But…that’s just…not true. And it reiterates my point for me, namely that it is unhelpful and typically incorrect to make universal assertions in language. There are always exceptions to usages. All the same, I should stop on the linguistic tangent as it is moving too far afield from the point about musical instrument names which itself was tangential to the OP.
They could be discussed in the same breath (ha ha) as any of the other instruments whose fundamental frequencies are determined from their physical properties. Saying that a guitar string’s length, tension, and mass determine how quickly it wiggles back and forth when disturbed seems fine, and so too does saying that air in a bottle will compress and expand back and forth when disturbed, and that the volume of air inside and the size of the opening influence that cycling rate. And blowing over a bottle is a common life experience, so it seems like a great case to introduce.
Another important point is in DPRK’s diagram. Where an object is fixed (i.e. its attach points) restricts the vibration modes, since the fix points are essentially the points where approximately zero motion is allowed. The diagram is for a xylophone, whereas for a guitar string, for example the attach point and fret selected are the “zero movement” points.
Another point to mention 9anthing deeper than “mention” may be too technical) is the Q of an object. If an object resonates very well at its natural frequency, it has a high Q. If it damps out, does not have a clear pure sound, it has a low Q. Adding putty to a xylophone bar for example both reduces its frequency and Q and this makes the sound die quickly. This has to do with the putty being less “stiff” (best explanation) so not stretching and springing back as easily as solid metal. You can demonstrate that “stiff” objects tend to ring better, and those with more regular shapes tend to have a single resonant frequency.
Somewhere buried in my piles of “stuff” I have a music box mechanism. I noted once upon a time that while the sound was audible holding it in my hand, it was far louder when placed upon an object like a sheet of wood (hence, music “box”) because the vibration of the mechanism induces vibrations in the wood so there’s a much larger “speaker” surface. I recall once upon a time reading about a device that could be attached to glass (i.e. a window) to turn it into a good speaker.
Get a spectrum analyzer. I have an app on my phone called “Analyzer” that I got to test Tibetan singing bowls, which have overtones in addition to a base tone. It’s loads of fun! I can share a screenshot if anyone’s interested. Don’t know how accurate it is, seems accurate enough, and it captures base, harmonics, shows the Hz frequency, and the Western notation as well.
Agreed - I already got something like that for the Mac, and have a whole series of activities where we will listen to a pure 440Hz A, then 880Hz A, then both together, then play a singing bowl, sing, etc. …the kids are gonna have a blast figuring out sounds to try.
Another party trick that annoys the heck out of my wife is when I wet the rim of a wineglass and then circle it with my finger, moderate pressure. The tone can get quite loud.
The main reason for different sizes for different materials, is that the speed of sound in the material is different due to the DENSITY of the material. Well, its a good white lie for the younger people to handle.
Can you take two keys with the same pitch and add a bit of clay to one of them? THis might slightly affect its frequency so when the two keys are played together you will get a resonant beat that appears and disappears.
Nice! I was planning to put putty on the keys to see the effect, but it didn’t occur to me to play two same-pitch keys together, one with putty and one without.