I do not object, and have never objected, to scientific (to use a handy
catch-all term) postings to this list. The more varied the
contributions the better IMHO, so I would vote against splitting the
list up.
I did respond vociferously to repeated postings that stated strongly,
even unequivocally, that one can boil everything about the sound of a
shakuahchi to the bore dimensions, and that one can therefore perfectly
replicate any traditionally-made bamboo shakuhachi in plastic or any
other material. If I seemed inflexible in my attitude it just *may*
have been a reaction to what I perceived to be an equally inflexible
and hubristic attitude on the part of the person making those claims,
especially since I've heard this before in other forms, but have yet to
see any evidence to support it and have seen a fair amount of evidence
to the contrary. THe same goes for the breathing comments--I know for a
fact that playing shakuhachi doesn work the out breath muscles, that it
is not just a matter of relaxing the diaphragm (especially muraiki!),
so, again, based on my experience, I took issue with that and responded
in the strongest terms. I apologize if my passion clouded my reason.
I do think however that I did my best to refrain from ad hominem
attacks, despite having been subjected to them (trust me, I've put up
with much worse, as no doubt have all of us). But, for the person who
provided us with the definition (of a word that I am unfortunately all
too familiar with) to therefore brand me as some kind of culture nazi
and/or "crazy" (even in the oblique way it was done) has left me with a
bitter taste in my mouth that perhaps only a few more months of blowing
honkyoku can remove. We'll see if that works; until then, I promise you
won't hear another peep out of me so no need to worry about my old
fashioned thinking (never mind my poor listening habits and propensity
to fantisizing etc etc etc) muddying up the clarity of the scientists
out there.
Peter
--- Mark Millonas <millonas@email.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> So far you are the only one who has said this, and I have gotten
> about 30
> off-list email
> asking us to please keep it on the list "in spite of the crazies".
> But having
> a new list solves both problems.
>
> At 08:16 AM 9/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Marko, thanks for doing this. My inbox was filling up with all of
> the
> >physics discussions that I am only mildly interested in hearing
> about but
> >not on a daily basis. Setting up a separate home was great!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Lynne Nicholson
> >
> > >From: Mark Millonas
> > >Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
> > >To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
> > >Subject: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
> > >Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:45:04 -0700
> > >
> > >Hi:
> > >
> > >Some of us have decided to move the physics discussion of bores in
> > >relation to the shak elsewhere.
> > >If it isn't too annoying I will just relate here my first posting
> > >*there* so in case there
> > >is anyone on this list that likes the topic and flavor (at least
> as
> > >exemplified by this
> > >one posting) they can join us or listen in. I also do this with
> the
> > >hopes that some of the musician
> > >and shak makers might help us out on some things if it look like
> > >anything they might be interested in.
> > >I promise not to post anymore acoustics related (but perhaps
> > >culturally charged) stuff here anymore.
> > >
> > >Anyway, first post at ShakuhachiDesign@yahoogroups.com, last post
> > >here.
> > >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >A possible place to start a discussion might be the following
> paper:
> > >A. H. Benade. On woodwind instrument bores, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
> > >31(2):137-146 (1959).
> > >Unfortunately it is BPDF (before pdf) so the only way to get a
> copy
> > >is to go to a university library,
> > >or I could scan it if anyone can tell me how to post it here.
> > >
> > >I think this might be a good place to start both because the
> results
> > >in the paper are particularly simple and because it methodology is
> a
> > >simple
> > >example of the one I originally proposed: define the required
> > >acoustic features then infer the bores that fit those features.
> > >His results are for close-ended woodwinds, but I can go home and
> see
> > >if I can re-do all the proofs for open ended bores. That
> > >is, unless someone can point me to a place where this has already
> > >been done.
> > >
> > >There are two acoustic features that Benade uses and will be
> > >immediately recognizable to the musician with
> > >no mathematical training whatsoever: (1) The first and second
> > >resonance of a bore (lower and second register) should have
> > >frequencies in the ration of 1:2 (play at exactly one octave
> apart)
> > >and (2) that (1) should hold if you "chop" the bore down to
> > >any length (that is, for any fingering where all the holes are
> > >closed up to a certain point). So the criteria are that the flute
> > >play in tune
> > >in the first and second registers for all the basic notes.
> > >
> > >Criteria (1) requires that the bore have the shape where the
> > >cross-sectional area depend exponentially
> > >on the length S(x) ~ x^a (a Bessel horn), where a is called the
> > >flare constant.
> > >If we add (2) this then a = 0 and a = 2 are the *only* shapes that
> > >*exactly* satisfy these two requirements.
> > >These are cylinders and cones. The shak doesn't fit either of
> these
> > >two categories, but
> > >(generally speaking) is a cylinder connected to a reverse cone,
> > >connected to something that looks along like a Bessel flair
> > >with a>2.
> > >
> > >It is possible that there are some major compromises going on here
> > >in terms of playing, but
> > >there are also several ways of relaxing the criteria that could
> also
> > >explain the shape.
> > >For example, in the shak we don't need the registers to be in tune
> > >for arbitrary lengths
> > >of bore, but only for specified lengths corresponding to the notes
> > >of the scale: that is for
> > >5 lengths of corresponding to the pentatonic scale. Because of
> this
> > >the
> > >shape (based just on these most simple criteria) could be morphed.
> > >So within this "wiggle room"
> > >what kind of shapes would be allowed, and are there any that come
> > >close to the traditional shak shape.
> > >This is something that could be explored mathematically is anyone
> is
> > >clever enough, but could also
> > >be explore via the computer. Furthermore, more experience shak
> > >makers my already have a "feel" for this
> > >wiggle room, and perhaps they could comment on this, if they are
> > >willing.
> > >
> > >
> > >By the way, hopefully nobody remembers but I said something stupid
> a
> > >while back. It *IS* the peaks
> > >of the input impedance (not the minima) that correspond to the
> > >resonance because that's
> > >where the wave bound around and build up rather than pass right
> > >through.
> > >Sorry about that.
> > >
> > >Marko
> > >
> > >
> > >_____________________________________________
> > >
> > >List subscription information is at:
> > >http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
> >
> >
> >----------
> ><http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2728??PS=>High-speed Internet access as
> low as
> >$29.95/month*. Click here.
> >*Depending on the local service providers in your area.
> >_____________________________________________ List subscription
> >information is at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
>
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> List subscription information is at:
> http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:35 PST