Klarinet Archive - Posting 000037.txt from 1994/06

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: The "Ideal" Sound
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 22:45:55 -0400

I just read Clark Fobes comments on the character of sound that he prefers
and that, therefore, he attempts to achieve in his mouthpieces. I am not
trying to stir up difficulties, but Clark's choice of words is instructive.

In the past, whenever the discussions of dark and not dark sounds was
being discussed (often at my prodding and assertions that these were
meaningless terms), the vast majority of players who were good enough to
enter into the discussion said that they were trying their best to get
a dark sound. I think I counted about 15 people asserting that this was
their model. And even if I could not hear what they meant, they had a
perspective, it was a dark sound, and they were trying to achieve it. At
least three of those who said this quoted Harold Wright as the person whose
dark sound they wanted very much to emulate. I am not making up these
words, nor do I think I am distorting what was said.

Now, back to Clark's comments. He says that he trys "to emulate
with my mouthpiece [the sound of] Harold Wright. I don't like a 'DARK'
sound. I pefer a rich sound with a good balance of fundamental and
overtones."

So what do we have here? One one hand we have a collection of members of
this board saying that they want to emulate a dark sound (and only three
of those were specific in terms of what they meant). They did not say they
wanted a mellow sound or a beautiful sound or a happy sound. They said
"dark." And I presume that they had something in mind when they said these
things.

Three of that group said that they wanted a dark sound like Harold Wright.
They did not say that they wanted to sound like Harold Wright (maybe they
meant that, but they did not say it). They said, in attempting to describe
the darkness of the sound they wanted to get, that they wanted a dark sound
like the one being achieved by the then living Harold Wright whose absence we
all miss dreadfully. His wonderful playing is silenced forever.

On the other hand, Clark, whose opinion on these matter I respect and one of
whose mouthpieces I own - so I am not conditioned to speak against his
mouthpiece philosophy - has said that this philosophy is based on the
sound of Harold Wright who cannot have a dark sound to Clark's ears since
he says that he does not like a "DARK" sound, but must instead have a
rich sound, which Clark presumably likes.

If one wonders how I am cynical with respect to these universal understandings
of words that to me have little meaning, one need only remember the
correspondence that went out over this board on this subject and note how
the above material is so anti polar to it. How can anyone get anything
consistent out of such a vague and imprecise terminology, sufficiently
imprecise that people are presumably talking about the same thing with
completely opposite terminology?

I continue to see such vague descriptions as using words that have no
meaning in the hopes that the listener will understand what is really
being said. There used to be a sentence that hung on the wall at work,
and I never copied it down. But it was something like:

I know that you think you understand what you believe it was my
intention to say, but you must know that I was imprecise in saying
what it was that was needed to be said.

That's not exactly it, but you get the point.

The next time I ask Clark for a mouthpiece, I will explicitly ask him for
one with a bright, bright, bright sound, absolutely unlike anything that
Harold Wright ever did. And he will still turn out a knockout for me that
will be fine because, despite his comments, he still gets confused about
wheter or not it is day or night. He just makes good mouthpieces, and since
the room in which he makes them has no windows, he has to call me to find out
if the sun is out.

====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================