Klarinet Archive - Posting 000921.txt from 1998/12

From: "Ed Maurey" <edsshop@-----.ca>
Subj: Re: [kl] Stolzman and opinions
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 22:07:49 -0500

Harrumph...Major Hoople circa 1955

----------
> From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Stolzman and opinions
> Date: Thursday, December 24, 1998 2:18 PM
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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