Klarinet Archive - Posting 000150.txt from 2002/11

From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] on the use of generalization [before on the use of metaphor]
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 08:13:04 -0500

>From Tony:

>>. . . And I think that if you look at our previous discussion about
'relative importance' of bits of the clarinet/player system from that
perspective, I think you may see that what I was doing was to argue against
the idea
that one bit of that system can be sensibly said to be 'more important' than
another, *IN GENERAL*.

Of course, one bit of the clarinet system may be more important than another
*in particular circumstances*. It's just that, because everything interacts
with everything else in a complicated way, we need to be clear about the
details of the particular situation before we can say that anything is
important, or go on to say anything useful about what we should do about
that important thing.

That's why I resist the generalisation, 'It gets less important as you go
down'; because it's very often -- much too often -- NOT TRUE. The clarinet
is more complicated than that . . . . <<

I recognize your point. But, you are stating that making any about the
clarinet is wrong, more than you are arguing that the specific
generalization is wrong (is this a case of throwing the baby out with the
bath water?

To help make your point that you resist generalization, because we know the
dangers thereof (especially well practiced by politicians), you point out
that my statement about Reginald Kell as being representative of the English
style is incorrect because most English players dislike and disliked what
Kell did.

In so doing, you make a generalization yourself.

Which goes to my point. Generalization is a permissable use of human
thought. We accept it or reject it based on the the facts at our disposal. I
accept your generalization about Kell because I quite believe you know what
you are talking about.

But you dismiss any generalization about the parts of a clarinet out of
hand.

While you are the master, I am not the slave, and I do not accept your
conclusion that generalization is impossible regarding elements of the
clarinet, variability and complexity aside.

It is also useful to inquire to whom the changes in sound are noticeable.
(Liebniz: If the tree fell in the forest, and no one was around to hear it,
did it make a sound?). Bill Wright talks of changes in sound because of a
barrel. Yet, another reader writes that an audience in general cannot
distinguish between a Bb and an A clarinet. Do you think audiences "hear"
(sic., discern) the sound of a new barrel? But they would certainly know the
difference between a Tony Pay and a beginner.

The facts, at least to me, at my disposal is that the embouchure is
relatively more important than the bell of a clarinet, because changes to
the embouchure generally have the most noticeable affect (when Benny Goodman
took lessons from Kell, initially he could only play some of the bottom
notes!). To me, this is intuitively and logically correct.

Is this useful? I think so. It helps frame a sequence of study and
instrument purchase based on getting a few things in order first. Long tones
before staccato -- whole notes before quarter notes -- embouchure before
that nice $5K Selmer.

Now we can argue about the truth of this generalization --but I want to
first establish that it is permissible to make a generalization in the first
place.

Whether this is useful does not diminish the truth or the validity of the
statement. If one is then prone to say, "So what," then it would not be too
different that what someone said to me when I completed my philosophy
dissertation, "What are you going to do with that degree."
I said, "Open up a practice."

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