Klarinet Archive - Posting 000218.txt from 1996/09

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Clarinet sound perception
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:36:15 -0400

> From: MX%"ux403@-----.52
> Subj: Clarinet Sound Perception

> One question in the debate on perceiving different "sounds" in different
> clarinets:
> If musicians can perceive discrepancies in intonation, rhythm, dynamics,
> tempo, etc. in music, why is their ability to perceive differences in
> timbre being questioned? Like may others, I feel that I can perceive
> differences in sound between clarinets, particularly when I am playing
> them. Why is this not good evidence that there are differences between
> clarinets? I am not talking about different brands necessarily, but also
> different clarinets of the same make. Why can we not trust our ears in
> this decision when we do for so many other aspects of being a musician?

Lisa, intonation, rhythm, dynamics, and tempo are mathematical. There
is a well understood definition of each of these things and, because
of that definition (that you deal with at an intuitive level), you
are able to discern when predefined conditions are not achieved. You
know when you are flat or sharp because you have some substance behind
you. You probably don't think about it, but it is there nonetheless
and, except in rare cases, the matter is not arguable. Any good musician
knows when he/she or anyone else is flat or sharp, but that is not
subjective, it is very, very, very objective with all kinds of measuring
devices available to confirm or deny any assertion about it.

On the other hand, there is no universally accepted or recognized
definition of sound character. It is hard to talk about and is dealt
with almost exclusively using an ad hoc vocabulary like bright
and dark and sweet and sour, etc. And none of these words really
describe the thing, but they help one's thinking and to that extent
they can be useful. But when a manufacturer tells you that his or
her clarinet produces a dark sound, that postulates something over
which there is no universal, agreed upon description. You are getting
a snow job when told that this or that clarinet has a better sound
than some other clarinet. It is marketing hype.

In at least this area, one's ears are not reliable tools. Other areas
where ears don't function well is "beauty." Two intelligent people
will go to the same concert and one will say, "The concert was
magnificent" while the other will say "The concert was awful." Who
is right? Who is wrong. Is one correct in saying, "but I hear it
to be beautiful"? I don't know. Where is the emphasis, "I hear"
or "beautiful"?

A final factor has to do with the fact that you are not a good observer
of some things because you are conditioned by advertisement, environment,
social class, etc. to believe things that may not be true.

I remind you that not 50 years ago, people as old as you are now were
conditioned by advertisement, environment, and social class to presume
that some people were your social inferior, or that it was macho to
smoke, or that some people did not have the right to live. It's a
big stretch but I pull it in the hopes of getting you to think at
a different level than at the one at which you now think.

It is for that reason that I suggested in an earlier life, that character
of sound is difficult to talk about. And your assertion that you hear
things simply has to understood in terms of why you think you hear
things in a certain way.

>
> Lisa Gartrell Yeo
====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================