Talk:Stopped note

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

(Diff) The image I just removed shows neither a trill nor a tremolo in the standard bowed-string notation that I have seen. Bowed string tremolo is a rapid alternation of bow direction on a single note (or two unchanging notes on adjacent strings.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit hasty I was about that image, but for crying out loud, half-note tremolo? That puts me in mind of the time the violist asked what the name was of "that Beethoven piano piece, the one that starts with a trill," thinking of Fũr Elise. Hyacinth, the main difficulty I now have with that image is that it jumps in at the esoteric end of the subject. The random reader may be better served by a few words to clarify that not all tremolo passages alternate notes a major sixth apart (or other intervals... that's just the one I grab a lot for fun.) After I mull this over some, I'll try to add some of that introductory stuff, hopefully without being too wordy about it. Want to keep focused on the way stopped notes work with each other here, after all. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it now stands, it will be easy for an unfamiliar reader to assume that the "full and bright" sound of an open string is an advantage, when in fact open strings are discouraged or forbidden in some styles precisely because the tone color differs from stopped notes. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is both an advantage and a disadvantage, as are all the listings in the table, which is why none are listed as specifically one or the other. More importantly, I'm not very concerned about the imaginary assumptions of imaginary readers. Hyacinth (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #1 of technical writing is widely known to be, "Consider the audience." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I'm saying: I'm concerned about the actual assumptions of the actual audience. Hyacinth (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much to ask, who you think the "actual audience" is? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, only part of the audience might look past "full and bright" and "less resonant" to see your neutral presentation of fact. Like it or not, those two descriptions connote something like "beautiful" and "drab" to less sophisticated readers. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a line from the table:

What did that mean? Talking about on-string bowing, off-string, pizzicato, or what? Violin notes bowed on the string show mostly attack and sustain, with a more or less abrupt release unless the player deliberately fades the note out. I'd like to see a quote from the source, to clarify this, if it is to be restored. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've glanced over the TOC of the Pejrolo and De Rosa reference. It appears to be a MIDI sequencing manual, not the best source of authoritative info on actual bowed string sound. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haste may be a problem here, since you appear not to have read even the full title of the book you are referring to: Acoustic and MIDI Orchestration for the Contemporary Composer. The product description elaborates: "Get complete guidance on both traditional orchestration and modern production techniques with this unique book" (emphasis mine). Hyacinth (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the title, all right, but looking at the table of contents shows it to be light on pages of "writing for orchestra" as compared to "sequencing MIDI for orchestra." Forgive me if I have come to mistrust "product descriptions." "Complete guidance" on writing strings in just over a dozen pages? It still looks like a lightweight reference to me. Feel free to quote some of it here if you'd like to convince me otherwise... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since your problem is with what you presume the book to be about, and not with information in the article, I don't think there is an issue yet. Hyacinth (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the information in the table of differences between open and stopped notes came from the book. That stopped notes are more "technically demanding" than open strings is the kind of thing that might matter when writing for an elementary-school orchestra. You won't find many actual string players moaning about fingered notes being harder to play... ditto for the rest of the table, with the exception of where it says " Vibrato and multi-expression available." My apologies if that table came from another source, but the article gives me the impression that's exactly where it came from.

Before I forget, thanks for getting this page together. I assume that the breadth and depth of your contributions come from a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not in this to be patted on the head and told what a clever fellow I am, and I like to give everyone else the benefit of that same doubt. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you assume good faith isn't the same as doing so. Hyacinth (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say, I'd prefer you say it directly. I do appreciate your contributions, but I here think you picked a weak source to cite. I've tried to fix some of what came from that, and let other stuff stand. There being no deadline, I can still hope the article improves. If you want to discuss substance, I'm happy to do that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per