Klarinet Archive - Posting 000362.txt from 1997/10

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:24:34 -0400

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:
> So far, all I have out of this discussion is that you are making
> subjective judgements on factors such as how the instrument
> blows, what you suggest the resistance is to you, how you hear
> the sound, etc. I recognize that each person must, of necessity,
> make decisions based on their own experience, but to escalate
> those decisions and conclusions to the level of a general truth
> is not acceptable to my way of thinking.

That's ok....I'm not advocating clarinets are like computers or other
items that require exact specifications to be the same, to measure the
same, to behave and excute to the same dynamics all of the time.
Therefore, I maintain, a clarinet is not objective! It has and always
will be a subjective thing....therefore, judging it subjectively is
necessary. It wouldn't matter if we were saying that it does this or that
and could prove it.....won't make it do this or that for someone
else...because that someone else will blow through it differently....a
clarinet plays subjectively.

> That doesn't necessarily mean diddy-squat to you and I'm not offended by
> it, but I argue that you have not made a verifiable technical
> statement in this entire discussion.

By stating what many believe? That there is an identifiable sound, unique
to Leblanc? It doesn't have to be verifiably technical......it doesn't
matter if you believe it or not! Only if I report that several believe
it. You are free to dispute it......that's ok....really! But, it's like
saying, "you can't prove there are extraterrestrals.....so therefore, you
can't make an objective, technically verifiable statement about them."
That doesn't disprove extraterrestials either!

> The way dialogue goes is that the person who makes the assertion
> (i.e., the LeBlanc has a sound that is different from the
> Buffet) is obliged to give objective reasons why that assertion
> is true. Stating that it is true because s/he hears it to be
> the case is not satisfactory.

This would be true if I were Leblanc or Buffet. But I am neither,
therefore, such criteria does not apply to me. I am an end user....and
the criteria I decide for myself IS objective to ME......if I choose to
share that with the listserv, I am not doing anyone a disservice. Someone
could say, "boy that Roger Garrett guy.....what a WHACKO!" and that would
be fine. Someone might also say, "Leblanc sound....hmmmm....I wonder if
there is anything to that......" and that is fine too. I'm not trying to
ask you to believe what I believe!

> You can say it, of course, but it has no weight.

Well...not to you or a few others. But, if I tell students, or hold a
clinic and say it, my reputation and performance credentials in the given
area helps what I say carry weight....perhaps not in this forum (who is
this guy anyway!!??), but I can assure you, it doesn't bother me at all if
it carries weight here or not!

> Stating that it is true because other people
> think it is true (citing university professors) is
> equally unsatisfactory. These mechanisms do not establish truth. They
> establish folklore which is often confused with truth, and, in
> fact may very well be truth. But it is not truth until it is
> established to be so in some universally agreed to objective
> way.

I can see you are the kind who requires a specific kind of objective
proof - and that is courageous of you. However, there are many things
with regard to the clarinet and it's performance that you already know
objective measurements/tests (the kind that might satisfy you!) are
non-existant. Therefore, what seems clear to me and other people will
not convince you....and that's ok by me! If
it is true to me, and I tell others, they can decide for themselves what
they need in order to make it true. Who said anything about universally
agreed upon objective method of determining if the "Lebl. sound" exists?

> Look at the depth of our disagreement here (and I appreciate
> how thoughtful you are in citing your rejection of my
> hypotheses - I hope I am doing the same). I have stated
> on several occasions in the past (in fact we had a lengthy
> go around on this 2 years ago) that, while the clarinet
> nature of the sound of the instrument is derived from both
> the instrument and the mouthpiece, the character of the sound
> is derived from the players physical characteristics: head
> shape, nasal cavities, sinuses, teeth, tongue, etc. To
> a considerable extent, the character of one's sound is as much
> a matter of good luck as it is practice, but whichever it is
> the instrument itself lends little to the character itself. But
> a clarinet sound itself (you close your eyes and you know it
> is a clarinet even if it sounds terrible) is derived from the
> instrument and the mouthpiece. The abstraction that we try
> to achieve as a "beautiful sound" is mostly unrelated to the
> instrument. Once the air column leaves the bottom of the
> mouthpiece, the sound character is almost fully formed.

I understand what you are saying here, but who is determine which
characteristics that make it sound like a clarinet are the physical ones
from the performer and who determines which are created by the instrument
itself? "Beautiful" does not seem objective to me.......I think David
Shifrin has a beautiful tone, but I have heard folks who want more core to
the sound describe his sound as uncentered and spread. This is simply an
example I use to describe how subjective the word "beautiful" is. Some
people believe that a synthesizer sounds just like a clarinet too.....are
we to assume as much?

> Now with that view (which clearly you do not hold), it should
> be clear that we are at diverse ends of the spectrum on this
> issue and are not going to get very far in resolving it. It is
> not that we are at different shades of grey. We are at black
> and white positions.

I agree.

> So I suggest that we move on to other things in life because we
> are not going to get very far in this one. Perhaps, the best
> thing about the discussion is that we have both had the
> opportunity to voice our opinions and maybe others on the list
> will start to think about these important issues. That's the
> best we're going to hope for.

Now that we have both voiced our opinions......let's do that. And
realize, I appreciate your viewpoint and continue to think about it....
let's hope to have another discussion for which we may have black and
white digressions.......it is good for the soul.....not to mention the
typing skills.

Respectfully submitted,
Roger Garrett
Prof. Clarinet
IWU

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