Klarinet Archive - Posting 000523.txt from 2002/11

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Technical truth via the democratic process
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:55:51 -0500

William Semple wrote:
> Dan Leeson wrote:
>
>
>>>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.<<
>
> We have disagreed on the issue of using certain adjectives to describe sound
> from the very beginning, but on this one I couldn't agree with you more,
> presuming your premise is a correct interpretation.
>
> In one of my earlier posts, I asked you how much progress you think you have
> made in dissuading the clarinet public from using the terms you find
> objectionable.
> That is a different question. All it implies is whether others are listening
> to you.

Well, progress is a relative thing and dependent, of course, on
expectations. I don't expect everyone to trash vocabulary simply
because I have difficulties with it. But there is some movement. I
read in the remarks of some responders that they are thinking about the
matter, or are questioning accepted dogma. Maybe they will come out of
the other ends of the pipe still thinking the same way, but at least
they will have thought about it. That alone is progress.

Others appear to recognise that the vocabulary has not been helpful and
probably has no ability to be helpful; i.e., they see such terms as I
do, which is that they are counterproductive and unhelpful, a crutch
used to describe what is fundamentally undescribable.

But there are a lot of articulate people, like yourself, who don't budge
an inch. That's OK. I'll get you in the long run.

All that one can really do in the case of a holy war (the number of
which are limited in one's lifetime) is to start the ball rolling. The
Chinese say it differently: The Longest Journey Begins With The First Step.

I have about four holy wars going, and "dark/bright" is not the most
serious one. That honor belongs to measure 111 of the fifth movement of
the Gran Partitta, namely does one play or not play the measure in
performance. Now for that one, I know I'm making progress because of
the 12 or so current recordings of the work, 8 have eliminated the
measure. I'll get the other 4, too. In 2006, there are plans afoot for
a seminar on Mozart's wind music with the Gran Partitta taking center
stage. That inclusion or exclusion of that measure is going to be very
carefully examined during that seminar.

But when I began that holy war in 1979, I couldn't even get my publisher
to put a footnote in my volume that would deal with the matter. Today
(except for Tony Pay who may be keeping the measure in just to aggrevate
me), it's getting to be standard practice.

In the case of dark/bright, I think it is going to take longer.

>
> Given what I have read, I believe certain terms can be defined, but it will
> take the efforts of all those interested to come up with results that have
> greater universal meaning or application than they do now.
>
> Whether useful to you, do you think that is possible? And if not, why not?

I'm pessimistic. Music is a business that deals with emotion without
having a lot of rigorous definitions and methods of getting there. I
don't think we need words beyond "pleasant" and "unpleasant" to speak
about sound character. It's going to be hard to get a concensus outside
of that very closed arena.

Dan

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

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

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