Klarinet Archive - Posting 000848.txt from 1996/08

From: Dick Walters <waltersd@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: Re the "gut" feel
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:16:31 -0400

MUSIC@-----.BITNET wrote:
>
> So far I have seen about 6 postings asserting that they have a gut
> feel about differences in instruments, or that someone's wife heard
> a difference, or their student heard a difference or they heard a
> difference, and then the poster feels that something conclusive has
> been established by having said that.
>
> It is not the way it works. There has to be unbiased, objective,
> scientific evidence for assertions of this nature.
>
> It does not matter if one's dog hears a difference, this does not
> consistitute a technical truth. I used to thing that clarinet players
> were the most noble, intelligent, understanding people in the world.
> But my faith is shaken when I see "gut feel" being offered as
> conclusive evidence on anything. One has a built-in bias to hear
> things in the way that one thinks they are supposed to be heard. And
> to objectivity, that is a death sentence.
>
> I know that music is a subjective business, at least the performance
> side of it is. But when it comes to matters of physics and
> whether or not an unbiased listener can tell something, subjectivity
> is not a reliable tool.
>
> And thus, it does not matter what one's wife hears, or one's student,
> or even the player. We are beset with so many subjective phenomena
> that we simply cannot trust our ears on issues such as this.
>
>
> It seems that this came about from questioning whether there is a
> difference in
> sound from different clarinets. If I understand Dan correctly is saying
> that you
> can't rely on your ears to tell if there is a sound difference or not.
> Therefore
> I say there is a difference. Of course you can't rely on your ears to
> prove me
> wrong. In the interest of being analytical I have tried different
> mouthpieces
> with a low frequency spectrum analyzer. There is a difference. I wish
> that I still
> had access to that equipment to try different clarinets.
> Interesting Question. Evidently there is no way to prove the hypothesis
> is correct
> or not so why not use gut feel? It's your money.
> jackD.
This is an interesting debate, especially for a non professional
player. If the clarinet is a part of a music making system, along with
the player and if the only "output" of the system exists in the ear and
brain of the listener, then how can discernable differences of musical
pleasure to the listener not be an objective criterion, at least for
that listener? If the listener(s) have an educated "ear" to evaluate
that system vs an experiential database of other similar systems and
judges one of many clarinets (a variable element of the system) it as
better or worse than others in his experience, why is this not a valid
objective judgement (at least for systems involving the same player)?
How can a spectrum analyser be quantified to measure the essence of
Mozart's musical intention for himself and his listeners with K422? If
so, what would it prove except during Hewlett-Packard lunchroom
concerts? Granted, a reedy sound may have been his preference compared
to a dark sound of a modern instrument; but at least for a single player
picking between several instruments, seems to me if he and others agree
one "sounds" better, that's a valid selection criteria, at least for
him. Certainly if it plays better, or easier, or whatever as well, seems
important. Granted my wife's subjective evaluation is only important if
I intend to play in the house without a hassle. The virtual dog is not
an issue; but what about the principal player from the LA Philharmonic?
No one has challanged his opinion. Could be he's still lurking in
cyberspace somewhere and may remember this episode and jump in with an
opinion.

Dan, you don't have the list license to be a crumudgeon, do you? I hope
not.