Klarinet Archive - Posting 000543.txt from 1997/10

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Re Gary's fantastically interesting note to me
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:53:09 -0400

Though Gary did not want to bore anyone with yech philisophical
talk, I found his note fascinating. So much so, that I am not
going to answer it shoot-from-the-hip. I must think about the
matter very carefully or else wind up with doody on my shoes.

I don't know how long it will take before I come out of the other
end of the pipeline. I hesitate to mention this, but some thoughts
about clarinet and clarinet playing have been gestating inside my
head for more than 10 years. But I am going to presume that I
can say something intelligent here in maybe a week. If I can't,
I'll say that too.

His question is much too important to slapdash an answer.

His second paragraph, however, is very touchy. What vocabulary
(if any) can be used to speak about issues of sound. And on
this matter, the gestation period has been over in my head for
a long time. But let me write up something.

In the meanwhile, I think some of you may be interested in
reading the details of what Gary has said here with respect
to the two kinds of sound; i.e., the objective and the subjective.

And now, off to think mode.

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.32
> Subj: RE: klarinet-digest V1 #301

> 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]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 8:53 AM
> To: klarinet@-----.us
> 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>
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================