Klarinet Archive - Posting 000365.txt from 1995/03

From: Andrew Grenci <AGrenci@-----.COM>
Subj: Dark vs. Bright
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 01:07:26 -0500

Dan Leeson has initiated a fascinating exchange on the use of verbal
descriptions of musical sound. He seems to be of the opinion that since we
cannot devise a set of terms which are precisely defined and universally
understood, we should abandon all such descriptions. It also seems that many
agree with him.

What Dan seems to be frustrated about is the subtlety of language itself, and
the elusiveness of its connection to the concepts which words represent. (For
example, has this forum yet arrived at universally acceptable definition of
alla polacca?)

Here are some of my thoughts on this matter.

By chance I have been reading John Locke's "an Essay Concerning Human
Understanding", and recently came across an appropriate passage. 'Concerning
relation in general, these things may be considered: First, that there is no
one thing, whether simple idea, substance, mode, or relation, or name of
either of them, which is not capable of almost an infinite number of
considerations in reference to other things; and therefore this makes no
small part of men's thoughts and words.' Locke goes on to give the example
that the same man can be accurately described as both father and son,
superior and inferior, larger and smaller, older and younger, etc. This is
because these are relative terms, and involve considering the man in relation
to another man.

The same, it seems to me, applies to the use of relative terms to describe
clarinet tone (or indeed, any other aspect of musical sound, i.e. analysis).
By describing a sound as "dark" or "full" or "fuzzy" or "eggerplertel" or
whatever, we use terms which relate that sound to others we have heard. This
leads each person to imply a slightly different meaning in such descriptions,
but hardly makes them useless terms. If we applied such a standard of
precision to all that we describe, we would hardly be allowed to talk about
anything.

Let's consider a non-musical example, and one which is not presently in
dispute by most clarinetists: sourness vs. sweetness. I could describe the
lemon I put in my tea at breakfast as sour. The grapefruit I ate for the same
meal, a ruby red, tasted sweet to me. The orange I ate for lunch was
delightful sweet and juicy, and the jelly donut I snuck at 4:00 PM was quite
sweet also. Now, it is fair to say that my grapefruit, orange and donut all
presented different degrees of sweetness, but all could properly be described
as "sweet". On the other hand, there was also some sourness in the grapefruit
and orange, and while they did not taste sour to me, another person could
easily be found who would describe the lemon, grapefruit and orange as all
being "sour". I do not believe that this means that the concepts of sourness
and sweetness are too imprecise to be useful, or that the words which
represent these concepts should be banished from the English language.

I propose, then, that we use whatever terms are meaningful to us when
describing sounds, clarinet or otherwise. If a particular description
resonates with our students or colleagues, continue to use it. And when
reading advertising or the writings of others, realize that all words only
have meaning in context, and that context expands far beyond the other words
in the sentence.

Andrew Grenci

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org