Unison is not a term to be defined emotionally

Since when did the definition of unison entail actual acoustic conditions of
pitch fluctuations, vibratos or glissandos in a real performance? We are
trying to pinpoint the theoretically correct explanation of unison here that
applies to all ideal conditions.

And never mind the minute variations that do not in the least affect our
conception. Glaring errors by any two musicians trying to sound a unison is
not the fault of the unison.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 02 Mart 2006 Per�embe 21:36
Subject: [tuning] Sheesh, terminology arguments again

> I don't want to repeat myself, but everyone's arguing about terminolgy
with the whole zero
> thing. Who cares?
>
> The point is if someone is describing one perception that can be shown to
differ from a
> different perception then we should all work together to come up with a
name or way to
> describe the two so we can communicate well.
>
> On the other hand, if we are debating whether a term can apply or not to a
single
> perception, but it isn't helping us describe the difference of the
perception from other
> perceptions, then GIVE IT UP. What's the point?
>
> Put simply: if two parts are one two notes and then come to a unison, how
is it perceived?
> I can think of a lot of possibilities: one where we still hear them as
distinct, one in which
> they fuse, and a whole range of a mix in between. We can describe what
factors will affect
> where on this line the perception results, but we can't deny that the same
sounds may be
> perceived differently on this same line from person to person or even from
moment to
> moment or between each time listening. So it is useful to describe this
line between
> fusing and distinction between two notes of a unison. And it is useful to
discuss the
> factors that push it one way or another. I doubt anybody would deny the
existence of this
> range of perception. So how about discussing what factors lead to what
perception, and
> then when we have an idea what we're talking about, we can apply names to
things for the
> sake of communication. Instead, it appears people are wrapped up in
arguing about the
> names before they've clarified the ideas. We could be working together to
find what we're
> descibing in common, and then helping each other to find the best way to
communicate
> about it.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Since when did the definition of unison entail actual acoustic conditions of
> pitch fluctuations, vibratos or glissandos in a real performance? We are
> trying to pinpoint the theoretically correct explanation of unison here that
> applies to all ideal conditions.
>
> And never mind the minute variations that do not in the least affect our
> conception. Glaring errors by any two musicians trying to sound a unison is
> not the fault of the unison.
>

That's exactly what I'm saying! Except for this: unison is a word. If we have two different
definitions, then we can figure out if we are explaining two different things. If so, we need
two different terms. It's just for communication. In other words, there is absolutely no
reason that two people, each descibing a different idea should either one care what word
is used to describe it, as long as they both end up with a way to communicate their unique
ideas. So there's no reason to argue. Just work together to clarify meaning so we all have
useful words. If "unison" alone doesn't express to me what you mean, don't try to tell me
that you've changed the definition of unison, unless everyone has agreed to use that
change. Because it's all about communication, right?

I wasn't saying unison involves those performance issues, I was saying that if those are
factors in our musical discussion, we need words to define the difference between
perceptions based on those things and the other perceptions we're talking about.

Emotional does not equal perceptual. And if you are claiming that words like unison or
even the idea behind them even exist without perception, I have to disagree. Unisons did
not exist before people. Unison is an idea. Not a reality. Well- that is unless we define
unison as simply the existence of identical frequency waves coming from discreet sources
at the same moment in time. But if that's all it is, then what's with the big discussion?

-Aaron