Klarinet Archive - Posting 000452.txt from 1999/04

From: James Pyne <jpyne@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] science & materials when decoupled
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:34:18 -0400

On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:34:20 Dr. Steven Goldman wrote and I respond as
indicated below:

>Carefully designed single or perhaps double blind studies perhaps, anecdotal
>evidence, never. We have seen how anecdotal evidence has led all forms of
>scientific inquiry astray.

Methodologies that attempt to improve instrument (and mouthpiece) building
would, for the most part, not qualify as "scientific inquiry". What I do as
a mouthpiece maker is quite different from what I do in timbre and
perception research at the university, though there is some overlap.

For example, successful professionals regularly come to do
mouthpiece/barrel work with me in my studio. Based on that reality allow me
to create a hypothetical scenario: Over the course of a year I ask 30 of
these professionals to try the same clarinet. Without giving any prompt to
that effect, 25 or more comment that the instrument sounds shrill (thin,
harsh etc.) in the upper register. This would lead me to believe that a
modification to correct "upper register shrillness" might be in order.

I have, in fact, been involved with doing that sort of thing for many years
(30+) and find that equipment modifications can be made successfully on the
basis of player responses. Certainly it helps that the responses come from
highly accomplished clarinetists. It is a little like gathering expert
testimony. What's important for those who read this, and my previous post,
to know is that I would make no claim that this sort of activity is
"scientific inquiry". It is rational gathering of evidence that works quite
well in terms of improving design parameters. The knowledge gained has been
provided by what I would call experiential evidence or possibly anecdotal
evidence and it is useful in this limited arena of activity.

On the other hand I sometimes ask these performers to allow me to record
them, so that features of their playing, like tone quality, can undergo
computer analysis. (Other elements of musicianship, such as a beautifully
connected legato, can be analyzed by producing computer generated
"waterfalls" as well.) This is very carefully controlled and repeatable
activity that could more rightfully be dubbed "scientific inquiry".

>Also, one should be very careful when comparing the acoustical study of
>instruments with that of concert halls

This is certainly true. That instruments and concert halls were included in
the same sentence was to say that they are both not well understood, not to
imply that study methods would necessarily be the same.

>The huge number of possibly variables one must account for in an
>instrument is >simply dwarfed by those of studying the variables of a
>hall. The reason >"science" has not been particularly successful with
>concert hall acoustics is >that it has as yet not been up to the challenge
>of accounting for or even >understanding the immense number of variables
>involved. We do have a bit better >chance with instrument design.

On the face of it this would seem right. However an instrument (plus
performer) has to generate the sound, while the concert hall is passive,
and the generative processes are in themselves quite complex. As to
possible variables, how would one guess?

---Jim Pyne

James Pyne
Clarinet Studio/Research Group
School of Music
The Ohio State University
1866 College Road
Columbus, Ohio 43210
pyne.1@-----.edu
Tel: 614 292 8969
Fax: 614 292 1102
http://www.arts.ohio-state.edu/Music/Clarfest

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org