Klarinet Archive - Posting 000916.txt from 1998/12

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Stolzman and opinions
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 22:07:44 -0500

On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> An opinion on Stoltzman (or anyone for that matter) should be
> meaningful to the readers of that posting. One does not have
> to agree but one must understand it.

'Interesting, Dan, that you couch your opinion in prescriptive
terms, particularly after your rather verbose statement in support
of Antony Pay's message of a few weeks ago. In that message, Antony
indicated that contributors to the Klarinet list too often use verb-
iage such as "should" and "must" and other terms of definitude when
offering up opinions in response to questions from other members. Yet
here you are, expressing not only your opinion in such terms, but ex-
pressing that opinion about how others should express THEIR opinions.
Does that seem a little hypocritical to you? It seems that way to me.

<snip of other statements>

> If the purpose of an opinion is to communicate what one thinks, then
> one has to concentrate on things that a musician can understand and
> do something about.

Why does somebody "have to" do anything of the sort, Dan? Are you
suggesting that your inability to make sense of another's opinion
indicates that the opinion is not likely to be comprehensible to
anybody else?

Here is an issue of comprehension with which you can probably
speak authoritatively. I do not understand your use of the word
"ephemeral" in the excerpts below. What do you mean when you
say...

> I admit that beauty of tone is very ephemeral and difficult to
> characterize.

<snip> and...

> Entering into the ephemeral world, one needs to address issues such as
> tone character somewhat more objectively than was done in the example
> I am mentioning. We are constanltly reading reviews which say that "xxx
> does not have the slightest understanding of the inherent ephemeral
> qualities of Debussy" and careers balance on such nonsense.

Ephemeral means "transitory", "fleeting", and/or "short-lived".
Do you perhaps mean to say "esoteric"? I ask because, to my
mind, beauty of tone in a particular player is anything BUT
ephemeral. When I hear Shifrin or Leister play, their respect-
ive tone qualities are, among many other qualities in their
playing, signature aspects which I have come to recognize
immediately. I find this to be true in general of the most
respected clarinetists around the world. If the beauty of
a particular player's tone were indeed ephemeral, then I
imagine that (s)he would be no more likely to succeed in the
classical music industry than if (s)he lacked good intonation,
made technical errors, or couldn't play in rhythm. Thus, I
find myself wondering if you didn't actually have another
word in mind when you chose to use the word "ephemeral".

You also wrote:

> If one is going to criticize an artist such as Stoltzman, then is
> should be done with considerably more thought, care, and precision
> than chocolate, liquid, and poetry.

More of the same hypocrisy here about using definitive prescriptive
language to express an individual opinion. I have no problem with
the terms chocolate, liquid, and "poetry" in a description of the
qualities in a player's tone. I also have no problem with your
opposite opinion in that regard. In light of your position on
the use of "should" and "need to" and "must" in absolute terms
by other list members, however, I do have a small problem with
the way you express your opinion here.

Maybe you did not intend to craft your message in the language
of absolutes, but it comes across that way to me. Personally, I
feel that the burden of caution lies with the reader rather than
the writer, i.e.; caveat emptor. But either way, it is my opinion
that people ought to practice what they preach.

Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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