Klarinet Archive - Posting 000127.txt from 2002/11

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] on the use of metaphor
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 16:35:36 -0500

On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:09:28 -0700, wsemple@-----.com said:

> What a gold mine this list serve is.
>
> This question is directed mostly to Tony Pay, and shows that at least
> I read to the bottom of his biography. I dare ask it because no doubt
> this issue has been thoroughly analyzed before. The bane of the new
> member, I suppose, but it keeps the topics churning. At least the
> issue of what part of the clarinet is "more important" got the
> master's attention.

You're very charming, Bill:-)

> What metaphors do you use to describe the sound of the clarinet? For
> example, how would you describe the sound of Harold Wright vs.
> Reginald Kell vs yourself?

I think mostly I don't use metaphors to do that sort of thing. I made a
post here a couple of years ago that perhaps indicates more clearly the
idea I'm more commonly after, applied to the problem of articulation:

http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/09/000395.txt

If you look at that, you'll understand what I want to say about the use
of metaphor in teaching.

Mark you, I think that the sort of comparison you invited me to make
would have to be metaphorical. It's just that I prefer to leave
comparison of that sort to each individual. I don't usually want to
make a pronouncement in that sort of discussion.

> As an audio reviewer for the Absolute Sound, I struggled with terms
> that conveyed the quality and texture of the sound I was listening to.
> As a philosophy major who studied linguistics, existentialism and
> phenomenology, I have been fascinated with the use of metaphor (e.g.,
> Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein).
>
> But my own use of metaphor seems pedantic.
>
> http://www.cruzio.com/~autospec/metafor.htm#hd1

I will read this.

> p.s. This may be a wild generalization, but English musicians, either
> in temperament or in style, allow the composer to be heard, rather
> than themselves specifically.
>
> As a reviewer of classical recordings, I am struck with the difficulty
> of ascribe a "character" to the RPO, LSO, or LPO, whereas one could do
> so much more readily with an American orchestra. Before my LP
> collection (4,000 recordings) turned into molten vinyl because of my
> house fire, one of my favorite recordings was the Boult recording of
> the Brahms #1 on EMI, out of eight that I had.
>
> I just listened linked to your Quintet recording -- I felt I was
> listened more to Mozart than to you. I hope this is a compliment.

Well, I choose to regard it as a compliment:-)

I think that the personalisation of music is a very important thing, but
one that is not appropriate to all sorts of music.

It would be a terrible mistake not to personalise Weber, for example,
because the music very often *lives* in the 'personal' register. But
other music can be very different.

Perhaps I would want to say that English musicians can more easily make
the mistake of underpersonalising 'personal' music, whereas American
musicians can more easily make the mistake of overpersonalising 'less
personal' music.

The best musicians of either country are equally at home in either
register, of course.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

... Some people are, through no fault of their own, sane.

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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org