Klarinet Archive - Posting 000297.txt from 2000/05

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Tone descriptions
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:41:54 -0400

Audry, I do not disagree with your analysis of the issue except in one
respect. I believe that your perceive the analysis and production of a
pleasing sound character on the clarinet to be part and parcel of the
performing role. And in defense of my interpretation of what you wrote,
I point out that you use essentially the same vocabulary in speaking
about sound character as you do when speaking about music performance.

While I agree that music performance is ruled to a considerable degree
by emotion, the development of a pleasing sound character is not (or
should not be). It's like technique and requires an objective
assessment unhindered by the kinds of emotion (and technically useless
terminology) that one participates in during a performance of a very
emotional work.

As a clarinetist (or as a musician in general), it is necessary to
separate one's life into two parts. The first part (and to a
considerable degree perhaps the more important from a financial point of
view) is emotionally based and deals with actual performance matters.
The second part should be based as much as is possible on objective
assessments of playing technique. You do that all the time. When you
play out of rhythm or get behind the beat, you are thinking objectively,
and measureably you know something is wrong because you can count it.
And it is that kind of thinking that gets all fuzzy when we start
talking about sound character using fuzzy, undisciplined, and
meaningless terminology.

Tell me what "dark" means is some universally agreed-to way, and I'll
buy your argument in a nutshell. Tell me how I know when the sound is
dark enough. Tell me what I have to tell a student to get him/her to
produce that dark sound and you will have found a convert.

But failing to do that, do not ask me to join you in an emotional
experience under the assumption that you are telling me technical truth.

Dan

Audrey Travis wrote:
>
> > Dan Leeson wrote:
> >
> > Instead of enjoying a sound because they like it, they are searching for
> > a holy grail that has different meanings to different people."
> >
>
> Dan has written about descriptive words such as "dark" (his favourite) which to
> him are meaningless as a method of accurately pinpointing what clarinet sound
> is like. I'd like to approach this discussion from a different point of view.
> Please - no flames - I'm a bit of a redhead and burn easily! Much of human
> life (maybe all of human life) is about communication. Our attempts in all
> phases of life to communicate with others - our thoughts, ideas, feelings,
> knowledge, love, desires. We do it through a variety of techniques such as
> speech, body movement and body language, physical action, music, art, poetry,
> prose, silence. When a poet or an author uses a metaphor or another literary
> device to paint a picture in our minds, to urge us along the path of thought,
> he/she doesn't NOT paint that picture because we might not understand it in the
> same way the poet or author meant it. He/she does everything possible to help
> us see what they see, but certainly cannot know if we do. Neither can we know
> if we've understood what the poet/author understood and tried to communicate.
> Instead we attempt to open our hearts and souls and derive meaning from the art
> form. And that poet/author opens up a chamber in our minds for thought and
> dialogue, because now we begin to think and feel outside our everyday human
> cares. We don't say to the poet/author don't write anything unless you can
> scientifically prove to me that we will all understand your writing equally
> accurately. This is an 'attempt' to communicate, not a guarantee of
> understanding. Why would we then not see musical expression (whether producing
> or listening) in the same way? We are attempting to communicate. People quite
> naturally (many, at least) want to discuss what they have heard and felt as a
> result of being exposed to music. When people communicate, they start from
> where they are. If someone else's words allow them to think, and make them
> listen to their heart to see whether those words strike a responsive chord, can
> we say this is wrong? We build understanding and connect with people by
> opening a dialogue, not by shutting it down because we don't find meaning in a
> particular descriptive word. If one word doesn't work for you, try another or
> try to see what the other person understans by that word. Dark may not mean to
> one person what it means to another, but it opens a dialogue, and can lead to
> further attempts at clarity. We all teach each other - if we continue to talk,
> we eventually hit a response of understanding. We are musicians, purveyors of
> beauty or angst, attempting tocommunicate the recesses of the heart. Must we
> be scientifically able to prove that we all hear or feel the same thing for us
> or our music to be valid? Perhaps we've forgotten why we make, listen to, and
> love music.
>
> Best wishes
> Audrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

--
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

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