Klarinet Archive - Posting 000209.txt from 2002/11

From: "Buckman, Nancy" <nebuckman@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:48:18 -0500

Boys, boys, boys, let's be nice.

Nancy

Nancy E. Buckman, Technical Assistant
School of Health Professions, Wellness and Physical Education
Anne Arundel Community College
Arnold, MD 21012-1895 USA
Phone 410-777-2316 Fax 410-777-2233
E-mail nebuckman@-----.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: William Semple [mailto:wsemple@-----.com]
Subject: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)

Do you apply this kind of thinking to ethics?

Measurable. You sound like Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review. Can't measure the
difference between a Strad and a violin bought off of the shelf! What
difference could varnish possibly make?

The human ear is capable of astounding degrees of differentiation that go
beyond the capabilities of our finest electronic instruments. That's why, as
an audio reviewer, I could long detect the differences between CDs and vinyl
recordings. That's why they still haven't been able to build a robot that
can drive a car; or a microphone that responds the same way as the ear drum.

Surely there are measurable differences between orchestras. That we can't
measure them using known scientific criteria doesn't mean they aren't
measurable. Hence we rely on one aspect of the human mind you like to deny:
critical judgment, and the commonly accepted nothing that experience
provides some basis for making such judgments: e.g., Vermeer is probably a
better painter than you.

I had a friend who had an astounding ear.
Once, I twirled six recordings (blind) of the Brahms 1: Chicago/Solti;
Berlin/Von Karajan; London/Boult; Pittsburgh/Steinberg; Vienna/can't
remember; Cleveland/Ormandy.

SHE GOT EVERY ONE OF THEM.

Now, what were the clues? Probably the ten things that you mention. The
sound of mass violins; the phrasing on various notes section by section; the
sound of the oboe; the coherence of the brass section; the intonation of the
entire orchestra; the intonation of the woodwind section; the interpretation
by the conductor.

What you are denying is the concept of critical judgment. Truth in the mind
of the beholder basically states that there is no truth about anything
musical except as a single individual sees it. Which means standards have no
meaning, and clarinet manufacturers can build whatever they want. Who cares?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Leeson" <leeson0@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)

> William Semple wrote:
> > Here we go again. Daniel Leeson writes:
> >
> >
> >>How your a clarinet of particular pitch responds to you is a matter with
> >>so many variables beyond those of the clarinet itself (your body, your
> >>teeth, your sinuses, for example) that how you perceive the physicality
> >>of playing would appear to have no standard or even, for that matter, be
> >>standarizable.
> >
> >
> >>It's like talking about whether Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto is a
> >>better piece than Brahms' 2nd. It's all in the mind of the beholder.
> >
> >
> > To say that one piece is not better than another because its merit is
> > strictly in the mind of the beholder belies the unassailable fact that
over
> > time, certain orchestral pieces, through public opinion, critical
notice,
> > and adoption by the musical community, ARE considered superior works
(sic.,
> > "better").
>
> I think that "Yes We Have No Bananas" is a better piece than Beethoven's
> 9th symphony. The fact that you and 30,000 others think the opposite is
> a nice thing, but does not make it true. Goodness, greatness, and other
> things that are not really definable, is not a function of popularity or
> democracy. It is, as I said earlier, in the mind of the beholder.
>
>
> >
> > I think the issue regarding schools of playing is also a fair one.
Surely,
> > the traditions at the Vienna Philharmonic as opposed to Chicago are
> > distinctive enough to merit discussion; surely various approaches to
playing
> > an instrument can be accorded the same privilege.
> >
>
> Give me 10 specific things in which the traditions of the Vienna Phil
> are measurably different from those of the Chicago Symphony. And they
> must be measurable. If they are not, you have no business suggesting
> that a distinction between the two exist. And while we are at it, what
> exactly do you mean by "various approaches to playing" within the
> context of Vienna and Chicago?
>
>
>
> --
> ***************************
> **Dan Leeson **
> **leeson0@-----.net **
> ***************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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