Klarinet Archive - Posting 000211.txt from 2002/11

From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:18:06 -0500

I dutifully apologize for any ad homonym comments made by me to anyone on
this listserve. However, take them out, and the rest of my comments stand.

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

> 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 **
> ***************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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