Effect of Bow Camber and Mass Distribution on Violinists' Preferences and Performance.

acoustic bow musical analysis preference violin

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 02 09 2021
accepted: 12 10 2021
entrez: 22 11 2021
pubmed: 23 11 2021
medline: 23 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Little is known about how bow mechanical characteristics objectively and quantitatively influence violinists' preferences and performance. Hypothesizing that the bow shape (i.e., camber) and mass distribution modifications would alter both violinists' appreciations of a bow and objective assessments of their performance, we recruited 10 professional violinists to play their own violin using 18 versions of a single bow, modified by combining three cambers and six mass distributions, in random order. A musical phrase, composed for this study, was played legato and spiccato at three octaves and two tempi. Each violinist scored all 18 bows. Then, experts assessed the recorded performances according to criteria inspired by basic musical analysis. Finally, 12 audio-descriptors were calculated on the same note from each trial, to objectivise potential acoustic differences. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) reveals that bow camber impacted the violinists' appreciations (

Identifiants

pubmed: 34803855
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769831
pmc: PMC8595599
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

769831

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Tomezzoli, Michaud, Gagné, Begon and Duprey.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

EG was employed by Wilder & Davis. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Feb;105(2 Pt 1):882-97
pubmed: 9972573
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 04;9(12):e112552
pubmed: 25474036
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Dec;122(6):3640-50
pubmed: 18247771
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Aug 29;21(17):
pubmed: 34502708
J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Dec;132(6):4002-12
pubmed: 23231129
J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Jan;131(1):783-94
pubmed: 22280701
Med Probl Perform Art. 2013 Dec;28(4):212-8
pubmed: 24337033
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Nov;130(5):2902-16
pubmed: 22087919
Rep Prog Phys. 2014 Nov;77(11):115901
pubmed: 25345563

Auteurs

Aurélie Tomezzoli (A)

Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Univ Gustave Eiffel, LBMC UMR_T9406, Lyon, France.

Benjamin Michaud (B)

Laboratoire de Simulation et de Modélisation du Mouvement, École de Kinésiologie et des Sciences de l'Activité Physique, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Eric Gagné (E)

Wilder & Davis, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Mickaël Begon (M)

Laboratoire de Simulation et de Modélisation du Mouvement, École de Kinésiologie et des Sciences de l'Activité Physique, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Research Center, Sainte-Justine Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Sonia Duprey (S)

Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Univ Gustave Eiffel, LBMC UMR_T9406, Lyon, France.

Classifications MeSH