Klarinet Archive - Posting 000684.txt from 2000/11

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] Opinions and metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:07:22 -0500

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:20:14 GMT, I said:

> Well, since you want to pursue the matter, I wasn't worrying, really,
> about whether what I said communicated the sound well. All I wanted
> to put over was that the modification had no negative effect, in my
> opinion.
>
> 'Contained' was a word I used at least partly because of the change of
> playing response of the instrument.
>
> You might have a different opinion with a different instrument, a
> different modification, a different piece. These discussions only
> enter the realm of controversy when people start to think that our
> opinions are at all important -- which I don't think they are. I'm
> just happy if what I write motivates someone to try out something for
> themselves.

And then Walter said:

> Tony@-----.uk writes:
>
> > These discussions only enter the realm of controversy when people
> > start to think that our opinions are at all important -- which I
> > don't think they are.
>
> Now THIS is one of the most valuable things I have read in a long
> time!!!!!!!!

I think your remark is ironic, Walter, and if it is, I agree with you.
I did mean something when I wrote it, but that something wasn't what I
wrote. (Even though, to make it more complicated if possible, I do
think that what I wrote is in a way true!-)

Let me take another line on what Allen wrote. (It's the middle of the
night, but I got up for a drink of water, and, well...)

I thought that Allen's original post was wanting to be humorous about
the whole bright/dark question, so I responded in kind.

But he in fact was serious. And perhaps, which is what I missed, he
actually wanted to know in further detail how I thought the sound of my
Albert changed with the cable down it.

I would have responded to that, but it got mixed up in my mind with the
idea that he was saying we shouldn't use metaphors like 'contained'
because they may be misunderstood. Whereas I'd argue that 'metaphors'
(rather than 'opinions') shouldn't be taken too seriously. Though
they may hit the nail on the head sometimes, they are provisional, and
can be clarified by further discussion if they don't work.

Also, I think that there is a difference between the complaint that
someone is using a metaphor to characterise something like sound, and
the complaint that someone is using a *demonstrably corrupted* metaphor
to characterise something like sound. If I want to use the bright/dark
metaphor, which I take it Dan objects to on the latter grounds, I
usually say 'which way round' I'm using it by mentioning another
correlate like 'in general, more high harmonics'. The reason that's
necessary is that users of the bright/dark metaphor have somehow got
themselves into two opposing camps. But that's not true of all
metaphors.

To include my reply to Bill in this, I'd say that to go further in
specifying what about those high harmonics constitutes 'good' sound is
what's impossible. *That* isn't so easily done.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE GMN family artist: www.gmn.com
tel/fax 01865 553339

... I'm an absolute, off-the-wall fanatical moderate.

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