Klarinet Archive - Posting 000800.txt from 2000/05

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] Tone -- a neurological approach
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:14:18 -0400

<><> Daniel=A0Leeson wrote:
If I were to say to you that your sound is insufficiently gnurfled, the
first question you would ask is "What are the standards for a properly
gnurfled sound?" So why is dark different?

There _is_ a very real reason, Dan; and most respectfully, this is
the key point that I'm trying to get at.
More precisely, I'm trying to look _beyond_ the point that you and
I have already agreed to -- namely, in today's common speech and to the
average ear, there is no agreed upon meaning to "dark" and "bright".
But I want to look _beyond_ this already-agreed-to point, and I
want to do so precisely because there is some meaning, however distorted
or hidden, to the words. Otherwise people wouldn't gravitate towards
them. The question Is -- and it is a useful question -- What is lurking
underneath the surface of these words that causes them to be used?
I have no problem with declaring that these words ineffective at
present. I _do_ have a very real problem with saying, "Therefore we
should banish them" or "I nailed his hide to the wall because he dared
to use them." There is something in those words that demands attention
if we want to explore the entirety of music.

"Dark" and "bright" have a basis in the way our visual sensors and
neurons operate. They are not artificial. And if you accept the
premise that all of our rational thinking uses cross-talk between all of
the neural structures that map incoming sensations onto 'images', then
in order to have full command of music, you have to (somehow) come to
grips with why our neurons cause us, in some difficult-to-comprehend
way, to respond with the same words that normally apply only to visual
images.
Buried in all of this are Damasio's definitions of 'image" and
'rational'. In his lingo, 'rational' is not the same as 'logical'. And
in his lingo, Copland's and Einstein's insistence that they thought with
non-visual images is correct.

The book is 250 pages long, and so I won't bore the listers with a
precis of it. But Dan, I _do_ recommend that you read it. Amazon sells
it (probably every body does) for $13 + S&H.

<><> I repeat a story I have told umpteen times about this problem
<respectful snip of telling the audience that the tone is bright and
asking the performer to play dark>

My problem with this experiment is that it measures suggestibility.
It's easy to confuse or misdirect an audience about everything from
color to temperature by mere suggestion. Sales people and politicians
do this every day. Not to mention the extreme example of hypnosis.
My position remains that I agree with you about the current lack of
usefulness of "bright" and "dark. But I do object to banishing these
words. I do feel that we would be wearing blinders if we did not attend
to them -- albeit with our eyes wide open.

Respectfully,
Bill

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