Klarinet Archive - Posting 000154.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 10:35:17 -0500

Speaking of generalization, here is a good one.

Just prior to our performance two nights ago, a clarinetist in my section
couldn't get a note out of his instrument. In frustration, he gave me his
instrument. It played fine (but wow what resistance. This guy had to blow so
hard, no wonder he had a sound akin to a goose.)

He took it backstage. I passed him briefly, holding the instrument up to the
light to see if he could detect any leaks. The man was desperate.

This all happened in a frantic ten minutes. Then he came out just before the
baton dropped, beaming. "I fixed it," he whispered.

"How?" I asked.

"I took the Band-Aid off of my index finger."

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subject: Re: [kl] on the use of generalization [before on the use of
metaphor]

>
> 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."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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