Klarinet Archive - Posting 000241.txt from 2001/12

From: "barnes mike" <pappychillmo@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Material....was Gigliotti Inventions
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:43:43 -0500

A while back, Dan Leeson posted the news of his gold plated cocobolo basset
horn by Stephen Fox. He said he wanted it so he could perfectly reproduce a
Mozart piece using the exact instrument used at the time Mozart created the
piece. I also recall him stating he paid about $8500 for it

Dan is really strong in his arguement that material makes no difference and
picks away at anyone who disagrees. He claims their is no substance in their
argument and apparently don't realize there is none to his arguments either.

Anyone besides me think he's worried he is wrong since the original basset
horn was made of boxwood and not cocobolo?

Also, the Stephen Fox boxwood basset horn with all options is only Canadian
$3,100 which works out to about US $2,000. Did he pay an extra $6,500 for
cocobolo and boxwood?

Mike

>From: "Tim Roberts" <timr@-----.com>
>Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
>To: "klarinet@-----.org>
>Subject: Re: [kl] Material....was Gigliotti Inventions
>Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:30:58 -0800
>
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:53:30 -0800, Daniel Leeson ranted:
> >
> >Walt, not only do you speculate questionable conclusions based on no or
> >anecdotal evidence, you even assume the ability to know what Moennig
> >thought without him telling you. Assumptions are piled on assumptions
> >which are piled on to personal prejudices, and out of this you expect
> >some technical truth to suddenly appear???
>
>In my opinion, Dan, you are being entirely unfair in this diatribe. I know
>I
>am arguing with a man who is a master of debate, but I believe your
>conclusion is not, in fact, supported by the facts.
>
>For reference, I restate the original quote from Alvin Swiney:
>
> Mr. Moennig insisted that the hard rubber of the sleeve was
> made of quality material identical to the mouthpiece.
> Mr. Moennig never used plastic for the barrel sleeve as he
> felt that it made the tone too bright.
>
>Now let's look at Walter's followup:
>
> I think we know where Mr. Moennig's vote would be on whether or
> not material made a difference.
>
>Walter did not announce the formulation of a technical truth here, nor did
>he
>even assert that Moennig knew the technical truth. Walter did not say
>"This
>quote establishes as fact that material makes a difference, quod erat
>demostratum." Rather he expressed an interpretation of Swiney's quote.
>
>Indeed, from a purely semantic point of view, Walter's opionion follows
>directly from Mr. Swiney's second sentence, regardless of whether Moennig
>is
>here to verify it. We are looking at indirect hearsay here, of course, but
>if you accept the premise that "Mr. Moenning never used plastic for the
>barrel sleeve as he felt that it made the tone too bright", then I do not
>see
>how you can argue with the conclusion that "Mr. Moenning felt that material
>makes a difference." That's what Swiney's quote says. P implies Q.
>Neither
>P nor Q in this case establishes any fact about clarinet bodies, but that's
>not what Walter asserted, and you are incorrect to berate him for doing so.
>
>--
>- Tim Roberts, timr@-----.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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