Klarinet Archive - Posting 000226.txt from 1997/10

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Leeson's query on different sounds of Clarinets
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:55:07 -0400

Golly, that was a long note from Jerry Korten. I read it several
times. I wish I knew all that stuff that Jerry knows, and that is
not a disingenuous statement. I'm really impressed by the
breadth of his knowledge in this respect. Serious statement.

The problem I have is that I'm not sure what a summary of his note
would say. I don't know if he agrees with me or disagrees with
me. It's not clear.

I asked someone (who had made statements about the sound of his/her
LeBlanc) to be specific about what LeBlanc did to their instruments
that created the sound of which s/he was so fond.

So Jerry brought in Lee Gibson very structured analysis of
polycylindricity of bore construction. Now if Lee measured the
bores of the instruments, then I can't argue with that. It is
clear and unequivocal science. In the face of his data, I certainly
cannot say that the Buffet, for example, is not an instrument
of polycylindrical bore. No. That's an issue that Lee has
closed.

But I really have to question the interpretation of that geometrical
fact, because here we leave the safe world of science and enter
the distressingly unclear world of opinion and interpretation.
Jerry quote Lee as suggesting that:

"The rather confused and varied sound of a Buffet
may [note MAY!!!, not does] come from the more
complicated bore."

Somehow measuring a bore as polycylindrical on one hand (which is
about as scientific as one can get) and then suggestings that this
phenomenon produces a "rather confused" sound on the other (which is
about as opinionated and unscientific as one can get), and suggesting
that one may be a causative factor to the other leaves me very
uncertain about what was said here, what might be concluded here,
or whether or not any truth has arisen as a result of such work.

It's hard for me to understand how to measure or even describe something
as unclear as the phrase "rather confused sound." And when I leave
the safety of a single clarinet and presume that the assertion applies
to all clarinets of a single manufacturer (and whose source is not
known to be polycylindricality by maybe is caused by that), I have
to admit that I'm on very uncertain territory.

So if Jerry was attempting, by the use of Lee's words, to demonstrate
how LeBlanc's engineering can be shown to be a direct and causative
element in the sound produced by a LeBlanc clarinet (and apparently
confirmed by LeBlanc's marketing department, as if they were an
objective group of individuals), then I am not sure that he has
achieved that end.

Actually, my original note to the now forgotten person was not
intended to be critical. I just wanted to see if the person who
made the statement was able to talk intelligently about what
s/he had asserted to be true. The party answered with a pretty
good try and I was satisfied that s/he had given some thought
before putting fingers to keyboard. I didn't agree, but that
was not important. The poster was earnest in his/her effort
to describe something that was important to him/her.

But if Jerry, in his note, felt that he had offered a serious
enough level of precision in showing exactly how LeBlanc
achieved that end (i.e., through something other than
polycylindricality), all I can see is a statement of technical
fact followed by questionable interpretations of that fact
(or, in reality, a lot of facts).
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org