Klarinet Archive - Posting 000093.txt from 1996/11

From: Stan Geidel <sgeidel@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: Mouthpiece Mania (2) Retort
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:50:00 -0500

At 11:45 AM 11/4/96 -0600, Frank Madison wrote:
>Dear, Roger, Steve, David, Stan
> Gentlemen I have read your statements and I am very dissapointed.
>I would never post any falsehood or theories on this group.
> I also state that the technology for this has been around for years...
> To say that there is no noticable differance in sound is just not so.
>Sorry but the horse is in the barn this is Fact not fiction....
==============================================================
Frank,

If you wish to make definitive statements such as the following:

"The reponse was better and the resistance was less when
blowing. Overall the mouthpiece resonates better and because of this
tempering I expect the mouthpiece facing to last at least 5 times more
than the average joe mouthpiece."

then you need to be prepared to demonstrate proof. I'm afraid that
someone's impression of something "sounding better" or "worse" does not
constitute proof that a particular technology impacts definitively and
positively on any aspect of musical performance. Sorry, but I'm going
to hold you to a high standard on this one. You say you "dipped the sucker
[i.e., the mouthpiece] in the nitro" and later you played it. You then
proclaimed it "responded better" and "the resistance was less."

No...not true. It does not follow that these differences occurred as a
result of the "tempering" process you describe. There are simply too
many variables that are contaminating your results. You are assuming that
nothing has changed except the molecular structure of the mouthpiece.
In fact, many items related to sound production have changed:
the reed has experienced change; the pressure exerted by the ligature may
have changed; your embouchure may have changed slightly, to compensate for
differences experienced in your reed-mouthpiece-ligature relationship.
There are no controls in place to allow the conclusion that a "tempering"
process is responsible, in whole or in part, for a perceived improvement in
the sound.

And then of course we have the question of perception. Expectations play a
significant role in perception (and in performance results as well).

I'll be happy to listen to proof, but I'm afraid, "it sounds better" just
doesn't document a case for "tempering" when you have too many other
factors in the mix.

Stan Geidel
======================
Dr. Stanley Geidel
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Stan Geidel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor | Automation Services Manager
The Online Clarinet Resource | University Libraries
Articles, Reviews, Lessons, More! | Ball State University
http://sneezy.mika.com/ocr | Muncie, Indiana 47306
email: sgeidel@-----.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------