Klarinet Archive - Posting 000326.txt from 1997/10

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:43:33 -0400

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> If the difference in sound is so noticeable (as you have asserted),
> then that difference should be identifiable no matter who is playing
> the instrument.

Gosh Dan, I thought that I was pretty clear about the part you cut
out.....remember the part of the post that said...."seriously..."?

I don't agree with you that anybody could play it and, if a difference
exists, I could tell. Let me pick the people....I think I can prove that
in front of people who are even non-musicians. No.....no loophole
here...I know what I was writing when I wrote it....I said, to a lesser
degree...not that I could hardly tell. I can tell.....the John Yeh
comment was a compliment to John Yeh....reread a post earlier that I wrote
regarding his Basset mouthpiece.

If you cannot recognize the sound (or do so to a
> lesser degree when you are not playing), you have to consider the
> possibility that your "recognition" is not at all aural, but is
> due to other factors such as brand name influence, physicality of
> the instrument, the feel and placement of the keys, and other
> psychological factors, etc.

I have considered it...and the "lesser" degree sure isn't measured here is
it?! Exactly what do you base your premise on? My words, "a lesser
degree?"?? C'mon ......you can't say in one post that the posting is not
specific and the answer is based on mathematics that tell you little, and
then turn around and base an entire answer on two ambiguous,
non-descripitive words such as "lesser degree". You just lessened your
credibility...uh...to some degree.....!

> This then reduces the accuracy of your assertion that you can tell
> the difference between LeBlanc and other instruments.

By exactly how much? A percentage? A majority opinions somewhere in some
poll? Exactly what do you mean by reduces the accuracy?

> I have no
> doubt that you believe you can, but, so far, the above scenario
> gives rise to the possibility that you are truthful but fooling
> your self; i.e., you really can't tell but are using things other
> than sound to arrive at the conclusion that you are attributing to
> sound.

Why would you feel that I was fooling myself? I made an honest
statement....that there are some things that we often wonder
about.....but, I did add the "seriously" part you know.

> And certainlyI accept completely that you are a truthful person
> and would not make a statement that is knowingly false. But the
> fact that you have less success when identifying others playing
> a LeBlanc is very hard evidence that there is far less difference
> than you assert.

Let me see, if I ran a race against a person ...let's say the 100 yard
dash, and I ran it in 10.5 seconds and the other person ran it in 11.5
seconds, I win. If I run another race in 10.8 seconds and the other
person comes in second with 11.0, I still win. I was less successful
against the second person in the second race....does that mean that I
didn't really earn the win? If I can still tell a difference, what does
it matter? Your argument is full of holes......and yes....I can still
tell the difference between horns....with competent players. There....the
tag on the end will give you another hole to jump on!

Round three....?

Roger Garrett

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