Klarinet Archive - Posting 000878.txt from 2000/05

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Tone -- a neurological approach
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 07:18:40 -0400

At 12:31 AM 5/19/2000 -0700, Paul Miller wrote:
>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 falacy in your argument is that mathematical terms like "2" ARE
quantifiable and universally agreed to. If you could give a specific
numerical, graphical frequency distribution that would become the standard
defintion of "dark" and that would be accepted in the musical community,
then we'd really have something. Frankly, we would all thank you!

>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.
>
Having the dark-bright scale quantified would not change how individuals
sound or play at all. It would merely allow us to place them on a scale
for comparison. Unless, of course, they are all sheep who insist upon
following the crowd to a specific location on the scale in the misguided
belief that only a particular number on the scale is desireable. As
artists, they are entitled to make the sound THEY like, regardless of where
it places them on the continuum.

>...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.
>
If, within your group, you have agreement on what the terms mean, by all
means use them. They ARE useful within that context, and I'll give you
good odds that I personally (and a large majority of others) could join
your conversions and have no problem with your definitions. But the NEXT
person may very well have radically DIFFERENT ideas about the terms, so
outside of your own group you risk causing misunderstanding rather that
reducing it.

My point is that, in a perfect world, it would be WONDERFUL if we could use
the terms "dark" and "bright" and have universal agreement on their
meaning. But as it stands in the REAL world, we use them at our peril
outside of groups that have previously agreed to the definitions.

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://homepages.go.com/~zoot14/zoot14.html
Essexville, MI 48732 ICQ UIN 4862265

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.

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