells them how
> it is, and they despise amateurs and look down upon them. Truth and
> facts should be independent on who presents them.
>
> For the same reason, there is still an error in
> https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'têm'.
There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:22:36 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> scribeva:
>
>> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>>> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
>>>> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
>>>
>>> Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>>> identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>>> (without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>>> you use the techniques that comprise singing.
>>
>> And that is wat it is: nonsense. Talking and singing are not different
>> in this respect. PTD grossly misunderstand what he might have read
>> about it.
>>
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
> It is quite dangerous and worrisome that scholars continue on wrong
> tracks of thinking, just because it is an amateur who tells them how
> it is, and they despise amateurs and look down upon them. Truth and
> facts should be independent on who presents them.
>
> For the same reason, there is still an error in
> https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'têm'.
three, he doesn't present @~j@~j, for which he actually had the têm
example, nor its o~je~j counterpart from põem.
> Because
> it was me who pointed it out. And John C. Wells is too arrogant to
> believe anything told to him by someone without an academic title. But
> I am right and he's not, nor are the 'experts' and 'native speakers'
> he claimed to have consulted (but whom he probably misunderstood).
vice-versa?
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 15, 2019, 4:06:57 PM9/15/19
to
fundamental frequency and a lot of harmonics. And you don't need
any special techniques to make a single pitch audible.
> The three cavities in the vocal tract, the shapes of two of which are
> modified by muscular activity, cause the resonances (formants) that
> the auditory receptive bits of the brain interpret as vowels.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 15, 2019, 4:10:22 PM9/15/19
to
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> JASA:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of_America
>
> Acoustics isn't really the issue here.
You didn't look at it, did you.
> JASA:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of_America
>
> Acoustics isn't really the issue here.
JASA is the principal journal where phoneticians publish.
About half of each issue (and they are large issues!) contain phonetics
articles, the other half things like architecture and biophysics.
> Acoustics is more about concert
> halls etc. I understand a lot about these too, by the way. Reverb
> etc., from age 17 or so.
>
> But this is the combination of articulatory phonetics and acoustics.
> Acousticians are not necessarily the experts on this issue.
Acousticians have nothing to do with it.
> Babies about 8 months old already know about this. They experiment
> with the pitch, loudness and phonations or their voice. I know from
> recent, direct observation, having two granddaugthers, whom we have
> around at least a day every week.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 15, 2019, 4:13:20 PM9/15/19
to
You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
centuries now -- on the topic? Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
Daud Deden
Sep 15, 2019, 9:29:03 PM9/15/19
to
White noise is produced electrically to reduce chatter in crowded spaces, maybe linguists have an alternative meaning that I am unaware of.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 15, 2019, 10:07:59 PM9/15/19
to
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:29:03 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> White noise is produced electrically to reduce chatter in crowded spaces, maybe linguists have an alternative meaning that I am unaware of.
The way it's produced is not part of the definition.
> White noise is produced electrically to reduce chatter in crowded spaces, maybe linguists have an alternative meaning that I am unaware of.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 2:44:57 AM9/16/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> JASA:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of_America
>>
>> Acoustics isn't really the issue here.
>
>You didn't look at it, did you.
>
>JASA is the principal journal where phoneticians publish.
>
>About half of each issue (and they are large issues!) contain phonetics
>articles, the other half things like architecture and biophysics.
Yes, I now see. So what?
The topics seem to be very advanced and focussing on detail. No doubt
they don't publish about something as basic as the acoustic nature of
the human speech voice. Because all phoneticians have known about that
for a hundred years or more. And that is exactly where the risk of
misunderstandings such as yours lies.
>> Babies about 8 months old already know about this. They experiment
>> with the pitch, loudness and phonations or their voice. I know from
>> recent, direct observation, having two granddaugthers, whom we have
>> around at least a day every week.
>
>Your own little Alma Deutschers, musical prodigies?
No, they practice intonation, because they have phonemes or words.
Because it is more basic. Do you remember that video about the twin,
talking without words?
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> JASA:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of_America
>>
>> Acoustics isn't really the issue here.
>
>You didn't look at it, did you.
>
>JASA is the principal journal where phoneticians publish.
>
>About half of each issue (and they are large issues!) contain phonetics
>articles, the other half things like architecture and biophysics.
The topics seem to be very advanced and focussing on detail. No doubt
they don't publish about something as basic as the acoustic nature of
the human speech voice. Because all phoneticians have known about that
for a hundred years or more. And that is exactly where the risk of
misunderstandings such as yours lies.
>> Babies about 8 months old already know about this. They experiment
>> with the pitch, loudness and phonations or their voice. I know from
>> recent, direct observation, having two granddaugthers, whom we have
>> around at least a day every week.
>
>Your own little Alma Deutschers, musical prodigies?
Because it is more basic. Do you remember that video about the twin,
talking without words?
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 2:47:49 AM9/16/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:30:59 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>> https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'tÊm'.
between variants?
>three, he doesn't present @~j@~j, for which he actually had the tÊm
>example, nor its o~je~j counterpart from pÃĩem.
<anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>
>There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
Is that a contrast in a single speaker of one variant, or a contrast
>There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
between variants?
>three, he doesn't present @~j@~j, for which he actually had the tÊm
>example, nor its o~je~j counterpart from pÃĩem.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 3:08:52 AM9/16/19
to
>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>> https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'tÊm'.
>
>There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
>three, he doesn't present @~j@~j, for which he actually had the tÊm
>There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
>example, nor its o~je~j counterpart from pÃĩem.
August 2003:
==
Like all SAMPA language pages, the SAMPA Portuguese page was compiled
by native speakers of the relevant language (in this case,
Portuguese).
Nevertheless, I will check out the point you make.
==
No further reply, and never corrected.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 3:15:43 AM9/16/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
You mentioned models -- unlikely to be accurate, for such a
complicated mechanism --, and corpses -- but they are unable to
perform the subtle muscle actions necessary to bring the vocal cords
into sounding position.
>Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
>centuries now -- on the topic?
Because that involved visits to universitities that have many book
stacked away somewhere, or buying book which I don it worth the money
and effort.
>Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
>Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
You don't know, because you don't know what I do, and lack the skills
to judge that from what I write, because your lack of understanding is
in the way. Dunning-Kruger effect.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>
>You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
>vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
Again, how?
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>
>You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
>vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
You mentioned models -- unlikely to be accurate, for such a
complicated mechanism --, and corpses -- but they are unable to
perform the subtle muscle actions necessary to bring the vocal cords
into sounding position.
>Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
>centuries now -- on the topic?
stacked away somewhere, or buying book which I don it worth the money
and effort.
>Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
>Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
to judge that from what I write, because your lack of understanding is
in the way. Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 3:26:27 AM9/16/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
What he did in the field seems to have been on what we do NOT disagree
about: that vowels are differentiated by formants, which are resonance
frequencies of cavities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz#Sensory_physiology
is remotely connected, but doesn't solve the issue.
>and Alexander Melville Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Melville_Bell
Never heard of him before, thanks.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:22:38 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
>> >> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
>> >
>> >Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>> >identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>> >(without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>> >you use the techniques that comprise singing.
>>
>> And that is wat it is: nonsense. Talking and singing are not different
>> in this respect. PTD grossly misunderstand what he might have read
>> about it.
>>
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>
>You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
>vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
>
>Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
>centuries now -- on the topic? Hermann Helmholtz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz#Acoustics_and_aesthetics
>On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:22:38 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >> Surely some misunderstanding here. I can't believe PTD was that wrong.
>> >> Could you possibly quote exactly what he said?
>> >
>> >Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>> >identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>> >(without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>> >you use the techniques that comprise singing.
>>
>> And that is wat it is: nonsense. Talking and singing are not different
>> in this respect. PTD grossly misunderstand what he might have read
>> about it.
>>
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>
>You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
>vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
>
>Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
>centuries now -- on the topic? Hermann Helmholtz
What he did in the field seems to have been on what we do NOT disagree
about: that vowels are differentiated by formants, which are resonance
frequencies of cavities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz#Sensory_physiology
is remotely connected, but doesn't solve the issue.
>and Alexander Melville Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
Never heard of him before, thanks.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 3:46:30 AM9/16/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:06:55 -0700 (PDT): "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>> The three cavities in the vocal tract, the shapes of two of which are
>> modified by muscular activity, cause the resonances (formants) that
>> the auditory receptive bits of the brain interpret as vowels.
>
>That part's right.
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>> Ruud thinks the buzz of the vocal cords occupies just a single,
>> identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>> (without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>> you use the techniques that comprise singing.
>
>It's not white noise. It's a periodic sound with an identifiable
>fundamental frequency and a lot of harmonics. And you don't need
>any special techniques to make a single pitch audible.
Finally someone who understands.
>> identifiable pitch (frequency). I pointed out that it is white noise
>> (without using that term), and to make a single, identifiable pitch,
>> you use the techniques that comprise singing.
>
>It's not white noise. It's a periodic sound with an identifiable
>fundamental frequency and a lot of harmonics. And you don't need
>any special techniques to make a single pitch audible.
>> The three cavities in the vocal tract, the shapes of two of which are
>> modified by muscular activity, cause the resonances (formants) that
>> the auditory receptive bits of the brain interpret as vowels.
>
>That part's right.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 16, 2019, 5:17:34 AM9/16/19
to
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Do you deny that [s] and [f] contain noise?
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> noise. Voice isn't.
>
>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 16, 2019, 8:26:17 AM9/16/19
to
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:15:43 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
> >> noise. Voice isn't.
> >
> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> >
> >You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
> >vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
>
> Again, how?
How the hell should I remember, from a 40-years-ago phonetics class?
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
> >> noise. Voice isn't.
> >
> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> >
> >You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
> >vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
>
> Again, how?
> You mentioned models -- unlikely to be accurate, for such a
> complicated mechanism --, and corpses -- but they are unable to
> perform the subtle muscle actions necessary to bring the vocal cords
> into sounding position.
>
> >Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
> >centuries now -- on the topic?
>
> Because that involved visits to universitities that have many book
> stacked away somewhere, or buying book which I don it worth the money
> and effort.
Not quite a century of JASA is on JSTOR (started in 1929).
> >Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
> >Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
>
> You don't know, because you don't know what I do, and lack the skills
> to judge that from what I write, because your lack of understanding is
> in the way. Dunning-Kruger effect.
hit-and-miss.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 16, 2019, 8:27:33 AM9/16/19
to
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:17:34 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
> >> noise. Voice isn't.
> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>
> Do you deny that [s] and [f] contain noise?
They have nothing to do with vocal cords, so, so what?
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
> >> noise. Voice isn't.
> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>
> Do you deny that [s] and [f] contain noise?
António Marques
Sep 16, 2019, 12:04:21 PM9/16/19
to
Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:30:59 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>>> https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'têm'.
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:30:59 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>>
>> There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
>> three, he doesn't present @~j@~j, for which he actually had the têm
>> There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
>> example, nor its o~je~j counterpart from põem.
>
> August 2003:
> ==
> Like all SAMPA language pages, the SAMPA Portuguese page was compiled
> by native speakers of the relevant language (in this case,
> Portuguese).
>
> Nevertheless, I will check out the point you make.
> ==
>
> No further reply, and never corrected.
That could be due to any number of reasons.
> August 2003:
> ==
> Like all SAMPA language pages, the SAMPA Portuguese page was compiled
> by native speakers of the relevant language (in this case,
> Portuguese).
>
> Nevertheless, I will check out the point you make.
> ==
>
> No further reply, and never corrected.
Also, what did you originally write?
António Marques
Sep 16, 2019, 12:04:22 PM9/16/19
to
Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:30:59 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>>> https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/portug.htm, about 'têm'.
> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:30:59 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>>> For the same reason, there is still an error in
>>
>> There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
>
> Is that a contrast in a single speaker of one variant, or a contrast
> between variants?
I'm not aware of any variant in Portuguese territory that distinguishes
>> There's three - one, he meant 'tem', two, he can't contrast @~j with e~j,
>
> Is that a contrast in a single speaker of one variant, or a contrast
> between variants?
between @~j (ãe) and e~j (em). When there is any difference, it's between
stressed and unstressed, but even there it's small and there's never any
[e] involved.
>
>> three, he doesn't present @~j@~j, for which he actually had the têm
>> example, nor its o~je~j counterpart from põem.
>
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 17, 2019, 2:43:41 AM9/17/19
to
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" <gr..@..zon.net> scribeva:
>On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:15:43 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> >> noise. Voice isn't.
>> >
>> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>> >
>> >You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
>> >vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
>>
>> Again, how?
>
>How the hell should I remember, from a 40-years-ago phonetics class?
So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
>> You mentioned models -- unlikely to be accurate, for such a
>> complicated mechanism --, and corpses -- but they are unable to
>> perform the subtle muscle actions necessary to bring the vocal cords
>> into sounding position.
>>
>> >Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
>> >centuries now -- on the topic?
>>
>> Because that involved visits to universitities that have many book
>> stacked away somewhere, or buying book which I don it worth the money
>> and effort.
>
>Never heard of Google Books?
Checked it this morning. Alexander Melville Bell's works are mentioned, but cannot be consulted there, despite him having died in 1905, so there cannot be a copyright.
>Not quite a century of JASA is on JSTOR (started in 1929).
You want me to search ALL those years?
>> >Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
>> >Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
>>
>> You don't know, because you don't know what I do, and lack the skills
>> to judge that from what I write, because your lack of understanding is
>> in the way. Dunning-Kruger effect.
>
>I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
>hit-and-miss.
That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
>On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:15:43 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
>> >> noise. Voice isn't.
>> >
>> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
>> >
>> >You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
>> >vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
>>
>> Again, how?
>
>How the hell should I remember, from a 40-years-ago phonetics class?
Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
>> You mentioned models -- unlikely to be accurate, for such a
>> complicated mechanism --, and corpses -- but they are unable to
>> perform the subtle muscle actions necessary to bring the vocal cords
>> into sounding position.
>>
>> >Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
>> >centuries now -- on the topic?
>>
>> Because that involved visits to universitities that have many book
>> stacked away somewhere, or buying book which I don it worth the money
>> and effort.
>
>Never heard of Google Books?
>Not quite a century of JASA is on JSTOR (started in 1929).
>> >Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
>> >Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
>>
>> You don't know, because you don't know what I do, and lack the skills
>> to judge that from what I write, because your lack of understanding is
>> in the way. Dunning-Kruger effect.
>
>I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
>hit-and-miss.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 17, 2019, 2:45:20 AM9/17/19
to
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:27:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" <gr...@...on.net> scribeva:
Then why did you write:
"You simply do not know what you are talking about."
You are attacking me just for the sake of it, and you don't even know what about?
"You simply do not know what you are talking about."
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 17, 2019, 9:27:06 AM9/17/19
to
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:43:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" <gr..@..zon.net> scribeva:
> >On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:15:43 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
> >> >> noise. Voice isn't.
> >> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> >> >You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
> >> >vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
> >> Again, how?
> >How the hell should I remember, from a 40-years-ago phonetics class?
>
> So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
>
> Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" <gr..@..zon.net> scribeva:
> >On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:15:43 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >> Yes, hissing, an [s] and an [f], those are white noise, or rather pink
> >> >> noise. Voice isn't.
> >> >You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> >> >You have never heard the noise produced by the vocal chords when the
> >> >vocal tract is not above it. Experimenters have.
> >> Again, how?
> >How the hell should I remember, from a 40-years-ago phonetics class?
>
> So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
>
> Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
reference books.
Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
(which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
a description of how its nature was determined.
> >> You mentioned models -- unlikely to be accurate, for such a
> >> complicated mechanism --, and corpses -- but they are unable to
> >> perform the subtle muscle actions necessary to bring the vocal cords
> >> into sounding position.
> >> >Why do you refuse to consult the literature -- going back close to two
> >> >centuries now -- on the topic?
> >> Because that involved visits to universitities that have many book
> >> stacked away somewhere, or buying book which I don it worth the money
> >> and effort.
> >Never heard of Google Books?
>
> Checked it this morning. Alexander Melville Bell's works are mentioned, but cannot be consulted there, despite him having died in 1905, so there cannot be a copyright.
>
> >Not quite a century of JASA is on JSTOR (started in 1929).
>
> You want me to search ALL those years?
> >> >Hermann Helmholtz and Alexander Melville
> >> >Bell knew more about these matters than you do.
> >> You don't know, because you don't know what I do, and lack the skills
> >> to judge that from what I write, because your lack of understanding is
> >> in the way. Dunning-Kruger effect.
> >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
> >hit-and-miss.
>
> That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 17, 2019, 2:16:57 PM9/17/19
to
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:43:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
>>
>> Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
>> So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
>>
>> Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> reference books.
>
> Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
> Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
> diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
> (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
> a description of how its nature was determined.
That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
> People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> reference books.
>
> Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
> Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
> diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
> (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
> a description of how its nature was determined.
> > >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
> > >hit-and-miss.
> >
> > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
>
> Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 17, 2019, 2:50:42 PM9/17/19
to
unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 17, 2019, 7:56:26 PM9/17/19
to
Have you ever heard AutoTune? It sounds
> unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
like, but surely being "on" a specific pitch is intrinsic to most singing.
Even bad singers are attempting to hold a note.
The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
some kind of break, like a consonant.
(I have assumed AutoTune was a fad now finished, but perhaps the technology
has overcome this defect and I'm hearing it unawares.)
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 18, 2019, 4:36:44 AM9/18/19
to
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
>>> Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
>>> diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
>>> (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
>>> a description of how its nature was determined.
>> That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
<<
>>>>>I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
>>>>>hit-and-miss.
>>>> That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
>>>
>>> Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
>>
>> Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all
>> along.
>>
>> Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree.
>> Thanks.
>>> Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
>>> Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
>>> diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
>>> (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
>>> a description of how its nature was determined.
>> That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
<<
>>>>>I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
>>>>>hit-and-miss.
>>>> That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
>>>
>>> Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
>>
>> Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all
>> along.
>>
>> Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree.
>> Thanks.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:50:42 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> No, voice does not have A pitch.
It has constantly variable pitch, and at any given sizeless point in time (compare a dimensionless "point" in mathematics: no lengths, no width, no height), also known as "moment", that means voice has A pitch, one specific pitch, expressible in Hertz. But the next moment the pitch can be different, and often is.
> No, voice does not have A pitch.
> Have you ever heard AutoTune? It sounds
> unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
For you, "pitch" is only a constant pitch, lasting for a reasonable amount of time, and only if valid under the musical scale in use.
So any glissando in music make it temporarily pitchless? A note with vibrato is pitchless? A note sung or played slightly out of tune is pitchless? In my, that latter has the wrong pitch, but not "no pitch".
What do dictionaries say about "pitch"?
Collins, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pitch:
==
The pitch of a sound is how high or low it is.
"He raised his voice to an even higher pitch."
==
And further on:
==
29. music
a.
the auditory property of a note that is conditioned by its frequency relative to other notes
high pitch
low pitch
b.
an absolute frequency assigned to a specific note, fixing the relative frequencies of all other notes. The fundamental frequencies of the notes A–G, in accordance with the frequency A = 440 hertz, were internationally standardized and accepted in 1939
See also concert pitch (sense 1), international pitch
==
In fact, this dictionary contradicts itself, because the informal definition includes speech, and uses speech as an example, whereas the more formal definition is restricted to music, without mentioning speech.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 18, 2019, 4:42:05 AM9/18/19
to
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 1:56:26 AM UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
> like, [...]
> I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4QGPWLY-EM
Eiffel 65 - I'm blue with lyrics
From 0:33.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXRV4MezEw
Cher - Believe [Official Music Video]
0:36, 0:43, etc.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 18, 2019, 4:47:28 AM9/18/19
to
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 10:36:44 AM UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> What do dictionaries say about "pitch"?
>
> Collins, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pitch:
[...]
> What do dictionaries say about "pitch"?
>
> Collins, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pitch:
> In fact, this dictionary contradicts itself, because the informal definition includes speech, and uses speech as an example, whereas the more formal definition is restricted to music, without mentioning speech.
<
==
4 [...]
b(1) : the property of a sound and especially a musical tone that is determined by the frequency of the waves producing it : highness or lowness of sound
(2) : a standard frequency for tuning instruments
c(1) : the difference in the relative vibration frequency of the human voice that contributes to the total meaning of speech
(2) : a definite relative pitch that is a significant phenomenon in speech
==
I use 4b(1). It's about sounds, musical and otherwise, so inlcuding speech. I also often men sense 4c(2).
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 18, 2019, 6:03:07 AM9/18/19
to
those examples would suggest a voice being "forced onto a specific
pitch", as PTD put it. In "Believe" (1998) the AutoTune is quite obviously
being used for its novelty effect, not as a cosmetic, since Cher
can actually sing.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 18, 2019, 10:07:33 AM9/18/19
to
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:50:42 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:16:57 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:43:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >> So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> > > > reference books.
> > > >
> > > > Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
> > > > Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
> > > > diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
> > > > (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
> > > > a description of how its nature was determined.
> > >
> > > That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
> > >
> > > > > >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
> > > > > >hit-and-miss.
> > > > >
> > > > > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
> > > >
> > > > Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
> > >
> > > Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all along.
> > >
> > > Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
> >
> > No, voice does not have A pitch.
>
> He said "voice has pitch", which is true.
Review the thread.
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:50:42 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:16:57 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:43:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >> So you insist on nonsense, emphatically trying to depict me as ignorant and incompetent, based on lessons you can't even remember?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is that fair? Is that how people should be treated, in your view?
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> > > > reference books.
> > > >
> > > > Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
> > > > Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
> > > > diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
> > > > (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
> > > > a description of how its nature was determined.
> > >
> > > That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
> > >
> > > > > >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
> > > > > >hit-and-miss.
> > > > >
> > > > > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
> > > >
> > > > Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
> > >
> > > Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all along.
> > >
> > > Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
> >
> > No, voice does not have A pitch.
>
> He said "voice has pitch", which is true.
> Have you ever heard AutoTune? It sounds
> > unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
>
> I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
> like, but surely being "on" a specific pitch is intrinsic to most singing.
> Even bad singers are attempting to hold a note.
> The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
> between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
> I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
> to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
> some kind of break, like a consonant.
> (I have assumed AutoTune was a fad now finished, but perhaps the technology
> has overcome this defect and I'm hearing it unawares.)
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 18, 2019, 2:31:49 PM9/18/19
to
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:03:06 -0700 (PDT): "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 8:42:05 PM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 1:56:26 AM UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> > I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
>> > like, [...]
>>
>> Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4QGPWLY-EM
>> Eiffel 65 - I'm blue with lyrics
>> From 0:33.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXRV4MezEw
>> Cher - Believe [Official Music Video]
>> 0:36, 0:43, etc.
>
>Yes, I know what AutoTune sounds like. I still don't know what in
>those examples would suggest a voice being "forced onto a specific
>pitch", as PTD put it.
Well, it's not matter of suggestions, it is simply what I hear
happening, and what the device does.
In other words, I don't understand the question or problem. For me,
there is none.
>In "Believe" (1998) the AutoTune is quite obviously
>being used for its novelty effect, not as a cosmetic, since Cher
>can actually sing.
Yes.
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 8:42:05 PM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 1:56:26 AM UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> > I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
>> > like, [...]
>>
>> Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4QGPWLY-EM
>> Eiffel 65 - I'm blue with lyrics
>> From 0:33.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXRV4MezEw
>> Cher - Believe [Official Music Video]
>> 0:36, 0:43, etc.
>
>Yes, I know what AutoTune sounds like. I still don't know what in
>those examples would suggest a voice being "forced onto a specific
>pitch", as PTD put it.
happening, and what the device does.
In other words, I don't understand the question or problem. For me,
there is none.
>In "Believe" (1998) the AutoTune is quite obviously
>being used for its novelty effect, not as a cosmetic, since Cher
>can actually sing.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 18, 2019, 2:37:51 PM9/18/19
to
benlizro wrote:
>> The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
>> between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
>> I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
>> to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
>> some kind of break, like a consonant.
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
>> between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
>> I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
>> to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
>> some kind of break, like a consonant.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>You don't know anything about singing either, then.
Benlizro is 100% right in what he writes. With the proviso that the
slide may be fast.
So I wonder: what does PTD understand about singing? He was wrong
about the speech voice, so ...
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 18, 2019, 2:51:55 PM9/18/19
to
completely false.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 18, 2019, 4:34:01 PM9/18/19
to
> > Have you ever heard AutoTune? It sounds
> > > unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
> >
> > I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
> > like, but surely being "on" a specific pitch is intrinsic to most singing.
> > Even bad singers are attempting to hold a note.
>
> If you have never heard AutoTune, don't comment.
> > The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
> > between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
> > I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
> > to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
> > some kind of break, like a consonant.
>
> You don't know anything about singing either, then.
> > (I have assumed AutoTune was a fad now finished, but perhaps the technology
> > has overcome this defect and I'm hearing it unawares.)
>
> Clearly not.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 18, 2019, 4:41:33 PM9/18/19
to
that you know of one or more other ways?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 18, 2019, 4:53:48 PM9/18/19
to
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 2:07:33 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:50:42 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:16:57 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> > > > > > reference books.
> > > > > > Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
> > > > > > Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
> > > > > > diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
> > > > > > (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
> > > > > > a description of how its nature was determined.
> > > > > That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
> > > > > > > >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
> > > > > > > >hit-and-miss.
> > > > > > > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
> > > > > > Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
> > > > > Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all along.
> > > > > Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
> > > > No, voice does not have A pitch.
> > > He said "voice has pitch", which is true.
> > Review the thread.
>
> No, I don't think I will. Make your point.
He said things that were not so.
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 2:07:33 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:50:42 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:16:57 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > People who can't be assed (as they say in England) to look in basic
> > > > > > reference books.
> > > > > > Try D. B. Fry, *The Physics of Speech* (Cambridge Textbooks in
> > > > > > Linguistics, 1979), pp.63ff. You will see a highly simplified
> > > > > > diagram showing the basic noise as a periodic triangular wave
> > > > > > (which apparently can't be called "white noice"), along with
> > > > > > a description of how its nature was determined.
> > > > > That's right, anything periodic is not noise (white, pink, whatever). Noise has a continuous spectrum (any frequency occurs in it), while a period signal (sine wave, block, saw-tooth, triangle, or in general any wave form that repeats) has a spectrum that consists of frequencies that are all integer multiples of the fundamental.
> > > > > > > >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
> > > > > > > >hit-and-miss.
> > > > > > > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
> > > > > > Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
> > > > > Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all along.
> > > > > Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
> > > > No, voice does not have A pitch.
> > > He said "voice has pitch", which is true.
> > Review the thread.
>
> No, I don't think I will. Make your point.
> > > Have you ever heard AutoTune? It sounds
> > > > unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
> > > I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
> > > like, but surely being "on" a specific pitch is intrinsic to most singing.
> > > Even bad singers are attempting to hold a note.
> > If you have never heard AutoTune, don't comment.
>
> I have heard AutoTune, and I don't need your permission to comment.
>
> > > The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
> > > between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
> > > I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
> > > to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
> > > some kind of break, like a consonant.
> > You don't know anything about singing either, then.
>
> You had a couple of singing lessons once and you think you know everything.
20+ years (including the one that took First Prize in the first [and
only] Johnny Mann Great American Choral Festival [which was held on
the campus of The Ohio State University in Columbus in 1984]).
And a lifetime of listening.
> > > (I have assumed AutoTune was a fad now finished, but perhaps the technology
> > > has overcome this defect and I'm hearing it unawares.)
> > Clearly not.
>
> Which part of that is "clearly not"?
today's popular music, but I am exposed to it intermittently on NPR
and weekly on SNL. AutoTune has not gone away or become unobtrusive.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 18, 2019, 4:54:49 PM9/18/19
to
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 18, 2019, 6:08:31 PM9/18/19
to
> > > > Have you ever heard AutoTune? It sounds
> > > > > unnatural _because it forces a voice onto a specific pitch_.
> > > > I have no idea what "forcing" a voice onto a specific pitch would sound
> > > > like, but surely being "on" a specific pitch is intrinsic to most singing.
> > > > Even bad singers are attempting to hold a note.
> > > If you have never heard AutoTune, don't comment.
> >
> > I have heard AutoTune, and I don't need your permission to comment.
> >
> > > > The main thing that sounds unnatural about AutoTune is that the transitions
> > > > between notes are too abrupt. They sound like a keyboard instrument, which
> > > > I guess is what they are. An actual voice gets from one pitch
> > > > to another either by sliding through intermediate frequencies, or via
> > > > some kind of break, like a consonant.
> > > You don't know anything about singing either, then.
> >
> > You had a couple of singing lessons once and you think you know everything.
>
> Three years of voice lessons, participation in choirs and choruses for
> 20+ years (including the one that took First Prize in the first [and
> only] Johnny Mann Great American Choral Festival [which was held on
> the campus of The Ohio State University in Columbus in 1984]).
that contradicts what I said.
> And a lifetime of listening.
> > > > (I have assumed AutoTune was a fad now finished, but perhaps the technology
> > > > has overcome this defect and I'm hearing it unawares.)
> > > Clearly not.
> >
> > Which part of that is "clearly not"?
>
> "fad" and "hearing unawares." I don't know what exposure you have to
> today's popular music, but I am exposed to it intermittently on NPR
> and weekly on SNL. AutoTune has not gone away or become unobtrusive.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 18, 2019, 6:14:09 PM9/18/19
to
a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 2:42:42 AM9/19/19
to
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:51:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>"An actual voice gets from one pitch to another either by sliding through
>intermediate frequencies, or via some kind of break, like a consonant" is
>completely false.
OK, so tell us how this DOES work and happen.
>intermediate frequencies, or via some kind of break, like a consonant" is
>completely false.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 2:45:51 AM9/19/19
to
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:53:46 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>Three years of voice lessons, participation in choirs and choruses for
>20+ years (including the one that took First Prize in the first [and
>only] Johnny Mann Great American Choral Festival [which was held on
>the campus of The Ohio State University in Columbus in 1984]).
>
>And a lifetime of listening.
With a tin ear.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> > > > > > > >I know that, like any auto-didact, your knowledge is scattershot, or
>> > > > > > > >hit-and-miss.
>> > > > > > > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
>> > > > > > Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
>> > > > > Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all along.
>> > > > > Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
>> > > > No, voice does not have A pitch.
>> > > He said "voice has pitch", which is true.
>> > Review the thread.
>>
>> No, I don't think I will. Make your point.
>
>He said things that were not so.
Which, and where?
>> > > > > > > >hit-and-miss.
>> > > > > > > That may well be, but in this particular case I am right. Better admit it.
>> > > > > > Which particular factoid are you claiming is "right"?
>> > > > > Already clear. You just admitted, backed by a Book, that I was right all along.
>> > > > > Voice has pitch, is a periodic signal, and is not noise. We now agree. Thanks.
>> > > > No, voice does not have A pitch.
>> > > He said "voice has pitch", which is true.
>> > Review the thread.
>>
>> No, I don't think I will. Make your point.
>
>He said things that were not so.
>Three years of voice lessons, participation in choirs and choruses for
>20+ years (including the one that took First Prize in the first [and
>only] Johnny Mann Great American Choral Festival [which was held on
>the campus of The Ohio State University in Columbus in 1984]).
>
>And a lifetime of listening.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 19, 2019, 8:59:50 AM9/19/19
to
sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
(If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 11:14:40 AM9/19/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
>> a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
>
>Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
>sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
>
>Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
Never heard of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRS2grauL4I
Right, that. Irritating style of singing.
Fast sildes, but not absent slides. Simply because vocal cord tension
has to be adjusted, which requires musle action and bone movement.
Physical laws prohibit making a change in zero seconds.
Slideless is possible: using a fretted instrument. But the human voice
has no frets.
>A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
>the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
>slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
Clearly audible slides here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfxddl3k0GU
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
>> a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
>
>Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
>sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
>
>Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRS2grauL4I
Right, that. Irritating style of singing.
Fast sildes, but not absent slides. Simply because vocal cord tension
has to be adjusted, which requires musle action and bone movement.
Physical laws prohibit making a change in zero seconds.
Slideless is possible: using a fretted instrument. But the human voice
has no frets.
>A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
>the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
>slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfxddl3k0GU
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 11:15:17 AM9/19/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>(If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
Senseless insults do not win you an argument.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 11:16:51 AM9/19/19
to
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 19, 2019, 1:07:38 PM9/19/19
to
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:14:40 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> >> a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
> >Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
> >sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
> >Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
>
> Never heard of it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRS2grauL4I
> Right, that. Irritating style of singing.
Too bad you're "irritated" by proper singing.
> Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> >> a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
> >Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
> >sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
> >Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
>
> Never heard of it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRS2grauL4I
> Right, that. Irritating style of singing.
> Fast sildes, but not absent slides. Simply because vocal cord tension
> has to be adjusted, which requires musle action and bone movement.
> Physical laws prohibit making a change in zero seconds.
> Slideless is possible: using a fretted instrument. But the human voice
> has no frets.
>
> >A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
> >the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
> >slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
>
> Clearly audible slides here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfxddl3k0GU
the only one you could find that was so sloppy?
> >(If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
to Mozart or Donizetti or Wagner.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 19, 2019, 1:10:16 PM9/19/19
to
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:51 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJWcrU2S0L0
>
> Irritating. Not slideless.
You dare to offer Christina Aguilera as an example of quality singing?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJWcrU2S0L0
>
> Irritating. Not slideless.
She does the "sliding" that Ross mentioned and that is one of the things
that makes almost all pop singing unlistenable.
I did not stay more than 5 seconds to find out who nos. 4, 3, 2, and 1
would be.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 3:10:06 PM9/19/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:10:14 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:51 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJWcrU2S0L0
>>
>> Irritating. Not slideless.
>
>You dare to offer Christina Aguilera as an example of quality singing?
No. Of "Melismatic" Singers. As the title, not chosen by me, implies.
>She does the "sliding" that Ross mentioned and that is one of the things
>that makes almost all pop singing unlistenable.
But it's still melismatic.
>I did not stay more than 5 seconds to find out who nos. 4, 3, 2, and 1
>would be.
You hate this music as much as me, so we finally have something in
common.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:51 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJWcrU2S0L0
>>
>> Irritating. Not slideless.
>
>You dare to offer Christina Aguilera as an example of quality singing?
>She does the "sliding" that Ross mentioned and that is one of the things
>that makes almost all pop singing unlistenable.
>I did not stay more than 5 seconds to find out who nos. 4, 3, 2, and 1
>would be.
common.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 3:12:53 PM9/19/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Mozart was an amateur without talent. He could not stand in the shadow
of proper composers like Clemens non Papa, Bartók, Bach, Chopin, The
Beatles, Sándor Járóka, Khatchaturian.
of proper composers like Clemens non Papa, Bartók, Bach, Chopin, The
Beatles, Sándor Járóka, Khatchaturian.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 3:14:24 PM9/19/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >(If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
>
>Since you hate Handel, it's likely you've never even _tried_ to listen
>to Mozart or Donizetti or Wagner.
I don't hate Händel, some parts are palpable. But he is overrated.
Mozart however is largely all crap.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >(If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
>
>Since you hate Handel, it's likely you've never even _tried_ to listen
>to Mozart or Donizetti or Wagner.
Mozart however is largely all crap.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 19, 2019, 3:15:14 PM9/19/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:12:50 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:
scribeva:
>Mozart was an amateur without talent. He could not stand in the shadow
>of proper composers like Clemens non Papa, Bartók, Bach, Chopin, The
>Beatles, Sándor Járóka, Khatchaturian.
Glazounov, not to forget.
>of proper composers like Clemens non Papa, Bartók, Bach, Chopin, The
>Beatles, Sándor Járóka, Khatchaturian.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 19, 2019, 3:24:20 PM9/19/19
to
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 3:10:06 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:10:14 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:51 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJWcrU2S0L0
> >> Irritating. Not slideless.
> >You dare to offer Christina Aguilera as an example of quality singing?
>
> No. Of "Melismatic" Singers. As the title, not chosen by me, implies.
>
> >She does the "sliding" that Ross mentioned and that is one of the things
> >that makes almost all pop singing unlistenable.
>
> But it's still melismatic.
Yeah, and a novel by James Patterson is "literature."
> Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:10:14 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:51 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJWcrU2S0L0
> >> Irritating. Not slideless.
> >You dare to offer Christina Aguilera as an example of quality singing?
>
> No. Of "Melismatic" Singers. As the title, not chosen by me, implies.
>
> >She does the "sliding" that Ross mentioned and that is one of the things
> >that makes almost all pop singing unlistenable.
>
> But it's still melismatic.
> >I did not stay more than 5 seconds to find out who nos. 4, 3, 2, and 1
> >would be.
>
> You hate this music as much as me, so we finally have something in
> common.
bad example that you thought represented the concept badly.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 19, 2019, 5:41:51 PM9/19/19
to
Dr. HotSalt
Sep 19, 2019, 10:07:54 PM9/19/19
to
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 10:09:57 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
> question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
> up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
> only rising.)
>
> The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
> [u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
> frequency formant.
>
> If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
> people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
> but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
> of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
> parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
> happen?
>
> My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
> relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
> determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
> in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
> the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
>
> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
How do you think throatsinging works?
Dr. HotSalt
> Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
> question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
> up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
> only rising.)
>
> The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
> [u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
> frequency formant.
>
> If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
> people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
> but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
> of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
> parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
> happen?
>
> My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
> relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
> determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
> in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
> the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
>
> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
How do you think throatsinging works?
Dr. HotSalt
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 19, 2019, 10:57:00 PM9/19/19
to
a vccal drone (usually) whose pitch is determined by the vocal chords.
The supralaryngeal cavities reinforce individual harmonics, sequenced
to produce a melody. What you hear is a whistling tone, not a vowel
or consonant. So throat-"singing" cannot have words.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 20, 2019, 2:14:33 AM9/20/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:24:18 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
I didn't choose, Youtube led me to this example after I looked for
"Nowell" and/or "melismatic".
"Nowell" and/or "melismatic".
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 20, 2019, 2:19:40 AM9/20/19
to
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:07:53 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
<alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
<alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
>> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
>
> How do you think throatsinging works?
I don't exactly know, but anyway, it is a very special case.
>> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
>
> How do you think throatsinging works?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 20, 2019, 8:37:24 AM9/20/19
to
consult a physiological phonetician.
The simple fact is that singers train for years to make any transitions
perfectly inaudible. If you won't believe that, then you're like Franz's
favorite example of the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's
telescope.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 20, 2019, 6:18:40 PM9/20/19
to
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:37:24 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 5:41:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 12:59:50 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:14:09 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
> > > > Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> > > > a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
> > > Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
> > > sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
> > > Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
> > > A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
> > > the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
> > > slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
> > > (If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
> >
> > So you are unable to explain it. Instead you offer more condescending snot.
>
> "Explanation" is not the job of the listener. If you want an "explanation,"
> consult a physiological phonetician.
One might have thought that after your extensive training and
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 5:41:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 12:59:50 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:14:09 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
> > > > Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> > > > a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
> > > Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
> > > sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
> > > Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
> > > A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
> > > the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
> > > slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
> > > (If you've never heard an opera aria, there's nothing I can do for you.)
> >
> > So you are unable to explain it. Instead you offer more condescending snot.
>
> "Explanation" is not the job of the listener. If you want an "explanation,"
> consult a physiological phonetician.
experience you would have come to some understanding of how it is done.
But no. And instead we have one of your characteristic moves when forced
to admit ignorance -- insist indignantly that the question is illegitimate:
You're not a (whatever specialist you claim should know the answer). In
this case, you're just a "listener". Yet you apparently knew enough about it
to declare that my statement was wrong.
> The simple fact is that singers train for years to make any transitions
> perfectly inaudible.
> If you won't believe that, then you're like Franz's
> favorite example of the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's
> telescope.
don't have a telescope.
Let's just go back to what we know, and what we might speculate.
(And keep in mind we're talking about singing in general, not just what you quaintly term "quality singing".)
A singer can get from one note to another by sliding through the
intermediate pitches. This is, of course, considered a fault in
some types of singing. But the slide can be very rapid, and possibly
even muted, so as to be less obtrusive.
There may well be a consonant (or more) at the transition point.
What the consonant does (I'm guessing, from self-observation) is
make possible (or perhaps mask) a very brief relaxation of the
vocal chords, out of canonical voice mode, so that they can be
re-set to the new pitch.
One can, of course, sing a tune on "a-a-a-a" without apparent
sliding. How does that work?
Sometimes in such singing one hears something like an initial [h]
or its voiced (murmured) equivalent. Perhaps this is the (unmasked)
relaxation I was talking about.
That's as far as I can take my speculation. I'm pretty sure phoneticians
must have studied this, but so far I haven't found anything.
Dr. HotSalt
Sep 21, 2019, 12:41:57 AM9/21/19
to
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:07:54 PM UTC+12, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 10:09:57 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
> > > question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
> > > up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
> > > only rising.)
> > >
> > > The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
> > > [u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
> > > frequency formant.
> > >
> > > If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
> > > people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
> > > but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
> > > of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
> > > parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
> > > happen?
> > >
> > > My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
> > > relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
> > > determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
> > > in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
> > > the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
> > >
> > > I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> > > weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
> >
> > How do you think throatsinging works?
>
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:07:54 PM UTC+12, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 10:09:57 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > Consider the word "How?", said with a rising intonation to indicate a
> > > question. (Well, in fact this particular type of question has an
> > > up-down pattern in English, but let's assume a language in which it is
> > > only rising.)
> > >
> > > The [a]-like element of the diphthong has mid frequency formants, the
> > > [u]-like element that follows has at least one conspicuous low
> > > frequency formant.
> > >
> > > If, as Peter T. Daniels insists, the vocal chords themselves, when
> > > people are speaking instead of singing, have no pitch of their own,
> > > but pitch is conditioned by the vocal tract, how is this combination
> > > of lowering formants, and rising intonation physically achieved? Which
> > > parts of the vocal tract make what kind of motions to make this
> > > happen?
> > >
> > > My answer is: they don't. Pitch is determined by tensioning or
> > > relaxing the vocal chords. Vowel formants on the other hand are
> > > determined by the size (length being the most important) of cavities
> > > in throat, mouth and nose, parameters which can be changed by varying
> > > the position of the tongue and lips (and the larynx, in some cases).
> > >
> > > I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> > > weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
> >
> > How do you think throatsinging works?
>
> Throat-singing is not a counter-example to what Ruud says. It uses
> a vccal drone (usually) whose pitch is determined by the vocal chords.
> The supralaryngeal cavities reinforce individual harmonics, sequenced
> to produce a melody. What you hear is a whistling tone, not a vowel
> or consonant.
A throatsinger can alter the pitch of the harmonics easily.
> a vccal drone (usually) whose pitch is determined by the vocal chords.
> The supralaryngeal cavities reinforce individual harmonics, sequenced
> to produce a melody. What you hear is a whistling tone, not a vowel
> or consonant.
Does the fundamental "drone" also has to change for that to happen?
> So throat-"singing" cannot have words.
Dr. HotSalt
Dr. HotSalt
Sep 21, 2019, 12:43:54 AM9/21/19
to
There is a fundamental tone, of which harmonics are generated by manipulating the throat and buccal cavities.
A throatsinger can alter the harmonics smoothly.
Does the fundamental also have to be altered for that to happen?
Dr. HotSalt
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 21, 2019, 1:02:42 AM9/21/19
to
switch between harmonics. If you change the pitch of the voice (which you
do in the normal way), the harmonics will follow.
> > So throat-"singing" cannot have words.
>
> I'm guessing you haven't listened to much throatsinging.
'throaty' tone, but while the high 'whistling' melody is going on
he will not be singing words. In the above remark I was taking the
high part as the "singing". There are no words in that. If you
know of a contrary example, I'd like to hear about it.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 21, 2019, 1:08:34 AM9/21/19
to
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:43:54 PM UTC+12, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:19:40 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:07:53 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
> > <alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> > >> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
> > >
> > > How do you think throatsinging works?
> >
> > I don't exactly know, but anyway, it is a very special case.
>
> Why?
>
> There is a fundamental tone, of which harmonics are generated by manipulating the throat and buccal cavities.
No. The harmonics are _part_ of the base sound generated by the
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:19:40 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:07:53 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
> > <alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
> > >> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
> > >
> > > How do you think throatsinging works?
> >
> > I don't exactly know, but anyway, it is a very special case.
>
> Why?
>
> There is a fundamental tone, of which harmonics are generated by manipulating the throat and buccal cavities.
larynx. What the cavities do is reinforce/amplify one harmonic
(at a time) to the point where we hear it as a separate pitch rather
than just part of the tone colour.
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 21, 2019, 4:04:19 AM9/21/19
to
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:12:53 PM UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> Mozart was an amateur without talent. He could not stand in the shadow
> of proper composers like Clemens non Papa, Bartók, Bach, Chopin, The
> Beatles, Sándor Járóka, Khatchaturian.
>
Hey hey hey. Try to find a Mozart piece played in dialogical manner (I don't
>
> Mozart was an amateur without talent. He could not stand in the shadow
> of proper composers like Clemens non Papa, Bartók, Bach, Chopin, The
> Beatles, Sándor Járóka, Khatchaturian.
>
know if there is a terminus technicus). I can't listen to Mozart all smoothed
over, ten seconds and my attention fades, wanders off. But when they work
out dialogues, people arguing with each other, it's great fun. Recently I heard
a sonata or something, sounded like a garden party in a noble house, the
patriarch, corpulous, a deep voice, the women of the house, a boy, a girl,
cheeky, and visitors - great fun. I can't stand operas, but The Magic Flute
directed by Armin Jordan with contrasting voices was just great. Also,
neurological studies show that Mozart had a natural gift of finding the right
notes.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 21, 2019, 6:28:47 AM9/21/19
to
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 21:41:55 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
<alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
Does have words. Harmonics are unusually strong, but the melody is
still the fundamental.
Most of the time, that is. Listen from 1:48, thát is the real thing,
and thén there are no more words.
<alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> Throat-singing is not a counter-example to what Ruud says. It uses
>> a vccal drone (usually) whose pitch is determined by the vocal chords.
>> The supralaryngeal cavities reinforce individual harmonics, sequenced
>> to produce a melody. What you hear is a whistling tone, not a vowel
>> or consonant.
>
> A throatsinger can alter the pitch of the harmonics easily.
>
> Does the fundamental "drone" also has to change for that to happen?
>
>> So throat-"singing" cannot have words.
>
> I'm guessing you haven't listened to much throatsinging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmo3fKeveo
>> a vccal drone (usually) whose pitch is determined by the vocal chords.
>> The supralaryngeal cavities reinforce individual harmonics, sequenced
>> to produce a melody. What you hear is a whistling tone, not a vowel
>> or consonant.
>
> A throatsinger can alter the pitch of the harmonics easily.
>
> Does the fundamental "drone" also has to change for that to happen?
>
>> So throat-"singing" cannot have words.
>
> I'm guessing you haven't listened to much throatsinging.
Does have words. Harmonics are unusually strong, but the melody is
still the fundamental.
Most of the time, that is. Listen from 1:48, thát is the real thing,
and thén there are no more words.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 21, 2019, 6:32:57 AM9/21/19
to
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:02:40 -0700 (PDT): "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
Confirms what you write. No words, no vowels, while the harmonics
highlighting is taking place.
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>I have listened to a lot. The singer may sing words in the low,
>'throaty' tone, but while the high 'whistling' melody is going on
>he will not be singing words. In the above remark I was taking the
>high part as the "singing". There are no words in that. If you
>know of a contrary example, I'd like to hear about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8hrhBZJ98
>'throaty' tone, but while the high 'whistling' melody is going on
>he will not be singing words. In the above remark I was taking the
>high part as the "singing". There are no words in that. If you
>know of a contrary example, I'd like to hear about it.
Confirms what you write. No words, no vowels, while the harmonics
highlighting is taking place.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 21, 2019, 6:35:04 AM9/21/19
to
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 21:43:52 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
spectrum made by the vocal cords.
> A throatsinger can alter the harmonics smoothly.
>
> Does the fundamental also have to be altered for that to happen?
No, of course not. Can, but need not.
<alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:19:40 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:07:53 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
>> <alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
>> >> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
>> >
>> > How do you think throatsinging works?
>>
>> I don't exactly know, but anyway, it is a very special case.
>
> Why?
>
> There is a fundamental tone, of which harmonics are generated by manipulating the throat and buccal cavities.
Not generated. Strengthened from what was already there in the
>On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:19:40 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:07:53 -0700 (PDT): "Dr. HotSalt"
>> <alie...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >> I am still very much convinced that in this discussion, now a few
>> >> weeks back, I was right and PTD was wrong.
>> >
>> > How do you think throatsinging works?
>>
>> I don't exactly know, but anyway, it is a very special case.
>
> Why?
>
> There is a fundamental tone, of which harmonics are generated by manipulating the throat and buccal cavities.
spectrum made by the vocal cords.
> A throatsinger can alter the harmonics smoothly.
>
> Does the fundamental also have to be altered for that to happen?
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 21, 2019, 6:35:31 AM9/21/19
to
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:08:32 -0700 (PDT): "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>> There is a fundamental tone, of which harmonics are generated by manipulating the throat and buccal cavities.
>
>No. The harmonics are _part_ of the base sound generated by the
>larynx. What the cavities do is reinforce/amplify one harmonic
>(at a time) to the point where we hear it as a separate pitch rather
>than just part of the tone colour.
Exactly.
>
>No. The harmonics are _part_ of the base sound generated by the
>larynx. What the cavities do is reinforce/amplify one harmonic
>(at a time) to the point where we hear it as a separate pitch rather
>than just part of the tone colour.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 21, 2019, 6:52:47 AM9/21/19
to
>No. The harmonics are _part_ of the base sound generated by the
>larynx. What the cavities do is reinforce/amplify one harmonic
>(at a time) to the point where we hear it as a separate pitch rather
>than just part of the tone colour.
There’s some explanation of the techniques used, from this point down:
>larynx. What the cavities do is reinforce/amplify one harmonic
>(at a time) to the point where we hear it as a separate pitch rather
>than just part of the tone colour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_throat_singing#Sygyt
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 21, 2019, 9:31:02 AM9/21/19
to
First Nowell." There are melismas in "Angels We Have Heard On High."
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 21, 2019, 12:21:33 PM9/21/19
to
Sat, 21 Sep 2019 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
apparently I didn't.
==
>>> So you investigated the concept in bad faith.
If that is bad faith, then I fail to understand that concept too. So
be it, no hope for me.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >So you investigated the concept in bad faith. You deliberately chose a
>> >bad example that you thought represented the concept badly.
>>
>> I didn't choose, Youtube led me to this example after I looked for
>> "Nowell" and/or "melismatic".
>
>Why on earth would you have done that? There are no melismas in "The
>First Nowell." There are melismas in "Angels We Have Heard On High."
Below is what you posted. I thought after googling I understood, but
>> >bad example that you thought represented the concept badly.
>>
>> I didn't choose, Youtube led me to this example after I looked for
>> "Nowell" and/or "melismatic".
>
>Why on earth would you have done that? There are no melismas in "The
>First Nowell." There are melismas in "Angels We Have Heard On High."
apparently I didn't.
==
> Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
==
> a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
>>> So you investigated the concept in bad faith.
be it, no hope for me.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 21, 2019, 12:54:17 PM9/21/19
to
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:21:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 21 Sep 2019 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >So you investigated the concept in bad faith. You deliberately chose a
> >> >bad example that you thought represented the concept badly.
> >>
> >> I didn't choose, Youtube led me to this example after I looked for
> >> "Nowell" and/or "melismatic".
> >
> >Why on earth would you have done that? There are no melismas in "The
> >First Nowell." There are melismas in "Angels We Have Heard On High."
>
> Below is what you posted. I thought after googling I understood, but
> apparently I didn't.
>
> ==
> > Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> > a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
>
> Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
> sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
>
> Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
>
> A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
> the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
> slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
> ==
A melisma is many notes for one vowel. Two =/= many.
> Sat, 21 Sep 2019 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >So you investigated the concept in bad faith. You deliberately chose a
> >> >bad example that you thought represented the concept badly.
> >>
> >> I didn't choose, Youtube led me to this example after I looked for
> >> "Nowell" and/or "melismatic".
> >
> >Why on earth would you have done that? There are no melismas in "The
> >First Nowell." There are melismas in "Angels We Have Heard On High."
>
> Below is what you posted. I thought after googling I understood, but
> apparently I didn't.
>
> ==
> > Well, perhaps you can oblige us with an account of how, in reality,
> > a singing voice gets from one pitch to another?
>
> Anyone who can't sing a scale without either sliding or breaking the
> sound would never make it onto a stage. Physiologically? No.
>
> Maybe you've never heard a melisma.
>
> A song you may be familiar with that has two notes on each of most of
> the first several syllables is "The First Nowell." Do you hear either
> slides or breaks in any decent rendition of it?
> ==
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 23, 2019, 2:50:09 AM9/23/19
to
different, I remember now. The music evoked a wealthy family giving a tea
in the garden, father, mother, a boy and a little girl, a corpulent uncle,
other guests, and Mozart. A lively discussion goes on, the funniest contrast
being the deep 'voice' of the overbearing uncle and the high one of the feisty
girl. I imagine how Mozart listens, hears the voices turn into a concerto,
then hurries home and dashes the notes on paper ... If a director has a sense
for different voices, Mozart is great.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 23, 2019, 4:53:13 AM9/23/19
to
- Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira
spoke.
- The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
- Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that
can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
- Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense
logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
- You have not been able to present us with either evidence or
conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn
over people who have demanded such things.
- On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents
have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be
"nachvollzogen".
- Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and
comparison of the languages involved.
- On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches
of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic
language.You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
spoke.
- The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
- Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that
can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
- Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense
logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
- You have not been able to present us with either evidence or
conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn
over people who have demanded such things.
- On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents
have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be
"nachvollzogen".
- Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and
comparison of the languages involved.
- On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches
of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic
language.You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 24, 2019, 2:56:10 AM9/24/19
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Sep 24, 2019, 3:15:33 AM9/24/19
to
an inmate doesn't allow you access to such a dangerous object, but I
expect you can find one in the men's toilets of the Zurich public
library.
--
athel
Arnaud Fournet
Sep 25, 2019, 2:33:10 AM9/25/19
to
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 25, 2019, 3:14:57 AM9/25/19
to
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 25, 2019, 3:22:22 AM9/25/19
to
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 25, 2019, 3:23:51 AM9/25/19
to
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:33:10 AM UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> Toilet walls bear a lot of Magdalenian pictographs, in general.
Thank you for having no scientific arguments against Magdalenian, only your
>
> Toilet walls bear a lot of Magdalenian pictographs, in general.
notorious coprolalia. Confirms me.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 25, 2019, 3:39:45 AM9/25/19
to
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 25, 2019, 3:40:03 AM9/25/19
to
Arnaud Fournet
Sep 25, 2019, 10:18:59 AM9/25/19
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Sep 25, 2019, 12:05:41 PM9/25/19
to
--
athel
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 26, 2019, 3:07:08 AM9/26/19
to
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 4:18:59 PM UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> Your own coprolalia is notorious too, possibly yet worse ...
Wot? give a quote. I got scientific arguments and don't need scatology.
>
> Your own coprolalia is notorious too, possibly yet worse ...
And, by the way, why do I get entangled in another silly meta-discussion
because I reported my personal experience of listening to Mozart? You guys
are nöd ganz bache, as we say in Switzerland.
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 26, 2019, 3:08:37 AM9/26/19
to
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:05:41 PM UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> What gate do you imagine I formerly kept? What power do you think I have lost?
>
Haven't you been an editor? publishing an issue of a journal on Lynn Margulis?
> What gate do you imagine I formerly kept? What power do you think I have lost?
>
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 26, 2019, 3:40:39 AM9/26/19
to
1) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira
spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
3) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that
can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
4) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
5) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn
over people who have demanded such things.
6) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents
over people who have demanded such things.
have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be
"nachvollzogen".
7) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and
"nachvollzogen".
comparison of the languages involved.
8) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 26, 2019, 3:41:29 AM9/26/19
to
1) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira
spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
3) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that
can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
4) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
5) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn
over people who have demanded such things.
6) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents
over people who have demanded such things.
have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be
"nachvollzogen".
7) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and
"nachvollzogen".
comparison of the languages involved.
8) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Sep 26, 2019, 5:06:40 AM9/26/19
to
I'm still an editor of the journal in question.
Editors of serious journals don't just make decisions, they give
reasons, and attend sympathetically to authors who contest them. You
don't do any of that; you just repeat the same old garbage again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again, without ever addressing any of the
objections raised to it.
Nowhere enough agains there, but you get the idea.
--
athel
António Marques
Sep 26, 2019, 9:13:32 AM9/26/19
to
National Public Radio, and even then they have to simmer for a few months
in the broth of his mind until the details get all fuzzy.
Franz Gnaedinger
Sep 27, 2019, 2:52:10 AM9/27/19
to
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 11:06:40 AM UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> I think you exaggerate the amount of power that gave me. In any case,
> I'm still an editor of the journal in question.
>
What did I says? gatekeeper. Many editors of print media complain about losing
> I think you exaggerate the amount of power that gave me. In any case,
> I'm still an editor of the journal in question.
>
their public, and some even concede that their role of gatekeepers is over,
but it doesn't have consequences, they go on in their way. I know your sort
all toooooo well. And if my work were garbage, as you say, you could certainly
pick up a big blunder of mine and show me that you know better, actually know
better, not just claiming that you do.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Sep 27, 2019, 5:50:41 AM9/27/19
to
1) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira
spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
- hide quoted text -
spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
3) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that
can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
4) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
5) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn
over people who have demanded such things.
6) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents
over people who have demanded such things.
have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be
"nachvollzogen".
7) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and
"nachvollzogen".
comparison of the languages involved.
8) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches
- hide quoted text -
0 new messages