Klarinet Archive - Posting 000546.txt from 2002/11

From: LeliaLoban@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Re Tony Pay's comments
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:56:14 -0500

[kl] Re Tony Pay's comments

Dan Leeson wrote,
>>>>I think I know Tony Pay's sense of humor to recognize it a mile away.

Sheesh, I'm glad somebody's sure about it, because I'm not, and Tony's not
explaining, except to say he's coming to America. To do what, to whom? (she
asks in some alarm). Tony, Dan Leeson has met you. Most of us haven't. We
don't know enough about your sense of humor to share his confidence.

Tony Pay wrote,
>I spent some time today trying to show someone who had a really quite
>acceptable and modifiable sound (those two terms are almost synonymous
>for me, BTW) that he needed to be able to change his sound more on a
>short timescale in order to make the music he was playing live more
>fully. But my assessment -- I hope I'm wrong -- is that he didn't want
>to know. (I could see his eyes glaze over. He was an American, of
>course.)
>
>Someone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand that. And
>generalisations about 'the sound of clarinettist X' as compared to 'the
>sound of clarinettist Y' aren't going to help, are they? We'll have
>even more people --there are actually enough of them around already --
>who think that 'looking like Humphrey Bogart' is the way to go.

Bill Semple wrote,
>> Oh, speaking of generalizations, what did you mean by:
>>
>> "He was an American, OF COURSE." (my caps)

Tony replied,
>>>Since you ask, the generalisation is:
>>>
>>>"Americans, and anything American, are/is A HEAP OF FUCKING SHIT!"
>>>
>>>Didn't you know that?
>>>
>>>And surely, we're not going to get into a flame-war about anything so
>>>trivial?-)

I understand the general point Tony made about generalizations, I think, and
I agree that being able to produce more than one type of tone is a good
thing, and that listening to one's teacher is a good thing, but I found the
generalization about Americans puzzling. Part of my bafflement came from the
indefinite pronoun reference here:

>Someone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand that.

Someone who doesn't understand which part? The part where being able to vary
one's tone is useful, or the part where the pig-headed student who doesn't
listen is, of course, American-- because that's how Americans behave?

Is the all-caps generalization itself a humorous way of making the point that
extremely broad generalizations aren't very useful? Or, since it's in
quotation marks, is it a quotation referring to something that you assume
readers of the list should recognize? If there's a sociological or literary
reference involved here, I *don't* recognize it, much less understand it.

Tony, I would like to know from you what you really meant, preferably in
plain and not too metaphorical English, because I'm not seeing any
smiley-faces in that message, and despite Dan Leeson's assurances and the
previous good-humored correspondence between you and the Americans on
Klarinet, I'm finding it difficult to believe that the "HEAP OF FUCKING SHIT"
comment can be read as anything other than straightforward, raving,
anti-American hate-speech intended to *revoke* that previously good-humored
correspondence. If you're offering the offensive remark in service of some
larger point about the dangers of metaphorical language, then I think it
would have been a good idea to *come to the point*, at some point sooner than
now; and I think that on the whole, tossing that type of verbal grenade into
the present global political situation is a better way to make enemies than
it is to make a point about linguistics.

Lelia
P. S. If I ever start to look like Humphery Bogart, please shoot me. Never
mind, I'll do it.
;-)

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