Klarinet Archive - Posting 000413.txt from 1995/03

From: Andrew Grenci <AGrenci@-----.COM>
Subj: My Last on Dark vs. Bright
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 21:11:59 -0500

Dan, Neil and All

Please forgive my enthusiasm for this subject. I have read much in recent
postings to think about and respond to. I particularly admire the inciteful
and thoughtful comments of Dan Leeson and Neil Leupold. Still, I realize that
this is not a discussion group on either linguistics or philosophy, so as
oddly stimulating as this topic is for me, I will try to live up to the
promise of the above subject heading.

I have just two things to mention which were not adequately clear in my
previous posting.

First, I have no special love for the words "dark" or "bright" as they relate
to clarinet sound. I use them sometimes, but don't care to expound on their
virtues. What I was reacting to was the remarkable idea that we should not
use words to describe clarinet tone, and the even more remarkable insinuation
that the only words which can convey significant meaning about music are
those which are "precise".

Second, with or without the use of verbal terms, our concepts of clarinet
tone involve many relative ideas. All concepts are, perhaps, not relative;
but some certainly are. The words we use are simply signs for the concepts we
wish to convey. A refusal to use adjectives to describe relative ideas
doesn't get rid of relative ideas. With or without verbal descriptions, our
tonal concepts will remain infinitely relative and diverse, and I for one,
wouldn't want it any other way.

And now I promise that my next posting will be on some much more practical or
lighthearted matter.

Andrew Grenci