Klarinet Archive - Posting 000891.txt from 2000/05

From: "Paul Miller" <paulplaysclarinet@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Tone -- a neurological approach
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:52:24 -0400

> 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!

Setting a frequency range would be really bad for us because then we aren't
talking about playing good music (hey there's another subjective
standard...lol) anymore, we're talking about using physics as a benchmark.

> 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.

I think that we would all sound closer together over time. I mean, if a
dark sound is desirable, and we have a concrete frequency/graphical
definition of "dark," then people will start to gravitate toward that
definition when they want to play with a dark sound. But you do have a
point, people don't have to play according to *any* standard, but making the
dark-bright scale absolute will mean that people won't find it useful to
describe their own playing. "I generally play with a 3.605 sound on the
dark-bright scale." What? How did you measure that?

> 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.

You left out the most important point that I made in the third paragraph:

"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 [remotely] 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."

So, if a couple of people are arguing about tone quality and have widely
differing definitions for "dark" and "bright," they could come to an
intermediate temporary definition of dark and bright, but then their
discussion becomes moot, or they could discuss what tonal characteristics
they think a "dark" sound should have, and both learn something.

You are right that there is room for misunderstanding. But that comes when
people don't realize that they have differing ideals of a dark sound, and
someone goes and buys a mouthpiece on a friends suggestion that it will
"darken" their tone, when it actually "brightens" their sound (according to
their arbritrary scale).

I still hold that the dark-bright scale is very useful in discussion and in
performance, even though there is a (minimal) risk of confusion when using
that scale. All one has to ask, is "what is your ideal sound?" and you can
hash it out right there without confusion.

--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