Klarinet Archive - Posting 000538.txt from 1996/12

From: Peter Stoll <peter.stoll@-----.ca>
Subj: Re: I'm at it again
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 19:01:46 -0500

Ha! I figured if Dan were lurking hereabouts, I'd catch it for
re-importing the dreaded "dark" and "light" again. Oh well, and at the
risk of making a point to a dwindling holiday audience, I must disagree
wholeheartedly! I've always found Dan's arguments, while voluminous and
meticulously thought-out as chains of logic, a bit out of place in
something as subjective as music...I mean, ultimately it's not the theory
of one's sound or anything else that brings an audience (or an audition
panel) to its feet, but rather the (admittedly subjective) reaction of
the listeners. The list member who initially asked some days ago about
the 2 makes of low C bass clarinets asked specifically for members'
impressions, not scientific data, and it was in that light that some of
us responded. Calling our responses "useless" is rather overtaking the
role of Grand Arbiter of the Useful! Sorry, Dan :).

I'll never forget the presentation entitled "An Architecture of Timbre",
which was a stunning array of scientific figures, charts, graphs,
overheads, handouts, but at the end of it, when one of the overheads
turned out to be upside-down, everyone around me laughed when some wag
quipped "There, that's much better" simply because we had all become
convinced that sound is not something easily quantifiable. In the absence
of this, the need to collect as much experiential evidence, from
listening and asking others questions, becomes paramount. I've been told
polar opposites about the tricky business of how a good sound feels;
ultimately, had I abandoned my quest for a rock-solid, scientific
solution, and simply tried what was working for most others as a starting
point, then my personal quest for a satisfying level of clarinet
performance consistency would have been much advanced in time. As with
intonation, what's technically "pure" but doesn't fit into the context
loses you the gig! ("too hard to play with; can't fit in").

I'm not saying this to try and dissuade Dan from his obviously strong
points of view, but I don't want the younger members of the list falling
down my slippery slope of seeking an absolute, scientific solution to
what is a very finely-honed esthetic problem, ie. the round (etc.etc.)
sound most desire in the serious symphonic realm.

Peter