Klarinet Archive - Posting 000507.txt from 2000/08

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] inharmonic (anharmonic) vs. decay vs periodic vs recipe
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:51:34 -0400

<><> Tony Pay wrote:
Oh, come off it.

I should not have added that final sentence to my message. I
retract it. I felt myself getting hot under the collar as I was
typing. In retrospect, I was talking more to myself than to you,
telling myself to back off, that the world does not revolve around me.
My apologies.

<><> I'm sorry you want to drop out of the conversation, partly
because I think these ideas are important, and need to be understood.

I agree (belatedly). The fact that I was getting angry proves that
something important is at stake (for me, at least). So here goes:

<><> But the thing is, what I was talking about *isn't a debate*.
I'm quite secure in what I'm saying, because it isn't a point of view.
It's the truth about the acoustics of what we're talking about.
Obviously, you're going to 'lose' if you challenge that.

It comes down to performance and the internalized 'images' from
which a performance proceeds. You may remember a couple of months ago
when I posted that, of all the Mozart concerto CDs I've purchased, I
enjoy yours the most (Academy of Ancient Music, you may have made more
than one recording for all I know). My comment was not idle flattery
just because you're on the list or are well known. I've spent $100 or
so on other recordings, and frankly I wish I could get my $100 back and
spend it in some other manner. It was an expensive bit of education.
So what am I to do with the fact that the performance I enjoy the
most comes from the person who explains 'harmonic' in a manner that
strikes me as wrong?
There's only one answer that seems reasonable to me. Tony Pay
must have a different 'image' in his mind when he plays than I receive
from his words. 'Harmony' is probably the most important concept in
music, followed closely by expression and emotion. And the sensation of
'harmony' proceeds from a vibrating object whose motion begins with SHM
(simple harmonic motion). To eliminate this central and all important
quality from the discussion is wrong, and inevitably it will lead to
misunderstandings of some sort.
Especially in reed instruments, where the player is in intimate
contact with the vibrating object, if the player doesn't somehow have an
'image' (as defined in Descartes' Error) stored in his nervous system --
perhaps only intuitively or subconsciously or autonomically -- and if
the player thinks of 'harmonic' as being only "something that is
periodic", the music is going to be less than it could or should be.
Poor tone, basically.
This why it makes a BIG difference to me -- so much so that I had
to shut myself down -- that we include the concept of SHM when
discussing harmonicity and anything that relates to it. This is also
why it makes a BIG difference to me that we not entangle the issue of
SHM with the other attributes of tone such as amplitude and recipe and
decay and attack and so forth.

To repeat myself, since you are truly one of the best performers --
I'm not going to post any names, but there are certain extant 'big
names' that I absolutely detest because IMO they have lost sight of what
'harmonicity' is, especially above the staff -- I don't expect that my
semantic argument will (or should) change your performance. But it's
important to me that I remind myself that 'harmonic' means more than
just mathematical deconstruction of a periodic wave which may or may not
be based on SHM. And I think that other people on this list should be
aware of the possibility also.

<><> I wasn't redefining the word 'harmonic'. I was using it to
characterise a particular quality. What word would *you* suggest?

Coming up with words on the spur of the moment is always dangerous.
Five minutes after I hit the SEND button, I'm probably going to wish
that I hadn't answered this question. But right now, I would suggest a
phrase that doesn't say anything more than exactly what you mean, such
as "Fourier analyzable" or "periodic."
WHY DO WE NEED THE WORD 'HARMONIC' AT ALL? What does it say that
periodic doesn't?

Cheers (sincerely),
Bill

P.S.: today was Fred Ormand's final master class of the summer. I was
sufficiently worked up about this issue that I intruded a little bit and
asked him, "What does 'harmonic' mean to you?"
Unfortunately, the master class format didn't allow me to define my
question more precisely, and so his answer didn't relate to what is
bothering me. He referred briefly to the concept of "sounds in
nature"; but as I say, I didn't really have the opportunity to ask him
for his view on what we're discussing here. Not that any person's view
should be the absolute authority, but I wish I could've heard it.

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