Klarinet Archive - Posting 000786.txt from 1999/12

From: "redcedar" <redcedar@-----.au>
Subj: [kl] More Thoughts on an FAQ for "klarinet"
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:48:53 -0500

When Dan Leeson proposed his approach to FAQs he appended a set of sample
questions relating to clarinet materials of construction. Maybe I got the
bull by the tail, but I interpreted this example as an indication of serious
intent, and envisaged the probable development of substantive responses to
the FAQs. Some subsequent posts would suggest that perhaps I was in error,
for it appears that others may see such responses more in the realms of a
ten-second sound-bite with data links provided for those who desire more
information.

I am a comparative newcomer to the clarinet. A frequent problem encountered
in the search for relevant information, has been the relative paucity of
meaningful information appropriate to the clarinet owning/learning/playing
experience - choice of instrument, mouthpiece design and selection
characteristics, reed/mouthpiece interaction, embouchure techniques,
fingering variations, and so on. Some information that is available is
top-notch. However, much that is available, whether in books, journals,
promotional materials, web-sites or orally, is usually sketchy in nature,
often bald assertion with little factual support, and where opinions are
expressed, they are dogmatic rather than option canvassing. And
regrettably, mixed in with this, there is the unfortunate presence of much
that which falls in the sphere of obfuscation, myth and manure - and that's
being charitable.

However, on the "klarinet" list, I have been very pleasantly surprised to
find so many people of various skill sets and professionalism, who in the
main, seem willing to contribute and share their knowledge of a common area
of interest, and much credit is owed to Mark Charette for coordinating this
effort.

>From my perspective, an FAQ list, as proposed, would hopefully tap the
assorted knowledge of the List and allow the focussed construction of an
information source of value with perhaps greater comprehensiveness than is
generally available from other sources. There is no need for such an
approach to be a four-act drama with chorus, or "bogging down in details and
nitpicking" as one put it. However, the "sound-bite approach", would in my
estimation be a counter-productive alternative, and dare I suggest,
downright condescending, if not dismissive to many of those with a genuine
interest in knowing more, and the intelligence to handle such information.

When I first wrote on this subject yesterday, I stated that I had written
off-the-top-of-the-head, and it may have been felt in some quarters that
the tenor of my questions/suggestions presaged a dissertation was envisaged.
Nothing could be farther from my intent. Perhaps a recourse to the
following will better convey what I had in mind.

On another website, notionally for owners of a classic car marque, FAQs are
posed, and technical tips offered, and anyone who feels they have a sensibly
informed viewpoint has their contribution consolidated with others and
listed with editorial comment where appropriate, and the output made
available for access via the web-page. This is more substantive, and
informative, than the "sound-bite", is not a dissertation, and allows the
display of factual content as well as anecdotal contributions which are
attributable, and which provides the questioner with an indication of the
scope of what is possible with respect to a specific topic. The editorial
effort to massage this is not large. To see a practical example, visit the
American website of a classic car club at http://www.roc.org and go to "faq"
and "hinfo".

Michael

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