Klarinet Archive - Posting 000210.txt from 2002/11

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:04:52 -0500

Nancy, I am being nice. I'm not responding to the message which is as
nice as it gets.

Dan

Buckman, Nancy wrote:
> 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]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:59 PM
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> 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>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:25 AM
> 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 **
>>***************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

--
***************************
**Dan Leeson **
**leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

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