cognative dissonance

[Stephen Faulk]

Stephen, I am sure people can learn about something by doing whatever they please. No skin of my nose there. But my approach to this is that in order to crack this problem, one needs to be able to describe it exactly. In other words, one needs to be able to articulate what's the difference between a Top Strad and a "good" violin and a Top Strad and a VSA winner. 

 

 

 

This is not possible Carl.

 

The sound of an instrument is a separate language of it's own and to describe it with words is false if not impossible. If it were possible to describe the sound of a violin with spoken language then violinmaking would not be nessesary. You can only make an abstract description and even factual sonic data is an abstraction of what is real. Sonic data only illustrates the language of the violin voice. 

 

There is a scene in the movie The Deer Hunter where one of the actors holds up bullet and says "This means this."  That is how it is, the sound of a violin is like that bullet. It means nothing else. And to get a sound you have to make the instrument. You can't think it into existence.

 

But then I hear there are people who can bend spoons with their minds. 

 

A bullet travels at a certain velocity and then smacks it's target. Describing the route is fine, not same as aiming the bullet. 

[Don Noon]

One sure way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to not actually do anything which might shoot holes in your beliefs.

 

You can believe you can make a VSA tone-winning violin, and maintain that belief by not doing it.

You can believe that it is a solvable problem to define the sound of a Strad, until you actually try to do it.

 

I am preparing myself for my third massive dose of cognitive dissonance by entering the VSA competition.  As in the previous two times, I go in thinking what I have sounds pretty good.  Rude awakenings are just an unpleasant necessity if you don't want to live in dreamland forever.    

[Carl Stross]

This is not possible Carl.

 

The sound of an instrument is a separate language of it's own and to describe it with words is false if not impossible. If it were possible to describe the sound of a violin with spoken language then violinmaking would not be nessesary. You can only make an abstract description and even factual sonic data is an abstraction of what is real. Sonic data only illustrates the language of the violin voice. 

 

 

""one needs to be able to articulate what's the difference between a Top Strad and a "good" violin and a Top Strad and a VSA winner""

[Carl Stross]

One sure way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to not actually do anything which might shoot holes in your beliefs.

 

You can believe you can make a VSA tone-winning violin, and maintain that belief by not doing it.

You can believe that it is a solvable problem to define the sound of a Strad, until you actually try to do it.

 

I am preparing myself for my third massive dose of cognitive dissonance by entering the VSA competition.  As in the previous two times, I go in thinking what I have sounds pretty good.  Rude awakenings are just an unpleasant necessity if you don't want to live in dreamland forever.    

 

It hasn't been established yet that "VSA tone-winning violin" is what Top Player prefers instead of the usual crappy Strad. You have nothing to worry about.

Strange enough, I found no recording of some meaningful piece of music on a VSA winner. Maybe somebody could point me to one. 

I'm plenty curious when it comes to that.

[Stephen Faulk]

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Even a single bowed note on a string can be dissonant or in harmony with itself.  The effect is called "autodissonance":

 

 

A bowed violin string produces a saw tooth wave form which is made up of the upper harmonics which have frequencies which are multiples of the fundamental frequency f: 1f, 2f, 3f,….nf where n is the harmonic number.  There might be about 20 or 30 noticeable harmonics.  The amplitude of each harmonic follows a 1/n rule thus the amplitudes of the harmonics are 1/1, 1/2, 1/3… and so on.

 

A natural bowed string saw tooth wave sound, unfiltered actually sounds quite irritating. It may be perceived as harsh, rough or raspy which are not what you might like for a violin or any other instrument.

 

It is helpful to look at the ratios of two consecutive harmonics of a bowed note and assume they have the same amplitude for the moment. The second harmonic and the fundamental form a ratio of 2/1 and are an octave interval and this gives a very pleasing smooth harmony effect.  The ratio of 3/2 from the third and second harmonic is called a "just perfect fifth" and it sounds almost as nice as the 2/1 octave.  The next ratio is 4/3 is a "just perfect fourth" which isn't quite as harmonious as the previous 3/2 ratio.  The 5/4 is a "just major third".  The 6/5 is a just minor third and the sound is beginning to give a sad or uneasy feeling as the sound begins to sound rougher.

 

Each successively higher ratio gives more and more dissonance or roughness. 9/8 is quite rough and the highest amount of dissonance occurs with the 16/15 ratio but after that the dissonance begins to decrease and the combinations get smoother and smoother sounding as the ratio approaches exactly one or unison.

I forgot to mention that the dissonance roughness caused by the higher harmonics is perhaps the reason why many good instruments have a steep roll off in their frequency response curves which gives a low "f" region in Duennwald's graphs.

[Stephen Faulk]

 

 

I am preparing myself for my third massive dose of cognitive dissonance by entering the VSA competition.  As in the previous two times, I go in thinking what I have sounds pretty good.  Rude awakenings are just an unpleasant necessity if you don't want to live in dreamland forever.    

 

""one needs to be able to articulate what's the difference between a Top Strad and a "good" violin and a Top Strad and a VSA winner""

 

 

This always cracks me up. Like when a classical guitarist complains about a guitar not having enough volume and then hands it to another player and it explodes with volume.  

 

You don't really have to be able to articulate the difference between instruments, that is what listening is for.  It's like a Yogi Berra saying: “You can observe a lot just by watching.”

 

Same goes for hearing.  You can hear a lot just by listening.  It's all interior work, once you hear, no need to explain it.  You hear the difference, and spoken language to describe it is secondary. Spoken language is good for telling someone else you like this better than that, but not the same as hearing. 

[Carl Stross]

 

 

This always cracks me up. Like when a classical guitarist complains about a guitar not having enough volume and then hands it to another player and it explodes with volume.  

 

You don't really have to be able to articulate the difference between instruments, that is what listening is for.  It's like a Yogi Berra saying: “You can observe a lot just by watching.”

 

Same goes for hearing.  You can hear a lot just by listening.  It's all interior work, once you hear, no need to explain it.  You hear the difference, and spoken language to describe it is secondary. Spoken language is good for telling someone else you like this better than that, but not the same as hearing. 

 

If I can't articulate it in some sort of spoken language, how on Earth am I going to construct some sort of mathematical formula around some sort of physical phenomena, I delude myself might be responsible for what I could hear ??????

 

Or should I just "get on with it" and hope the next one might be better, based on some sort of vague intuition ?  You know, the kind of stuff being dome for some 250 years by now. Since BEFORE Strad died.

Sooner or later, one needs to match tonal intentions with wood availability. How's one going to do that ? Intuition ?  Through "experience" ?? "Flexology" and "Twistology" ??? 

 

Basically, what is it you are trying to communicate here ? That because YOU don't hear it, it doesn't exist ? By the way, you CAN hear a lot just by listening - the question is listening to what exactly ? 

Did you know by the way that not getting enough tone out of a violin, which for another player works perfectly, is a very common problem in violin playing ? 

 

Here's what Jaques Thibaud says :

 

"But I do not think that every one plays to 

the best advantage on a Strad. I'm a believer in the theory that there are natural Guarner- ius players and natural Stradivarius players; that certain artists do their best with the one, and certain others with the other. And I also believe that any one who is 'equally' good in both, is great on neither. The reason I believe in Guarnerius players and Stradivarius play- ers as distinct is this. Some years ago I had a sudden call to play in Ostende. It was a concert engagement which I had overlooked, and when it was recalled to me I was playing golf in Brittany. I at once hurried to Paris to get my violin from Caressa, with whom I had left it, but — his safe, in which it had been put, and to which he only had the combina- tion, was locked. Caressa himself was in Milan. I telegraphed him but found that he could not get back in time before the concert to release my violin. So I telegraphed Ysaye at Namur, to ask if he could loan me a violin for the concert. 'Certainly' he wired back. So I hurried to his home and, with his usual gen- erosity, he insisted on my taking both his treas- ured Guarnerius and his 'Hercules' Strad (afterwards stolen from him in Russia), in order that I might have my choice. His broth- er-in-law and some friends accompanied me from Namur to Ostende — no great distance — to hear the concert. Well, I played the Guar- nerius at rehearsal, and when it was over, every one said to me, 'Why, what is the matter with your fiddle? (It was the one Ysaye al- ways used.) It has no tone at all.' At the concert I played the Strad and secured a big tone that filled the hall, as every one assured me. When I brought back the violins to Ysaye I mentioned the circumstance to him, and he was so surprised and interested that he took them from the cases and played a bit, first on one, then on the other, a number of times. And invariablj^ when he played the Strad (which, by the way, he had not used for years) he, Ysaye — imagine it! — could develop only a small tone; and when he played the Guarne- rius, he never failed to develop that great, sonorous tone we all know and love so well. Take Sarasate, when he lived, Elman, myself — ^we all have the habit of the Stradivarius : on the other hand Ysaye and Kreisler are Guarnerius players par excellence! ""

Now, what should I make of your guitar example ?

[bcncello]

""one needs to be able to articulate what's the difference between a Top Strad and a "good" violin and a Top Strad and a VSA winner""

Why is the sound comparision versus a "top strad" needed? I mean, it could be interesting to articulate the architectural differences. Is it because the sound of a "top strad" is by itself the definition of the perfect violin sound?

 

If so then I understand your need to articulate that.

[Carl Stross]

Why is the sound comparision versus a "top strad" needed? I mean, it could be interesting to articulate the architectural differences. Is it because the sound of a "top strad" is by itself the definition of the perfect violin sound?

 

If so then I understand your need to articulate that.

 

In my incompetent opinion, yes. Top Strad is the Gold Standard all others are judged against. By people who's opinion actually matters.

[bcncello]

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance.htm

I think that although the existence of cognitive dissonances, perhaps an "inner equilibrium" is preserved due to the use of wrong reasoning or fallacies:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[bcncello]

Here's what Jaques Thibaud says :

 

"But I do not think that every one plays to 

the best advantage on a Strad. I'm a believer in the theory that there are natural Guarner- ius players and natural Stradivarius players; that certain artists do their best with the one, and certain others with the other. And I also believe that any one who is 'equally' good in both, is great on neither. The reason I believe in Guarnerius players and Stradivarius play- ers as distinct is this. Some years ago I had a sudden call to play in Ostende. It was a concert engagement which I had overlooked, and when it was recalled to me I was playing golf in Brittany. I at once hurried to Paris to get my violin from Caressa, with whom I had left it, but — his safe, in which it had been put, and to which he only had the combina- tion, was locked. Caressa himself was in Milan. I telegraphed him but found that he could not get back in time before the concert to release my violin. So I telegraphed Ysaye at Namur, to ask if he could loan me a violin for the concert. 'Certainly' he wired back. So I hurried to his home and, with his usual gen- erosity, he insisted on my taking both his treas- ured Guarnerius and his 'Hercules' Strad (afterwards stolen from him in Russia), in order that I might have my choice. His broth- er-in-law and some friends accompanied me from Namur to Ostende — no great distance — to hear the concert. Well, I played the Guar- nerius at rehearsal, and when it was over, every one said to me, 'Why, what is the matter with your fiddle? (It was the one Ysaye al- ways used.) It has no tone at all.' At the concert I played the Strad and secured a big tone that filled the hall, as every one assured me. When I brought back the violins to Ysaye I mentioned the circumstance to him, and he was so surprised and interested that he took them from the cases and played a bit, first on one, then on the other, a number of times. And invariablj^ when he played the Strad (which, by the way, he had not used for years) he, Ysaye — imagine it! — could develop only a small tone; and when he played the Guarne- rius, he never failed to develop that great, sonorous tone we all know and love so well. Take Sarasate, when he lived, Elman, myself — ^we all have the habit of the Stradivarius : on the other hand Ysaye and Kreisler are Guarnerius players par excellence! ""

That's clearly a logical fallacy (argument from authority)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

[Carl Stross]

That's clearly a logical fallacy (argument from authority)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

No. It MIGHT be a fallacious argument. You haven't proven IT IS. Until you do that, I'll tend to take seriously the opinions of the premier violin players of recent and present times.

Joachim, Sarasate, Yssaye, Kreisler, Thibaud, Enesco, Heifetz, Menuhin, Huberman, Elman, Szeryng, Ferras, Grumieux, Oistrakh, Hendel, ASM, Kavakos, Faust etc etc etc

might know better than you or I. ( and I could treble that list.. ). When EVERYBODY who's actually considered TOP plays on the same two names, reasonable people get

the idea. Not getting the idea leads to cognitive dissonance.

[Violadamore]

Not getting the idea leads to cognitive dissonance.

No, it leads to buying "Markies" and Burgess, etc.  Saves one a load of money, too.  Has, however no application as to whether or not you should be off generating fine shavings. 

[Carl Stross]

No, it leads to buying "Markies" and Burgess, etc.  

 

...he'll never forgive you for this one. 

[James M. Jones]

I forgot to mention that the dissonance roughness caused by the higher harmonics is perhaps the reason why many good instruments have a steep roll off in their frequency response curves which gives a low "f" region in Duennwald's graphs.

Sorry to take so long responding , Interesting points thanks for sharing, I take it ...the disharmonic content of  Drums and cymbal is the same effect? Like Steve Nicks voice (see nasal thread) , is not something an analysis might find as Ideal or attractive , yet somehow in reality is quite to the contrary.  Do you think that role off could be caused by lower disharmonics not fostering the higher end..so that less propagation happens?

[Violadamore]

...he'll never forgive you for this one. 

Naaaah.  I even left David plenty of wiggle room, which I'm sure he'll use brilliantly (if he sees it, of course).

[Carl Stross]

Naaaah.  I even left David plenty of wiggle room, which I'm sure he'll use brilliantly (if he sees it, of course).

 

This might help. Sales. 

 

[Stephen Faulk]

Carl your lovely story about Thibaux and Ysaye is anecdotal evidence. If Thibaux had no choice but to play on a del Gesu he would have adapted and learned to play it, or he would not be a great violinist. That story works for your purpose because you cherry picked what you want to get out of it. 

 

All I'm saying, and repeating, is that at the end of the day a complete way of thinking about making instrument includes a tactile component in the thinking process.  Take it or leave it as my idea and I've used this concept to counter your argument that pure thinking will accomplish the same thing. 

 

I can't prove to you that you are wrong, but I can counter argue. Through the process of arguing each side a third product appears, the readers synthesis of both sides. 

 

 

Data or formulas that describe the qualities of sound of instruments are illustrative charts, like a recipe for making a complicated baked good. But that recipe was not arrived at by backwards engineering an apple tart and trying to figure out how it was baked by thinking about it. Apple tart recipes are created by baking apple tarts over and over, hands on. 

 

 

Baking or thinning a top is the same thing. You may have a good recipe and follow it to the letter, but that does not mean tactile experience is unneeded. A chef tastes the soup base along the way and a maker of instruments uses tactile means to gauge how the work is coming along. Recipes are personal. 

[bcncello]

No, it leads to buying "Markies" and Burgess, etc.  Saves one a load of money, too. 

It was a bulgarian one in my case plus a respectable dörfler bow 

[Frederick Dale]

The range of this thread reminds me of those hours I slept through in my philosophy classes.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Sorry to take so long responding , Interesting points thanks for sharing, I take it ...the disharmonic content of  Drums and cymbal is the same effect? Like Steve Nicks voice (see nasal thread) , is not something an analysis might find as Ideal or attractive , yet somehow in reality is quite to the contrary.  Do you think that role off could be caused by lower disharmonics not fostering the higher end..so that less propagation happens?

The dissonance effect for many percussion instruments (bells, marimba bars, wind chimes, drums, cymbals etc) is different because the frequencies of the higher modes of vibration are normally not exact multiples of the lowest mode's frequency unless they are carefully tuned.  These mismatches cause some amount of dissonance depending upon how many and how badly they fail to be tuned to exact multiples.  A marimba bar sounds very smooth whereas a cymbal sounds rough so the amount of dissonance isn't good or bad--just a different desired effect.

 

A bowed string is different in that the modes of vibration of the upper harmonics are indeed naturally exact multiples of the lowest mode's vibration (that's why its called the "fundamental" frequency) so the sequence is f, 2f, 3f...etc.  All of these are in tune with each other and you would think that when added all together to form a saw tooth wave the result would be a smooth, mellow, harmonious sound but this is not the case.  As I mentioned earlier,  the string's upper harmonic's ratios become rough sounding or dissonant.

 

The violin body can filter out some of the string's upper harmonics and can help determine if the violin is mellow or strident sounding.  Again, the amount of dissonance liked is a matter of taste.

 

I highly recommend the book "Why You Hear What You Hear - an experimental approach to sound, music, and psychoacoustics" by Eric J. Heller if you are curious about these type of things.  If you don't believe what he says it probably means you have some cognative dissonance.  And to add varnish to the fire I'll point out that Heller is Professor of Physics at Harvard University.

[Dean_Lapinel]

It' has been awhile since I have visited Maestronet. It's oddly comforting that my quote reply button still doesn't work.

Anyway-

Craig- Nice opening post.

Michael- Like your quote "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.". It ties into one of my favorites "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

I think that awareness of cognitive dissonance AND awareness of critical thinking (common sense/logical thinking and evaluation)are attributes that have become quite rare in our society.

[Violadamore]

I think that awareness of cognitive dissonance AND awareness of critical thinking (common sense/logical thinking and evaluation)are attributes that have become quite rare in our society.

What's this "our", kemo sabe?   I would opine that most of those of us who still show those traits are effectively members of a dissenting subculture, and no longer graze with the herd. 

[Craig Tucker]

What's this "our", kemo sabe?   I would opine that most of those of us who still show those traits are effectively members of a dissenting subculture, and no longer graze with the herd. 

 

Ah yes, but what happens when, "those that no longer graze with the herd", have become the model for the new herd.

As has happened more that once in history, and will continue to happen - always and forever?

Huh?

What then?