Klarinet Archive - Posting 000208.txt from 1996/09

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Tom L. asks me to restate
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:36:06 -0400

Dan Leeson wrote:

> 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 being 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.)

Dan's interpretation of my statements is mistaken. The gist of my most
recent post on the subject of scientific evidence was to make a clear
delineation - to effectively disavow any causal correlation whatsoever
between two very distinct and not-necessarily-connected concepts. This
particular thread began as one concerning the issue of sound quality
between different clarinets. No declaration was ever made concerning
judgments of a musical aesthetic until Dan said "The absence of objective
scientific data leaves one with nothing but opinion...and that is a
notoriously unreliable way to decide on anything musical." In no way was
my response to this statement intended to endorse the notion that
credible scientific exploration, in verification or disproval of sound
quality differences between clarinets, would somehow lead to the
relegation of music being "decided upon" by charts and graphs. I'm
actually surprised that such logic was applied to what I wrote.

As I said before, such an argument is to the effect of comparing apples
to oranges (or to whatever other more creative non-sequitur item is as
metaphorically far away from apples as possible). The foundation of Dan's
strict adherence to objective science, in order to substantiate arguments
against the subjective nature of the human ear, is based upon the
supposition that subjective interpretation is unreliable in determining
facts. That's what the "scientific method" is designed to eliminate. We
can't use our ears to tell us the truth (read: facts) about the quality of
sound coming from two (or two hundred) different clarinets because, in
Dan's opinion, the human ear is not an objective instrumental guage and
can not be trusted to render an unbiased evaluation. We're talking about
sound here, folks, not music. Sound is a physical phenomenon - i.e.;
waves in the air of particular frequencies and amplitudes.

The human ear is not the only instrument capable of detecting sound. Other
instruments, like oscilloscopes (a.k.a. a "strobe", which is what your
tuner is), detect sound as well, but differently. I believe the point
which Dan has been trying to make is that where a scientific instrument -
like a microphone or an oscilloscope - has only one function and purpose in
life, and performs that function exactly the same way every time it is
used, the human brain does not. Perhaps a physician on the list could
provide more specific information in this regard. When a scientific
instrument, for our purposes in this discussion, is used, data is recorded
and displayed directly (i.e.; your tuner telling you whether your sound
is sharp or flat). When the ear is used, data is passed through a
filter called the human brain - and subsequently through the filter of a
person's cumulative impressions, experiences, and biases - so that the
"display" (the person's conclusion) says, "There's a difference in
sound" when comparing one clarinet to another. The seeming impossibility to
circumvent these conditioned impressions, experiences, and biases (nature
of the human animal) makes our particular instrument, the ear, unsuitable
to evaluate sound quality differences from a scientific standpoint,
unless we can somehow pass the acquired data through a different medium for
display prior to interpretation of the results. The ear itself is just
fine for detecting sound. The brain is the real culprit in this debate.

As Dan said,

> 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.

No mention of music. As I said in a previous posting, Dan's position
must be considered viable if the discussion deals only with the physical
phenomenon of sound. That's why I made no distinction between sound
coming from the San Francisco Symphony and sound coming from the rear end
of a '57 Studebaker (or the rear end of a '34 Leeson, for that matter).
Okay, that was silly. Music, however, is far too broad a realm of different
criteria to be subject to the logic Dan has applied to sound. By Dan's
own assertion regarding the indeterminacy of the human brain, there can
be no relevant connection between scientifically objectifiable sound and
individually subjective perceptions of music. Why is sound so important then?
If we were all just a bunch of robots and computers, it wouldn't be
distinguishable from music at all, or vice versa. But members of this list
have asserted, many with a degree of passion, that they most certainly do hear
a difference. While the jury may be out for some time yet on who is right or
wrong (I don't agree wholeheartedly with Dan, but I'm inclined to lean more
toward his logic in this case and will wait out the years ahead to see if
anybody comes up with conclusive evidence), there are 6 billion jury members
making decisions on the issue of music, and that particular jury will, in all
likelihood, be eternally in deliberation.

Neil