Klarinet Archive - Posting 000194.txt from 1996/09

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Tom L. asks me to restate the basis of discussion
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:35:54 -0400

You are right Tom. Things are out of focus.

The discussion began when a post suggested that a particular clarinet
(I think it was an R13) produced a different tone than another (I think
it was a LeBlanc concerto). I don't remember the exact wording but the
implication was clear from the poster that the sound of a clarinet
depended mostly on the clarinet.

I then made my initial posting for this round by saying that the sound
of a clarinet is made mostly by the player, a great deal having to do
with his or her body type and a lot to do with the mouthpiece, but that
once the air column left the mouthpiece, the character of the sound
would not be affected by the make of the clarinet. I was speaking
specifically about "brand name" at that juncture. And I probably said
that it would not be possible to distinguish any alleged sound character
differences between an R13 and a LeBlanc; i.e., a player would sound the
same on either instrumuent, but I would have said that for a Selmer and
a Yamaha, too. There was no brand involvement with the assertion.

There were then a handful of postings that said that this was not so
because they tried it and they could hear a difference.

I countered by suggesting that (a) the ears aren't very reliable for
this sort of thing, (b) there was a lot of brand pressure put on people
in precisely this kind of situation, and (c) one often will hear what
they think they are supposed to hear.

It was a dozen or so notes into this part of the discussion that there
arose a question to the effect: if one can't hear a difference between
brands (as I suggested), then what about difference in the medium of
the clarinet, such as hard rubber, various woods, etc.

Then the expansion of the topic began.

My position was that the material out of which the clarinet is made
(and I think I made exceptions such as cork and woven papyrus) is
irrelevant to the character of the sound that comes out of it. And for
the same reasons; i.e., the sound comes from the body, etc., etc.

Suddenly we to a zig when we should not have. Someone asked why I
believed that sound character was not distinguishable in the way
suggested and I think I said was that there was no reliable scientific
evidence to support that belief that sound character differences of
the type suggested as existing really did exist.

Then Neil Leupold had a very excellent post about scientific evidence.
However in it, he said (in essence) that ultimately any scientific
experiment established to measure what I said could not be measured by
people would ultimately lead to music beind decided on by charts and
graphs, not people's emotional ears. (Neil, that is not exactly what
you said, but I think that it was the gist of it.)

I have spent several days trying to respond to Neil and I have tried
several times to generate an intelligent answer but for the moment I
am have difficulty articulating what I want to say. But I am working on
it.

This is a very narrow discussion:

it deals with the ability of people to hear differences in
sound character by brands, by media of manufacture, and that's
about it.

The "gut feel" aspect of it arose when a posting said that that person's
"gut feel" was all that was required. But I forget now the exact wording
of that posting.

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