Klarinet Archive - Posting 000516.txt from 1997/10
From: Gary Young <gyoung@-----.com>
Subj: RE: klarinet-digest V1 #301
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 03:07:45 -0400
Dan,
Two comments. They are long and (yech) philosophical, so all you list
members, don't be shy about your delete key.
First, you say: "But the sound is not different. It is the same sound, but
heard differently." Translation: It is the same sound, it just SOUNDS
different. In other words, I'd guess, you're implicitly using "sound" to
mean two different things: First, the "objective" physical phenomenon of
waves moving through the air in a space (e.g. Orchestra Hall), and second,
the "subjective" auditory experiences that various people have when those
waves contact their ears. But the reason the latter (subjective sound) is
different for various people scattered around Orchestra Hall is that the
former (objective sound) is also different for them, as a result of their
different positions in a hall with acoustical properties of its own. (Or,
if person A is performing and person B listening, then A's physical contact
with the instrument makes the "objective" sound different for A and B.) So
I deny that "it is the same sound" in any relevant sense. (Of course the
auditory apparatus we bring to the experience of hearing can also play a
role in making the sound different for each of us. But even without that
factor, the sound, in both senses, would be different.)
Second, you say: "you have not made a verifiable technical
statement in this entire discussion." Do you think it is possible to make
ANY "verifiable technical statement" about how something sounds -- say,
about how Reginald Kell's recording of the Stravinsky Three Pieces sounds?
Can you give us an example? If this isn't possible, then aren't you
demanding the impossible from people who try to communicate their thoughts
about clarinet sound on this list? Haven't you eliminated all discourse
about how music sounds, except scientific analysis of sound waves and the
like (which is of course quite interesting, but not nearly enough for
talking about music)?
And if you can give a "verifiable technical statement," I'd bet (though not
a lot, given your superb knowledge of music and general resourcefulness)
that the verification will turn out to be through one of our subjective
senses, such as vision or hearing (reading a oscilloscope, etc.), which
will reintroduce the whole problem of subjectivity at another level. (My
wife often thinks I'm exceeding the speed limit by more than I think I am,
because she's in the passanger seat and has a different angle on the
speedometer.)
Gary Young
Madison, Wisconsin
----------
From: Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu]
Subject: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
<snip>
Well, I agree that the player is not an objective observer of his or
her own playing because the sound reaches him/her in a way that
is different from the listener. But the sound is not different.
It is the same sound, but heard differently.
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 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.
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. You can say it, of course, but
it has no weight. 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.
<snip>
