The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of bow tilt on string performers’ perceptions of timbre. Participants (N = 41) performed a short melody using two bow conditions: flat hair and tilted hair. After each condition, participants rated their tone on six semantic differential scales and described their tone in free-response questions. Participants rated the overall tone quality, fullness, loudness, and resonance of the flat bow condition higher than the tilted bow condition. When describing the tone quality of the flat and tilted hair performances, participants’ responses aligned with the following coding categories: (a) sensory codes, (b) mass codes, (c) playing perception codes, and (d) tone as a musical element. Participants identified which performance they preferred (flat hair, tilted hair, or no preference), and they rated the flat hair condition significantly higher than no preference, but no other significant differences were found. Bow tilt appears to be an important variable for stringed instrumental timbre. Additional implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
BradetichJ. (2009). Double bass: The ultimate challenge. Music For All To Hear.
4.
BrownR. M.ZatorreR. J.PenhuneV. B. (2015). Expert music performance: Cognitive, neural, and developmental bases. Progress in Brain Research, 217, 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2014.11.021
5.
CassidyJ. W.SchlegelA. L. (2016). The role of initial attack and performer expertise on instrument identification. International Journal of Music Education, 34(2), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415614797
CremerL. (1972). The influence of “bow pressure” on the movement of a bowed string. Catgut Acoustical Society, 18(2), 13–19.
8.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
9.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.
10.
DonnadieuS. (2007). Mental representation of the timbre of complex sounds. In BeauchampJ. W. (Ed.), Analysis, synthesis, and perception of musical sounds: The sound of music (pp. 217–319). Springer.
ElliottC. A. (1975). Attacks and releases as factors in instrument identification. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345201
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
15.
FischerS. (1997). Basics: 300 exercises and practice routines for the violin. Edition Peters.
16.
FletcherN. H.RossingT. D. (1998). The physics of musical instruments (2nd ed.). Springer.
17.
FritzC.MuslewskiA.DuboisD. (2010, August25–31). A situated and cognitive approach of violin quality [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Music Acoustics, Katoomba and Sydney, NSW, Australia.
18.
FuL.FritzC.ScavoneG. (2019, July7–11) Player evaluation of performance and student violins [Paper presentation]. 26th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Montréal, QC, Canada. https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02361806
19.
GalamianI. (2013). Principles of violin playing and teaching. Dover.
20.
GamstG.MeyersL. S.GuarinoA. J. (2008). Analysis of variance designs: A conceptual and computational approach with SPSS and SAS. Cambridge University Press.
21.
GeringerJ. M.BugajK.GeringerK. A. (2021). Irish fiddle and Western classical violin: Listener perceptions and acoustical differences. String Research Journal, 11(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/19484992211020686
22.
GiordanoB. L.McAdamsS. (2010). Sound source mechanics and musical timbre perception: Evidence from previous studies. Music Perception, 28(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2010.28.2.155
GreyJ. M.MoorerJ. A. (1977). Perceptual evaluations of synthesized musical instrument tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(2), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381508
26.
GuettlerK. (2004). Looking at starting transients and tone coloring of the bowed string. Journal of ITC Sangeet Research Academy, 18, 60–76.
27.
GuettlerK.AskenfeltA. (1997). Acceptance limits for the duration of pre-Helmholtz transients in bowed string attacks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(5), 2903–2913. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418520
28.
GuettlerK.SchoonderwaldtE.AskenfeltA. (2003, August6–9). Bow speed or bowing position—Which one influences spectrum the most? [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
29.
LaFlairG. T.EgbertJ.PlonskyL. (2015). A practical guide to bootstrapping descriptive statistics, correlations, t tests, and ANOVAs. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 45–77). Routledge.
30.
MantelG. (1995). Cello technique: Principles and forms of movement (ThiemB. Haimberger, Trans.). Indiana University Press.
31.
MarozeauJ.De CheveignéA.McAdamsS.WinsbergS. (2003). The dependency of timbre on fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(5), 2946–2957. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1618239
32.
McAdamsS. (2019). The perceptual representation of timbre. In SiedenburgK.SaitisC.McAdamsS.PopperA. N.FayR. R. (Eds.), Timbre: Acoustics, perception, and cognition (pp. 23–57). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14832-4_2
33.
McAdamsS.WinsbergS.DonnadieuS.De SoeteG.KrimphoffJ. (1995). Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: Common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes. Psychological Research, 58(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419633
34.
PatelA. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. Oxford University Press.
35.
RollandP. (1979). Basic principles of violin playing. American String Teachers Association.
36.
SaitisC.FritzC.ScavoneG. P.GuastavinoC.DuboisD. (2017). Perceptual evaluation of violins: A psycholinguistic analysis of preference verbal descriptions by experienced musicians. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(4), 2746–2757. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4980143
37.
SaitisC.WeinzierlS. (2019). The semantics of timbre. In SiedenburgK.SaitisC.McAdamsS.PopperA. N.FayR. R. (Eds.), Timbre: Acoustics, perception, and cognition (1st ed., pp. 119–149). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14832-4_5
38.
SchellengJ. C. (1973). The bowed string and the player. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913322
39.
SchoonderwaldtE. (2010). On the use of skewness in violin bowing: Should the bow be straight or not?Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 96(4), 593–602. https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.918314
40.
SchoonderwaldtE.GuettlerK.AskenfeltA. (2003, August6–9). Effect of the width of the bow hair on the violin string spectrum [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
41.
SchoonderwaldtE.GuettlerK.AskenfeltA. (2007, September9–12) Schelleng in retrospect. A systematic study of bow-force limits for bowed violin strings [Paper presentation]. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Musical Acoustics (ISMA), Barcelona, Spain.
42.
SchwarzR. B. (2022). Helmholtz vibrations in bowed strings. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 151(4), 2461–2473. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0010159
43.
SiedenburgK.McAdamsS. (2017). Four distinctions for the auditory “wastebasket” of timbre. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1747. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01747
44.
SiedenburgK.SaitisC.McAdamsS. (2019). The present, past, and future of timbre research. In SiedenburgK.SaitisC.McAdamsS.PopperA. N.FayR. R. (Eds.), Timbre: Acoustics, perception, and cognition (1st ed., pp. 1–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14832-4_1
45.
SoginD. (2012). Musicians’ preferences for different variants of bow skew in a violin performance. String Research Journal, 3(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/194849921200300103
46.
SpringerD. G.SchlegelA. L.LewisA. J. (2021). Effects of dark and bright timbral instructions on the production of pitch and timbre. Journal of Research in Music Education, 68(4), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420944347
47.
WallmarkZ. (2019). A corpus analysis of timbre semantics in orchestration treatises. Psychology of Music, 47(4), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618768102
48.
WollmanI.FritzC.PoitevineauJ. (2014). Influence of vibrotactile feedback on some perceptual features of violins. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(2), 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4889865
ZacharakisA.PastiadisK.ReissJ. D. (2014). An interlanguage study of musical timbre semantic dimensions and their acoustic correlates. Music Perception, 31(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2014.31.4.339
51.
ZacharakisA.PastiadisK.ReissJ. D. (2015). An interlanguage unification of musical timbre. Music Perception, 32(4), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2015.32.4.394
52.
ZatorreR. J.ChenJ. L.PenhuneV. B. (2007). When the brain plays music: Auditory–motor interactions in music perception and production. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(7), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2152
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
