Klarinet Archive - Posting 000409.txt from 1994/10

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Jim Freeman and regional sounds
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 09:14:01 -0400

Jim, I will make up the tape and make a posting when it is ready. We need to
have an unbiased third party to whom I can send the answer sheet. I see you
are at San Francisco State (did I read that right?) and if so, we ought to
settle on Clark Fobes or Greg Dufford or any one of dozens of people whose
opinions and integrity we both accept. Then, I'll send you the tape and send
the answer sheet to our mutually agreed to choice (who, ideally, should be on
the internet) and let's give it a whack.

Be patient, I am finishing up a tough week including that damn "Sorcerer's
Apprentice" which should not be written in 3/8. The bars go by too fast.

I also want to mention that your note made some excellent points, particularly
about the matter of your fiance's voice on the phone.

There may have been some miscommunication on this subject, too. I got a very
nice note, a personal one, from one of the earliest posters on this subject and
she and I have concluded that when she said "the sounds of players of various
locations are different" what she meant was "the style of playing ..." And
that arose because I said "Feidman sounds like a player from the ghetto of Lvov
while at the same time held the chair of bass clarinet with the IPO." And to
that extent, I agreed with here that "style" was nationally identifiable but
"sound" was not except in the most remarkable cases as was recently mentioned
with respect to some Czech players.

Furthermore, she challenged my argument that, in denying that such differences
exist I was duty bound to state my reasons as objectively as she was asked to
state hers. And to that, I vehemently disagreed. Sounds like hit and run, but
on this one, I have precedent.

It is a principle of law that asserts that he (or she) who takes the position
that a phenomenon exits must prove it. While he (or she) who denys that
existence is not required to prove it. In effect, assertions of existence must
be demonstrated, while denials of existence do not have to be demonstrated.
That is what got Galileo in deep doody! He asserted that the sun did not go
around the earth but the other way around. Nothing wrong with that, though it
was heretical. What he got in trouble for was proving it. On the other hand,
those who did not believe that the earth went around the sun did not have to do
anything. It was considered self-evident.

I mention this because it may have seemed arbitrary for me to say, "Prove it"
while not being willing to "Disprove it." Thus, though it sounds smug, it is
anyone's right to insist that deviation from obvious phenomena be proven if
stated, while one who clings to dogma does not have to do anything.

Sounds unjust but I am hanging in there.

I'll be back to you and the list within 5 days on the existence of a tape that
will have clarinet players in prominent positions (solo and general orchestral)
and you will identify the country of this player by sound quality only. Is
this your understanding of what we are going to do?

Dan

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