Klarinet Archive - Posting 000242.txt from 1998/07

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Cultural Relativism (was Mozart and the V word)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:16:51 -0400

I may not have seen all this stuff, but has anybody previously pointed
out that flautists don't seem tohave this trouble with Mozart - and
likewise oboists who play K.314? Vibrato is an integral part of technique
on both instruments for their modern players. Do they have this kind of
argument? I don't think so.
Whether vibrato suits Mozart and whether it suits clarinet tone are
totally different matters.
Roger Shilcock

On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Kevin Fay (LCA) wrote:

> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:07:37 -0700
> From: "Kevin Fay (LCA)" <kevinfay@-----.com>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
> To: "'klarinet@-----.org>
> Subject: [kl] Cultural Relativism (was Mozart and the V word)
>
> Wow. Deja Vu all over again. What we have here is the entire debate over
> cultural relativism, boiled down to the question of whether it is
> appropriate to use vibrato in the Mozart concerto.
>
> I have seen these arguments both in philosophy classes back in my
> undergraduate years (when mastodons roamed the Earth) and again in law
> school. Believe it or not, this debate is essentially the same one that
> roiled the faculty of the Harvard Law School about 10 years ago. The
> "Critical Legal Studies" movement basically split the faculty into 2 camps,
> who still don't talk to each other. This debate has been going on since
> Plato and Aristotle; I suspect we won't solve it on this list server.
>
> In a nutshell: the "conservative" position is that facts are facts, and
> that you can tell or prove they are facts ("truths") by personal
> observation. An example--the "fact" that a specimen of hamburger meat is
> contaminated. I know this because I can see the bacteria under a
> microscope; if I wait, I can tell by smelling. Now, if you can't see the
> bacteria, it's because your microscope is defective--the microbes are still
> there. One system of observation (my microscope) can indeed be superior to
> another (your microscope); you can tell this (which is itself a fact) by the
> empirical evidence that I can see the bacteria and you can't. This is a
> useful philosophy for scientists, whose world view is dependent on
> observation. Among other things, it justifies the expense of buying the
> better microscope.
>
> The "radical" position is that there are no facts, only the observation (the
> "opinion") of the relevant observer. (This is basically Plato's observation
> that tables exist only in the mind--what you have your dinner resting on is
> merely an imperfect rendition of the perfect/imaginary "form" of table.)
> What makes this position "radical" is the corollary that all opinions are
> equally valid. This isn't all that controversial when speaking about items
> that clearly are matters of personal taste--e.g., vanilla is the best flavor
> of ice cream--but certainly can be when the "opinions" expressed are matters
> of social norm, such as religion, morality, and the "opinions" of judges.
> An example of the cultural relativist position: In some cultures, teenage
> pregnancy, incest and polygamy are the social norm; to the cultural
> relativist, our society's predilection against them is simply a matter of
> choice--and one choice has no inherent value over another.
>
> Which brings us to Mozart. If using modern instruments and vibrato is
> merely a matter of personal preference, then a debate on their use should
> cause no more heat than a discussion of ice cream flavors. I don't think
> that Drs. Lacy and Goldman are arguing that the undesirability of Mozartian
> vibrato is a "fact"--although the relativist perspective often would like to
> characterize the opposing viewpoint as such to make debate easier.
>
> Perhaps what they are saying (and forgive me if I mischaracterize) is that
> all opinions on the subject are not necessarily equally valid. Under their
> performance tradition (their "subculture," if you like) "doing whatever you
> like" with the Mozart concerto just because you think it sounds good is
> "wrong." The opposing "subculture,"--holding that music is in the ears of
> the listener, and that all approaches to performing the piece are therefore
> of equal value--is to them not as valid a subculture, because it ignores the
> scholastic tradition of Western music in which the concerto squarely sits.
> To the "subculture" of Drs. Lacy and Goldman, adherence to traditional
> performance practices is important, not just because it's inherently
> "right," but also because the majority of orchestral musicians share those
> values, and you will need to share them as well if you want to be a part of
> that subculture.
>
> Now, I am not taking a position either way--I might have a view on the
> subject, but I'm chicken. My point here (to the extent there is one) is
> that the debate is not of the issue itself, but of the values in the
> respective "subcultures" in which the issue is placed. I'll just note that
> flaming and counter-flaming is not going to solve the issue, which has been
> a central question of Western philosophy for close to three thousand years.
>
>
> I've managed to blow away another lunch hour on the Klarinet list--oh well.
> (And it's sunny outside, too--in Seattle, this is a big deal.)
>
> Wishing I was at the ClarinetFest,
>
> kjf
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barbara Guyll [mailto:grinanddizzy@-----.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 2:09 AM
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Re: Mozart and the V word
>
>
> >>Steven Goldman wrote:
> >Paulette's world view sends a chill down my spine.
>
> Is this because it differs from your opinion, Dr. Goldman? Quite the
> contrary was true in my case. It actually lifted my spirits.
>
> >Sadly, it is a rather popular view is some academic circles - philosophy,
> history, etc.
>
> In other words are you saying that any academic circle that disagrees with
> your viewpoint is a sorry one and should not be allowed to exsist. I would
> say that Paulette's viewpoint is a happy one. It is your view that is
> depressing.
>
> >It takes analogies that sound good but are really not, such as the map one,
> and uses them to come to totally incorrect conclusions.
>
> This is your opinion. In my opinion they are correct!
>
> >I guess the proper place to discuss this would be the philosophy list so I
> won't try to take apart this view here.
>
> It's just as well because so far you have taken up a lot of space in order
> to say very little and prove nothing.
>
> >Suffice it to say that under close inspection it is simplistic and
> irrational.
>
> Paulette's view is neither simplistic nor irrational and I am in total
> agreement with her. She made several valid points!
>
> IMHO it is closed minded thinking (such as I read in Dr. Goldman's post)
> that has kept clarinet performance from moving into the modern age.
>
> Ray Guyll
> Kirkland, WA
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
> For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
> For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org