Klarinet Archive - Posting 000495.txt from 2002/11

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Technical truth via the democratic process
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:55:23 -0500

In the midst of the discussion about tone character and my suggestions
about the meaninglessness of terms such as "dark" and "bright," one
poster, whose name escapes me, publicly posted a note directed to me. In
it, he suggested that since my view was clearly in the minority, didn't
I think that it was unlikely for my perception of the problem to be
correct? Those were not his exact words, but it was the tenor of the
statement.

I really didn't give that suggestion enough thought and said something
like "No, I didn't think so." But I've concluded that I was not direct
enough. His question required a much more explicit reaction.

The issue suggested by that poster was that technical truth is (or
should be) assumed to be in hands of the majority. That, my friends is a
particularly awful assumption, maybe the worst I've seen on KLARINET
which has always behaved in a very democratic fashion. I think my
perspective of this issue to be correct, but like anyone I can always be
wrong. I'm waiting to be shown how this imprecise notion of dark sound
plays any positive role in clarinet playing or clarinet education, or
even how one is capable of achieving this thing. When I get a lucid
explanation to either of these two concerns, I'll do a 180 in 6
milliseconds.

But I'll be damned if I will give up this idea simply because it is
alleged to be a minority view, and, therefore, unlikely to be correct!
That is the attitude of a dictator in a totalitarian regime.
--
***************************
**Dan Leeson **
**leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

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