Tone or Sound dark smokey and bright

[Dr G]

I’ve said a few times I like to differentiate between tone and sound. I tend to think smoky is more of a sound whereas dark and bright can be applied to tone and hence measured in terms of frequency spectrum. Well bright anyway.

I originally perceived dark as more of a sort of atmosphere, but I concede that I’m in a bit of a minority with that one. Although what people tend to call dark, I often call warm. I think of dark as having a sort of mysterious edge to it.

OK, what, then, is the opposite of bright?

Is "warm" in the middle of the spectrum between bright and dark? Or is the opposite of "bright" called "cold"?

Then there is the other spectrum of whether overtones or partials are present in discernible quantities (vs only a few partials with great amplitude) - something I might term "complexity". I consider "warm" along that continuum.

 

[Pete Thomas]

OK, what, then, is the opposite of bright?

In visual terms I would definitely think dark.

In musical terms I would say maybe dull is a possibility, but soft or warm are contenders but I’m not saying dark is wrong, I accept it’s common usage.

The thing is we are applying to sound words that were not originally meant for that purpose.

 

[Pete Thomas]

And of course there is this:

Dark or Bright?​

I write a lot about saxophone sound, but there seems to be some confusion over terminology, which got me thinking…Dark can be used to mean the same as warm, which some people think of as the opposite of bright.

But when I say dark I mean the opposite of light rather than bright (but you might think the opposite of light is heavy). As far as I’m concerned the opposite of a bright sound is a warm sound, but you might well think of a warm sound as the opposite of a cold sound. But then I call a cold tone what some people call a clear tone.

On the other hand some people might call that a focussed tone (or a tone that projects). But to some a focussed tone could be an edgy tone, a compact tone, or maybe even a centerd tone, (which are surely two different things) and then again to others it might be thin, the opposite of which you might say is fat, however it could be argued that this is unfocussed, which is the opposite of what some people call bright. Or you might like a big fat warm dark roundsound, the opposite of which is…

 

[Dr G]

In visual terms I would definitely think dark.

In musical terms I would say maybe dull is a possibility, but soft or warm are contenders but I’m not saying dark is wrong, I accept it’s common usage.

The thing is we are applying to sound words that were not originally meant for that purpose.

The sad thing is that we never got 'round to making new words sufficient to the task. Maybe in another few hundred years someone will get there - like the range of words that the Inuit have for describing snow. If it still matters...

 

[Jimmymack]

I think we all know what is meant by bright and dark and after that it's just a matter of degree.

 

[skeller047]

I think we all know what is meant by bright and dark and after that it's just a matter of degree.

Hot and cold??? 🙂

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think we all know what is meant by bright and dark and after that it's just a matter of degree.

I still have an issue with the word dark but I have accepted the more common use of it. Reluctantly.

 

[mrblackbat]

Although what people tend to call dark, I often call warm

I guess the problem with warm and bright is that they're different things. Warm and cool would make sense (but I don't think anyone would call a bright saxophone sound cool), and so bright and dark work logically - they're two ends of the same scale.

Warmth does come into play with sound, but I tend to think of warmth more in the recording process and the distortion that comes from analogue gear simply getting hot.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I guess the problem with warm and bright is that they're different things

Is it a problem that warm and bright are different?

Any problem might have first arisen when the term bright was first used to describe a sound not a colour or something visual.

 

[mrblackbat]

Is it a problem that warm and bright are different?

Any problem might have first arisen when the term bright was first used to describe a sound not a colour or something visual.

Yes I think it's a problem, because it doesn't make any sense as an analogy as brightness and warmth are different things, and actually from a perspective of energy, they're both at the same side - as something becomes brighter it invariably gets warmer.

On top of that, when actually considering the waveform, there IS more energy in a higher frequency waveform, and so a bright sound could be called a warm sound; whilst a dark sound should be called a cool sound. If applying this logically.

For these reasons I much prefer bright and dark to describe saxophone sounds.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Yes I think it's a problem, because it doesn't make any sense as an analogy as brightness and warmth are different things, and actually from a perspective of energy, they're both at the same side - as something becomes brighter it invariably gets warmer.

Trying to make sense of this kind of analogy is going to get nowhere.

e.g. Many people would say the opposite of dark is light but that's a different thing to bright.

With my sound engineer/producer hat on I would refer to a sound prominent high frequencies as toppy. In that field (also with hifi audiophile terminology) bright is often used for toppy, but warm is the usual antonym, rarely dark (in my experience), hence I'm a bit perplexed how it got into description of saxophone tone.

However it is moot because it has been normalised by use (or abuse) and I'm not in for the full £10 argument.

 

[mrblackbat]

Trying to make sense of this kind of analogy is going to get nowhere.

e.g. Many people would say the opposite of dark is light but that's a different thing to bright.

Take colour for example.

Bright red versus dark red. Light red versus dark red. Both work fine and everyone would know exactly what was meant.

But dark red could also be warm, as could light red. I would consider warm in this context to be an indication of whether the red was more orangey in shade or not. Les orange would make it a cooler red.

I don't think anyone would think that given bright red, warm red meant dark red.

 

[Pete Thomas]

No they wouldn't

 

[Nick Wyver]

Bright and not bright. I could cope with that.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I stopped caring.

I don’t mind Bright, dark, warm to describe my sound. It’s better than £@“!

 

[mrblackbat]

I stopped caring.

I don’t mind Bright, dark, warm to describe my sound. It’s better than £@“!

My favourite is when I once got asked what instrument I was playing, and I said saxophone to which they replied "oh, I thought it might be.... it just doesn't sound like a sax."

 

[mrblackbat]

No they wouldn't

And that's the point why I feel it's problematic. Warm/cold would work, but I suspect nobody would like their sound described as cold. Bright and dark work and I expect dark is less problematic than cold is a descriptor.

 

[Vlad]

I've heard Brittle and Acerbic applied to an alto tone ( not mine I hasten to add)

 

[Pete Thomas]

One word you don’t hear used do often in this regard is light, which is odd given the possibly most popular ligature company marketing both dark and light models.

When I think of a light sound players like Hodges, Desmond and possibly Getz come to mind. Maybe a dark tone but a light sound if that makes sense?

I found working with advertising people you need to deal with all kinds of words, this one got me working hard: “can you make it sound a little more ironic?”

 

[Vlad]

I found working with advertising people you need to deal with all kinds of words, this one got me working hard: “can you make it sound a little more ironic?”

Turn up dressed as Charlie Cairoli.....