Klarinet Archive - Posting 000424.txt from 2002/11

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Dark/Bright debate
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:54:13 -0500

William Wright wrote:

> If, for the moment, we propose that "dark" and "right" are without valid
> meaning, then **WHY** does it appeal to so many musicians, both amateur
> and world class professional, who admit that they cannot define it but
> still insist that it exists? Is it one more case of self-deception
> simply because the alternative is painful?

I don't think the phenomenon is new (not that you said so). It is more
that once a bad idea gets ingrained into societal thinking, it becomes
more and more difficult to excise it.

The case that I like to think of as shedding light on the problem
involves the text books used until the 18th century that dealt with the
anatomy of humans. Prior to that time human anatomy was a great
mystery, with all of the known work dating back almost 1000 years when
it was believed that the human hip bone was flared like that of a pig.
No one had been permitted to dissect a human so they used pigs and it
was assumed that what a pig had, humans had. It was, therefore, the
accepted wisdom that humans had a flared hip bone.

But when dissection of a human revealed that the hip bone was not
flared, the reaction was very enlightening.

It was asserted that the early truths about the human hip bone being
identical to that of a pig was right, but that man's hip bone had
changed shape due to the wearing of tight trousers.

I have postulated that a word common to describing a desirable sound
characteristic of the clarinet and in use for at least 100 years is both
meaningless and unhelpful. There are no ways that I have seen that
enable one to demonstrate how to achieve this characteristic, and there
are no words that effectively describe what it is. I have asked
repeatedly on this list for a description of the physical phenomenon of
a clarinet that will achieve it. What I got was a lot blather.

So what is happening now is exactly what one would expect. Those who
use the term are unwilling to give it up because they are embarassed.
Instead they defend its use, admitting of course that it may have flaws
but ... blather, blather, blather.

The flap that ensues often gets personal, but from my point of view,
unless you bring a lawyer, I'm not phased by personal attacks. I prefer
to focus on the problem and that is what I have been doing, that and
that alone.

>
> I am reminded of Abbott's "Flatland" and its sequel, which I assume most
> of us here have read. For those who haven't, Abbott was a
> mathematician (I believe, I can't find my copies right now) who wrote
> about mythical two-dimensional beings. The Flatlanders tried to
> understand the unpredictable appearances of cross-sections of a three
> dimensional "mystery being" who dipped into their two-dimensional world
> with no warning, who never appeared quite the same each time, who
> couldn't be measured or defined or contained with two-dimensional tools,
> and so forth.
>
It is interesting that you should mention Abbott's book. It is one of
my favorites. But whenever someone who was a mathematician speaks on
certian issues, their profession acts against them. For those who don't
understand mathematics, mathematicians are perceived as egg-heads with
no feet on the ground, academics with little interest in practical
issues. The worst insult one can give to an argument is to call it
"academic."

I think exactly the opposite is the case. People trained to think
rationally can both examine and solve problems by examining the words
used in common parlance. People trained to think emotionally (as many,
though not all musicians do) seem to have more difficulties in this arena.

I hope I have answered your question.

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

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