words to describe guitar timbre

[Ra]

hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.
If you're interested, complete the survey at:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/prepilotintro.php

And if you think it worthwhile, pass it on to anyone interested. I'm
closing it on October 16.
It's not essential to fill out your personal details, but it would be
great if you could fill out how long you've been playing music for at
least (occupation is an interesting one---I've had quite a range so
far!)
Kind Regards,
Ra Inta

[Tim Panting]

How about 'plunky'.

Ahem.

TP

Post by Ra
hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/prepilotintro.php
And if you think it worthwhile, pass it on to anyone interested. I'm
closing it on October 16.
It's not essential to fill out your personal details, but it would be
great if you could fill out how long you've been playing music for at
least (occupation is an interesting one---I've had quite a range so
far!)
Kind Regards,
Ra Inta

[John Wasak]

Post by Ra
hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.

Well, Ra, you're in luck. As it so happens, just this week, I paid a
little visit to the jail where still is incarcerated the infamous Luthier X.
Now, if anybody could hype...er, I mean, describe.. the complex timbre
repoduced by a good acoustic guitar, well, it was Luthier X! As it turned
out, we talked a lot about guitars during my visit, so many of his
descriptions are still fresh in my mind. Of course, as always, Luthier X
referred to his guitars as "Paragons of plucking pleasure" and "Euphonious
emmiters of earthly delight" but he also gave some other, much more complex,
descriptions such as :

"That low E string was dark but not muddy with a rather rich resonance to
the overtones that provided a thumpin' good thwallop that could leave ya'
drooling in the corner."

"On the whole, playing that guitar will make you say 'OOOOOOHHHHH!' and
have you wanting to take it places you normally wouldn't, like the frozen
food aisle at D'Agostino's market."

"This guitar possses a light, modern sound that has an airiness and
roundness to it that surpasses that which was found in your first
basketball."

"The way the B booms out in the way-up upper partials is a little bit of
Heaven on Rye."

"The sound, like a tonal tapenade, is so scrumptious as to make dangerously
underfed players woozily sway and swoon."

"The trebles on this guitar lend it a priority of presence with a light
attack that can bring you one step closer to your heavenly reward without
your ever having to leave the living room."

"Just one zing of the string and you'll realize this guitar is a curvacious
wooden object of remarkably unrestrained undulating UUUMPH!"

"The sheer sonic splendor of this guitar will be apparent to you the first
time you play a G major barre in front of the mirror and realize it adds a
three-dimensional visual enchancement to your stage persona."

and finally

"This guitar is a plucking powerhouse that chimes like the End of Round bell
at a Mike Tyson fight - when you hear it you'll want to pay more ...and I"ll
let ya'!...triple, at least...hahahahah!!!"


Now, after reading that last one, is it any surprise that Luthier X is still
in jail?!


jw

Post by Ra
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/prepilotintro.php
And if you think it worthwhile, pass it on to anyone interested. I'm
closing it on October 16.
It's not essential to fill out your personal details, but it would be
great if you could fill out how long you've been playing music for at
least (occupation is an interesting one---I've had quite a range so
far!)
Kind Regards,
Ra Inta

[Ra]

Post by John Wasak

Post by Ra
hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.

Well, Ra, you're in luck. As it so happens, just this week, I paid a
little visit to the jail where still is incarcerated the infamous Luthier X.
Now, if anybody could hype...er, I mean, describe.. the complex timbre
repoduced by a good acoustic guitar, well, it was Luthier X! As it turned
out, we talked a lot about guitars during my visit, so many of his
descriptions are still fresh in my mind. Of course, as always, Luthier X
referred to his guitars as "Paragons of plucking pleasure" and "Euphonious
emmiters of earthly delight" but he also gave some other, much more complex,

etc etc.
(many examples of colourful attempts to describe the quality of a
sound from an acoustic guitar being played)

Post by John Wasak
jw

Thank you for your contribution, John.
One of the main motives for this research is exactly because there is
so many B.S. ways to try and describe the complex sensation
experienced in response to a good (or otherwise!) acoustic guitar
sound. I am fully aware that there is a range of descriptions of a
sound, ranging from something YOU might think was a reasonable
attempt, to those YOU might find quite ridiculous.

All I can hope for is to weed out those more ridiculous terms in order
to obtain a smaller working lexicon of terms that a number of people
agree on.

It's true that Luthier X will probably come up with some overly
creative descriptions, but it is hopeful that Luthier X2,X3,X4 etc.
would agree, to some degree, that some terms used by Luthier X were
ridiculous---by some sort of concensus, as opposed to a merely
individual opinion.
Not a perfect method, but better than none......
Ra

[John Wasak]

Post by Ra
etc etc.
(many examples of colourful attempts to describe the quality of a
sound from an acoustic guitar being played)
Thank you for your contribution, John.
One of the main motives for this research is exactly because there is
so many B.S. ways to try and describe the complex sensation
experienced in response to a good (or otherwise!) acoustic guitar
sound. I am fully aware that there is a range of descriptions of a
sound, ranging from something YOU might think was a reasonable
attempt, to those YOU might find quite ridiculous.
All I can hope for is to weed out those more ridiculous terms in order
to obtain a smaller working lexicon of terms that a number of people
agree on.
It's true that Luthier X will probably come up with some overly
creative descriptions, but it is hopeful that Luthier X2,X3,X4 etc.
would agree, to some degree, that some terms used by Luthier X were
ridiculous---by some sort of concensus, as opposed to a merely
individual opinion.
Not a perfect method, but better than none......
Ra

Yeah. When it comes to the ridiculous, I'm your man, Ra. Ask anybody.

Well, anyway, best of luck with establishing a lexicon of terms.


jw

[Tim Panting]

Just look at the way winetasters describe the different sensations etc. of
their subject.

It's similar with musical instruments, though probably not as colourful.

TP

Post by John Wasak

Post by Ra
etc etc.
(many examples of colourful attempts to describe the quality of a
sound from an acoustic guitar being played)
Thank you for your contribution, John.
One of the main motives for this research is exactly because there is
so many B.S. ways to try and describe the complex sensation
experienced in response to a good (or otherwise!) acoustic guitar
sound. I am fully aware that there is a range of descriptions of a
sound, ranging from something YOU might think was a reasonable
attempt, to those YOU might find quite ridiculous.
All I can hope for is to weed out those more ridiculous terms in order
to obtain a smaller working lexicon of terms that a number of people
agree on.
It's true that Luthier X will probably come up with some overly
creative descriptions, but it is hopeful that Luthier X2,X3,X4 etc.
would agree, to some degree, that some terms used by Luthier X were
ridiculous---by some sort of concensus, as opposed to a merely
individual opinion.
Not a perfect method, but better than none......
Ra

Yeah. When it comes to the ridiculous, I'm your man, Ra. Ask anybody.
Well, anyway, best of luck with establishing a lexicon of terms.
jw

[Ra]

Post by Tim Panting
Just look at the way winetasters describe the different sensations etc. of
their subject.
It's similar with musical instruments, though probably not as colourful.
TP

Post by John Wasak

Post by Ra
etc etc.
(many examples of colourful attempts to describe the quality of a
sound from an acoustic guitar being played)
Thank you for your contribution, John.
One of the main motives for this research is exactly because there is
so many B.S. ways to try and describe the complex sensation
experienced in response to a good (or otherwise!) acoustic guitar
sound. I am fully aware that there is a range of descriptions of a
sound, ranging from something YOU might think was a reasonable
attempt, to those YOU might find quite ridiculous.
All I can hope for is to weed out those more ridiculous terms in order
to obtain a smaller working lexicon of terms that a number of people
agree on.
It's true that Luthier X will probably come up with some overly
creative descriptions, but it is hopeful that Luthier X2,X3,X4 etc.
would agree, to some degree, that some terms used by Luthier X were
ridiculous---by some sort of concensus, as opposed to a merely
individual opinion.
Not a perfect method, but better than none......
Ra

Yeah. When it comes to the ridiculous, I'm your man, Ra. Ask anybody.
Well, anyway, best of luck with establishing a lexicon of terms.
jw

Exactly! winetasting was the best analogy for timbre I could think
of....Even though the actual taste *could* be descibed with roughly 4
parameters (sweet, sour, bitter and salty) it's complicated by the
texture, colour, solubility (leading to time-dependent tasting
phenomena eg: aftertaste), smell and price/prestige.

There are some approximate correspondents to these in describing our
impression of a guitar's tone: transient phenomena, price (most people
pay more attention to an instrument made by Jose Ramirez than made by
Gucci) background/architectural acoustics and especially the
style/skill with which
the instrument is played.

John Wasak does have a good point, you can get some pretty bizarre
descriptions on a wine label that only 1% of the population can relate
to ("Austere but equally french-oaked Dessert wine. Throws out poi,
oily teriyaki and semi-weak tootsie-roll. Drink now through
graduation."*) but there is a good deal of agreement on what
constitutes a 'fruity' wine. By the same token, not many people could
relate to a 'marshmallowey' guitar sound, but many more would have
similar views on what was a 'bright' sound was. At least winetasters
have an agreed 'tasting wheel'.....
Ra


*wine-tasting label generator:
http://www.gmon.com/tech/output.shtml

[John Wasak]

Post by Tim Panting
Just look at the way winetasters describe the different sensations etc. of
their subject.
It's similar with musical instruments, though probably not as colourful.
TP

This sounds to be correct, TP. Wine tasting prose is notable for being
chock-full of claptrap and pretentious rubbish, but, of course, this is
precisely what gives it the colorful descriptive language that delivers,
like a setting sun, toned gradations of meaning varying from a light
strawberry blush to ruby red to a deep, dark purple. True too, is that, in
description that takes into consideration communicative value, it's always
nice for there to be some happy medium betweeen the rather taciturn and
clipped "It's good", "It's bad", "It's great with Chinese!" school of
exposition and the out and out school of picturesque purple-tinged tangy
stuff highly reminiscent of fresh farmyard manure in a high summer swelter.

So, yes, like winetasters - now, that's a good star to steer for!

We guitarists could then put our aural assertions on the pedestal with the
winetaster's oral ones.

Hoo-ray!


jw

Post by Tim Panting

Post by John Wasak

Post by Ra
etc etc.
(many examples of colourful attempts to describe the quality of a
sound from an acoustic guitar being played)
Thank you for your contribution, John.
One of the main motives for this research is exactly because there is
so many B.S. ways to try and describe the complex sensation
experienced in response to a good (or otherwise!) acoustic guitar
sound. I am fully aware that there is a range of descriptions of a
sound, ranging from something YOU might think was a reasonable
attempt, to those YOU might find quite ridiculous.
All I can hope for is to weed out those more ridiculous terms in order
to obtain a smaller working lexicon of terms that a number of people
agree on.
It's true that Luthier X will probably come up with some overly
creative descriptions, but it is hopeful that Luthier X2,X3,X4 etc.
would agree, to some degree, that some terms used by Luthier X were
ridiculous---by some sort of concensus, as opposed to a merely
individual opinion.
Not a perfect method, but better than none......
Ra

Yeah. When it comes to the ridiculous, I'm your man, Ra. Ask anybody.
Well, anyway, best of luck with establishing a lexicon of terms.
jw

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by John Wasak

Post by Tim Panting
Just look at the way winetasters describe the different sensations etc. of
their subject.
It's similar with musical instruments, though probably not as colourful.
TP

This sounds to be correct, TP. Wine tasting prose is notable for being
chock-full of claptrap and pretentious rubbish, but, of course, this is
precisely what gives it the colorful descriptive language that delivers,
like a setting sun, toned gradations of meaning varying from a light
strawberry blush to ruby red to a deep, dark purple.

Excellent wine, but has too much athlete foot in it...


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html

[thomas]

Post by John Wasak
Well, Ra, you're in luck. As it so happens, just this week, I paid a
little visit to the jail where still is incarcerated the infamous Luthier X.

Good thing you found him sober, and weren't subjected to neologisms
such as "pussylicious" and "rimjobtastic". I was highly offended
when he used that kind of language in my presence. OTOH, my IM buddy
at aol insists that the adjectives "sux" and "rools" are the only words
you ever need to describe guitar timbre, or anything else for that matter.

[John Wasak]

Post by thomas

Post by John Wasak
Well, Ra, you're in luck. As it so happens, just this week, I paid a
little visit to the jail where still is incarcerated the infamous Luthier X.

Good thing you found him sober, and weren't subjected to neologisms
such as "pussylicious" and "rimjobtastic". I was highly offended
when he used that kind of language in my presence. OTOH, my IM buddy
at aol insists that the adjectives "sux" and "rools" are the only words
you ever need to describe guitar timbre, or anything else for that matter.

Yes, that's correct. Though "rools" itself is under attack from the 'Truly
Hipper Than Thou' contingent who contend that it should be spelled "rulez".
But even here there's been a split with some Truly Hipper Than Thou's
following an alternative (hey!, 'alternative'!...now that's hipper fer
shure!) spelling - "rulz" .

Then there's that one iconoclast who's gonna' spell it "rewels" no matter
what.


jw

[Tim Panting]

rewels rhymes nicely with jewels, which is kewl (god hasn't the English
language suffered enough damage......probably not)

Seriously though, to quote some rather smart person, 'isn't writing about
music like dancing about architecture'?

Discuss (ted)

TP

Post by John Wasak

Post by thomas

Post by John Wasak
Well, Ra, you're in luck. As it so happens, just this week, I paid a
little visit to the jail where still is incarcerated the infamous

Luthier X.

Post by thomas
Good thing you found him sober, and weren't subjected to neologisms
such as "pussylicious" and "rimjobtastic". I was highly offended
when he used that kind of language in my presence. OTOH, my IM buddy
at aol insists that the adjectives "sux" and "rools" are the only words
you ever need to describe guitar timbre, or anything else for that matter.

Yes, that's correct. Though "rools" itself is under attack from the 'Truly
Hipper Than Thou' contingent who contend that it should be spelled "rulez".
But even here there's been a split with some Truly Hipper Than Thou's
following an alternative (hey!, 'alternative'!...now that's hipper fer
shure!) spelling - "rulz" .
Then there's that one iconoclast who's gonna' spell it "rewels" no matter
what.
jw

[William Jennings]

I need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced

by a good acoustic guitar.<

Not much for doing forms or surveys but sitting here, legs crossed, hands
crossed, leaning back looking out the window it occurs to me. Frankly,
several things have occured to me now that I think about it. In truth, the
terms I think of regarding timbre do not exist on the list.


The next association to come to mind with regards to your question of timbre
produced by a good acoustic guitar is:

Lacking......... What I don't hear.

The first thing I hear is what's lacking in the tone with the average good
guitar, according to my taste. It's a Yes, but, kinda' thing. The real
thing can not be described with words very well, notwithstanding the fact, I
know it the nano second I hear it..
It's a certain surprise and presence in the tone, for example, that clear,
deep mournful sound found on the 4th. and 5th.strings below the fifth
position with on a great guitar. No amount of thumb/ nail/flesh/attack will
make up for what isn't in a state of
equipoise and isn't there!

Hugh Macdiarmid, the greatest Scottish poet of modern times an a devotee of
Scotch, wrote:

"I have little patience with the pseudo-poetical attempts to describe the
differences in flavour of various malts. It was once explained to
me..'Scotch whiskies are like an orchestra. The Islay malts are heavy and
sombre as cellos. Highland malts are violas. Lowlands the discursive violin,
and grains are like pianos -- sometimes fortissimo, sometimes pianissimo.'
But such efforts are futile. You can only know any or all of them by
actually drinking them."


Yep, I'm getting hungry.

Che' Petadoggy

[Howard]

Post by Ra
hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/prepilotintro.php

There are many, many problems with the use of words to describe tone.

Firstly, coming up with a set of terms that people generally find
useful for describing tone/timbre is difficult. I don't know what the
outcome of your tests will be - it will be interesting...

Secondly, people may have very different interpretations of the same
term. E.g "bright" might be used in very different ways by different
people. So even if you can come up with a set of words that most
people find useful, if the way these words are used and interpreted is
very different, I don't know how useful that set of words is.

Not trying to put you off - just adding some thoughts to this
interesting area!

I had a go at the test - one comment is that a number of the terms
suggested really apply to musical styles, not timbre (e.g. "bluesy",
"jazzy").

Howard

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS]

Post by Howard

Post by Ra
hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/prepilotintro.php

There are many, many problems with the use of words to describe tone.

Not quite as funny (IMO) as the words I've heard to describe wine: toasty, oaky,
astringent--wait--those work for tone too.

Steve

Post by Howard
Firstly, coming up with a set of terms that people generally find
useful for describing tone/timbre is difficult. I don't know what the
outcome of your tests will be - it will be interesting...
Secondly, people may have very different interpretations of the same
term. E.g "bright" might be used in very different ways by different
people. So even if you can come up with a set of words that most
people find useful, if the way these words are used and interpreted is
very different, I don't know how useful that set of words is.
Not trying to put you off - just adding some thoughts to this
interesting area!
I had a go at the test - one comment is that a number of the terms
suggested really apply to musical styles, not timbre (e.g. "bluesy",
"jazzy").
Howard

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com

[Tim Panting]

One could of course write the entire thesis in a 'dry' and 'coldly'
analytical way. It depends how you want to present the article. But
describing the mysteries of musical sound always seem to detract from the
beauty, unless you describe things in an overtly 'florid' way. But even this
still detracts, but, understandably is a job that has to be done.

Words and phrases when taken out of context can sound ridiculous,
inappropriate, pretentious etc. But put into context and, if the writer's
worth their salt then the reader should be able to get a pretty good idea of
what you're on about. But to start using descriptive words for timbres etc.
you've actually got to know what you're talking about.

how much guitar music do you listen to? do you play? Can you differentiate
between different players/makes of guitar etc. the list is endless and I
think you have to be a bit of a fanatic to get somewhere close to describing
the intricacies of tone produced by the guitar.

TP

Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

Post by Howard

Post by Ra
hi all, I'm doing my PhD in the Acoustics of the Guitar, and am
setting up listening tests involving guitars made during the project.
As a precursor to the psychoacoustic study (ie: listening tests), I
need a bunch of terms to describe the (rather complex) timbre produced
by a good acoustic guitar.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/prepilotintro.php

There are many, many problems with the use of words to describe tone.

Not quite as funny (IMO) as the words I've heard to describe wine: toasty, oaky,
astringent--wait--those work for tone too.
Steve

Post by Howard
Firstly, coming up with a set of terms that people generally find
useful for describing tone/timbre is difficult. I don't know what the
outcome of your tests will be - it will be interesting...
Secondly, people may have very different interpretations of the same
term. E.g "bright" might be used in very different ways by different
people. So even if you can come up with a set of words that most
people find useful, if the way these words are used and interpreted is
very different, I don't know how useful that set of words is.
Not trying to put you off - just adding some thoughts to this
interesting area!
I had a go at the test - one comment is that a number of the terms
suggested really apply to musical styles, not timbre (e.g. "bluesy",
"jazzy").
Howard

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com

[Ra]

Post by Howard
Firstly, coming up with a set of terms that people generally find
useful for describing tone/timbre is difficult. I don't know what the
outcome of your tests will be - it will be interesting...

I agree. It would be difficult, but there's been a bit of work done on
that one already.....I got the terms in the survey from choosing a
bunch of random guitar mags and taking note on the adjectives used in
reviewing acoustic guitars. Unfortunately not many people write
reviews on a guitar that *in their opinion* is a complete dud, so I
talked to a few makers, who had seen some instruments in perhaps not
their best light.

Post by Howard
Secondly, people may have very different interpretations of the same
term. E.g "bright" might be used in very different ways by different
people. So even if you can come up with a set of words that most
people find useful, if the way these words are used and interpreted is
very different, I don't know how useful that set of words is.

Now there were a small number of terms in the literature that
reoccurred quite frequently, a much larger set of terms occurred with
rather less frequency---ie they appealed to a much smaller proportion
of the population (eg: 'classic Martin Dreadnaught in spades').

I really couldn't care less which ones they were, but if I wanted a
small set of words to use that were agreed to be useful to a
reasonable swathe of the population, what better way than to ask a
broad selection of that population?
Of course, all the terms are subjective (there's no getting away from
that one!)
but we can hope that, within specified demographic categories, people
would have attached similar meanings to individual terms.

Previous studies of timbre seemed to have fairly clear results, but
involved rather different parameters than we're interested in (sonar
sounds, steady tones etc.)

Post by Howard
I had a go at the test - one comment is that a number of the terms
suggested really apply to musical styles, not timbre (e.g. "bluesy",
"jazzy").
Howard

I guess I shouldn't comment, because I didn't really come up with the
terms myself, but I agree that 'jazzy' and 'bluesy' describe playing
styles, but also could imagine a sound coming from a guitar as having
'a distinctive blues sound' (perhaps has a lot to do with how old the
strings are ;) )

Ra

PS I got your response Howard. Love your work btw, most excellent
thesis. Recommended reading for anyone interested in guitar acoustics!