Klarinet Archive - Posting 000872.txt from 2000/05

From: "Paul Miller" <paulplaysclarinet@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Tone -- a neurological approach
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:31:22 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hausmann

<snip>

> One
> person's "well" is another person's "awful," just as one person's "dark"
is
> another's "bright." That is the problem: there is no objective definition
> of the terms.

from another email

> that is not good enough to avoid considerable confusion in discussions
> of tone, and therefore the words [dark and bright] should be avoided
> if at all possible.

Of course there isn't an objective definition of those terms, but that
should not prevent our using them in discussion about tone. In many fields
of study, there are concepts that can not be proven, yet are essential to
the field. Take math, for instance. Can you define two? Can you explain
to me why two plus two equals four? No, you can't. We take 2+2 to be fact,
but it's really just an assumption, and one that we make with good reason:
we assume that 2+2=4 because no one has ever provided, since the beginning
of time, evidence that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. We will never *really* prove
that two plus two is four (it's impossible to do so), just as it is
impossible to *really* prove any mathematical "facts" (as they are all based
on assumptions), however, that doesn't prevent us from using those "facts"
in our discussion of mathematics.

The point: an objective definition of the terms "dark" or "bright" is
neither necessary nor desireable (nor possible) in our discussion of tone.
They refer to opposite ends of an arbritrary scale of tone color, and as
such, are useful to discussion. Different concepts of this scale bring more
to our table as artists -- if there were a concrete definition of those
terms, then clarinetists (not to mention every other musician on the planet)
would be a dime a dozen because there wouldn't be much difference between
their playing. Of course their articulation and phrasing and rhythm might
be different, but if we had a concrete definition of "dark and bright," we
would probably also have objective definitions of describe those facets of
performance (for instance, the idea of staccatto isn't very concrete, it
depends on musical context), and we would lose even further our sense of
musical identity.

This is not to say that there can be no approximate consensus between any
two given people with respect to tone color, it is to say that the concept
of tone color is more important than the precise definition. If the parties
involved in the discussion have even similar ideals, then they can easily
discuss. If their ideals are not similar, they hash it out and both can
potentially grow in their sonic potential of the instrument. To try and
define "dark" and "bright" one-dimensionally and absolutely is a futile
exercise because every individual's conception of sound is not objective.
However, the terms are very useful to me and every one of my colleagues in
both specific and general discussion, as well as in practice. To remove
these words from our descriptive vocabulary, as Bill prescribes, would be
harmful because the flexible nature of the terms makes them useful. To sum
up, the problem isn't that there are not objective definitions of the terms
"dark" or "bright", the problem is that certain inflexible people refuse to
acknowledge those terms' usefulness and attempt to foist their opinions upon
those of us who find those terms to be absolutely indespensible.

'nuff said.

--Paul

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