Re: Re: Re: Re: Pedal?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Klaus on March 09, 2002 at 13:03:50:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Pedal? posted by Sean Chisham on March 09, 2002 at 11:42:24:

The second part of your posting very well might reflect the everyday use of the term "pedal".

But I have to disagree with your opening statement of definition. If one tries to understand the physics of musical instruments, then one must call the fundamental "the first partial".

The Pythagorean 1-2-3-4- and so on divisions of an oscillating string can only be understood, if one actually calls the fundamental "the first partial".

If we keep ourselves within positive "whole" numbers, 1 is the lowest legal divisor. But also one that we must take into consideration.

Brass instruments are unique in so far, that they are the only instruments, that augment the length of their oscillating "string" by means of valve loops or extending slides. Hence the pedal range must be notes derived from the pedal=fundamental. Hence only notes below the fundamental. (strings and woodwinds both shorten their oscillating "strings").

The notes you include into pedal range are derivatives of the 2nd partial, hence DD is a "pedal" note on neither CC nor BBb tubas. But it is a pedal on F and Eb tubas.

Decades ago I have worked with math and physics on a decent level. You have worked within the very exact area of computers. Don’t you sometimes feel, that musicians a creative and cunning people, but not having verbal exactness as their greatest asset?

This posting is definitely not meant to be insultative, but I realise there is a danger, that it can be perceived that way. Because verbal exactness is something I usually master. But not in English.

Klaus


Follow Ups: