Klarinet Archive - Posting 000758.txt from 1997/11

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Nyquist list
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:15:58 -0500

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> By avoiding the how and why of music, we often end up with large
> discussions on this list that go on and on and are fueled by a never
> ending fuel of misinformation.

Learning from the list is identical to learning from one's private
teacher. If the student has any sense of independent thought and
free will, (s)he will ultimately learn to absorb what works and
hold the remainder of information in reserve until something more
conclusive or compatible is offered. It should be taken as a matter
of course that what is submitted to the Klarinet list is not necessarily
accurate or authoritative, which is self-evidently the nature of the
business. Nobody has all the answers, not John Cohler, not Dan
Leeson, nobody. It's a nice thing, aspiring to correct as much
fiction as possible, and I can tell that you enjoy doing so in
those areas where you have expertise. The current discussion on
digital signals, the Nyquist Theorem, the Fourier Theorem, et al,
no longer operates from a clarinet-specific point of relevance,
which is the reason for the request that the discussion be con-
tinued elsewhere. It is not disturbing or offensive. It has
simply gone beyond what could possibly be considered immediately
relevant to the subjects of clarinet performance, scholarship
and pedagogy. Jokes and side-chats are one thing, but the
group of people discussing DSP and such is engaged in a much
more sophisticated and lengthy discourse than a mere diversion
or interlude. For me, it's just a matter of deleting 20+
messages every time I log on. For others, though, they must
first consume time downloading the posts before knowing
whether or not to delete. And for some yet further, there
are connect-time costs involved. Be considerate of them,
if for no other reason.

Neil