ilovefuzz.com

I dunno, but it's supposed to be one of the most expensive things on the planet.

I also heard that the tone is in your fingers, so I might be saving up for an implant.

Caesar wrote:I also heard that the tone is in your fingers, so I might be saving up for an implant.

Tone is a character of sound. Like most things there are objective and subjective qualifications.

First, if the tone satisfies the intended sound, then it is objectively a good tone. For example, if you are playing black metal and the goal is to sound cold and harsh, then a tone that meets that criteria can be considered objectively good in context. Although that same tone may be considered bad in another setting, within this example it satisfies the intent.

Next, considering tone as preference is purely subjective. This deals with how it sounds to you. Because it is an individual consideration there can be no universal - or objective - qualification.

It is important to note that the objective quality of tone can only be considered in general, and not in specific. Using the previous example, you may say: that a tone is objectively good - because it satisfies an intended sound, however you may not objectively say that it is better than another tone which also satisfies the intended sound. And, you may only say that this tone is better than another - which does not - in the singular context of your subject.

Now, the next argument is whether or not the "quality of satisfying an intended sound" is in fact objective, or whether it is subjective. For the most part, humans hear in the same way - even if this may be interpreted differently in personal response to that sound. However interpretation does not change the reality of the subject. This means that the sound - and how we heard it remains the same - even as what it means to us, and whether we like it or not, is interpreted individually. Because the qualification is based on what the tone is, and not in general what it means, it can be considered objective.

Have a good day class. Your homework for tomorrow will be to send $10 to my paypal account.

You see, tone is like a lake. You can dive right in there and get all comfortable, but once winter rolls around...BOOM! that shit fucking freezes over. Then you're fucked. Thats how I always know the difference. I always pull out.

jfrey wrote:Tone is a character of sound. Like most things there are objective and subjective qualifications.

First, if the tone satisfies the intended sound, then it is objectively a good tone. For example, if you are playing black metal and the goal is to sound cold and harsh, then a tone that meets that criteria can be considered objectively good in context. Although that same tone may be considered bad in another setting, within this example it satisfies the intent.

Next, considering tone as preference is purely subjective. This deals with how it sounds to you. Because it is an individual consideration there can be no universal - or objective - qualification.

It is important to note that the objective quality of tone can only be considered in general, and not in specific. Using the previous example, you may say: that a tone is objectively good - because it satisfies an intended sound, however you may not objectively say that it is better than another tone which also satisfies the intended sound. And, you may only say that this tone is better than another - which does not - in the singular context of your subject.

Now, the next argument is whether or not the "quality of satisfying an intended sound" is in fact objective, or whether it is subjective. For the most part, humans hear in the same way - even if this may be interpreted differently in personal response to that sound. However interpretation does not change the reality of the subject. This means that the sound - and how we heard it remains the same - even as what it means to us, and whether we like it or not, is interpreted individually. Because the qualification is based on what the tone is, and not in general what it means, it can be considered objective.

Have a good day class. Your homework for tomorrow will be to send $10 to my paypal account.

TONE CAN BE OBJECTIVELY MEASURED WITH THE EQUATION:
MY TONE > YOUR TONE

TEACHER YOU'RE WRONG

jfrey wrote:Tone is a character of sound. Like most things there are objective and subjective qualifications.

First, if the tone satisfies the intended sound, then it is objectively a good tone. For example, if you are playing black metal and the goal is to sound cold and harsh, then a tone that meets that criteria can be considered objectively good in context. Although that same tone may be considered bad in another setting, within this example it satisfies the intent.

Next, considering tone as preference is purely subjective. This deals with how it sounds to you. Because it is an individual consideration there can be no universal - or objective - qualification.

It is important to note that the objective quality of tone can only be considered in general, and not in specific. Using the previous example, you may say: that a tone is objectively good - because it satisfies an intended sound, however you may not objectively say that it is better than another tone which also satisfies the intended sound. And, you may only say that this tone is better than another - which does not - in the singular context of your subject.

Now, the next argument is whether or not the "quality of satisfying an intended sound" is in fact objective, or whether it is subjective. For the most part, humans hear in the same way - even if this may be interpreted differently in personal response to that sound. However interpretation does not change the reality of the subject. This means that the sound - and how we heard it remains the same - even as what it means to us, and whether we like it or not, is interpreted individually. Because the qualification is based on what the tone is, and not in general what it means, it can be considered objective.

Have a good day class. Your homework for tomorrow will be to send $10 to my paypal account.

Isn't the quality or character of a sound technically supposed to be called its timbre?

bigchiefbc wrote:Isn't the quality or character of a sound technically supposed to be called its timbre?

They overlap. A tone may refer to a note - or to an interval, as in a whole tone or semi tone. But when you are talking about what something sounds like then the meaning is very much like that of timbre and is often used synonymously.

"Tone quality and color are synonyms for timbre"

Timbre can also however refer specifically to the differences between tones.

"distinguishable characteristics of a tone"

I guess it comes down to how technical you want to be, or if it even makes much difference when most people will know what you mean either way.

whatever guys.

sorry, Charlie. we don't want tone with good taste...we want tone that tastes good.

maz91379 wrote:tone is the first 8 sabbath albums!

toanz iz in the strap!!!

tone is what people say when they mean timbre

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...”

— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

Gearmond wrote:tone is what people say when they mean timbre

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

I just bought a new strap, and it looks awesome, but it just doesn't sound as good. >.<

Sucks the life right out of my guitar. And I haven't even taken it out of package.