Klarinet Archive - Posting 000176.txt from 1993/11

From: "David L. Shea" <DSHEA@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Clarinet sound
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 20:15:42 -0500

Just an aside, Mr. Leeson, How can you not tell the difference between
Cohen and Drucker by listening? I can't think of two people who can
sound more different. I don't know about most but I can usually identify
orchestra and clarinet player on many recordings on the radio in a matter
of seconds.

The last few messages on the nature of sound have been rather elaborate and
interesting. Just to spice things up, how can we come to any conclusion
on what the ideal sound is when people hear things differently. If a person
plays a passage or piece and one asks clarinet players who have listened
to the performance what they thought, the responses will be so different
that you wonder if people heard the same performance. How many times have
you heard a non-clarinetist musician rave about a clarinet performance where
the only thing that crossed your mind was how buzzy the sound was? How come
when one discusses tone and sound with a colleague that both use the same
term to describe completely opposite qualities? I think a centered tone is
my favorite or better yet the "core" of the sound.

I believe a good sound can only be described as a sound that makes a performer
comfortable so he or she doesn't have to think about the sound. At this point,
one sheds all sign of anxiety and can focus on being a musician. These are
the performances that are special for both audience and pero
former. Here is
where it gets a little weird, is the essence of sound even relevant or is it
one's perception and comfort in one's own sound that is really important.
Furthermore, how can this perception of sound be truly communicated except
through performance?

Sorry if this got a little strange but I thought a non-objective/scientific
commentary on sound my be interesting.

David L. Shea
Indiana University
dshea@-----.edu

P.S. Sorry for typos, I have got to learn how to use the VAX editor