Klarinet Archive - Posting 000126.txt from 2005/03
From: Tom Flavel <tom@-----.net> Subj: Re: [kl] German sound Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:40:29 -0500
On 03/03/2005 10:14:40, dnleeson wrote:
> You can ask a player to play any way you describe. The issue is
> can the player accomplish it?
I believe this depends on three things: the ability of the instrument
(and accoustics of the room, etc), the ability of the player, and the
subjectivity of the listener.
> Once, playing Sir Edward Elgar's "Falstaff," the conductor told
> me to play the very brief bass clarinet solo of two grace notes
> and a stacatto quarter note "more roughly." So I tried and he
> said, "No, even rougher." So I played it as ugly as I could
>
> The conductor said, "No. You don't have the right idea.
> Falstaff is make an involuntary sound."
>
> Aha, I got it. Falstaff was farting. So I thought that way and
> the conductor was delighted. But all it was was the sound of a
> bass clarinet and the conductor's interpretation that the sound
> was that of a fart.
It was a sound the clarinet was capable of, but you caused the clarinet
to make that sound, as opposed to one of the other sounds it could
possibly make, though?
> It doesn't matter if a conductor or a composer wants a clarinet
> to sound like a trumpet. It's not going to do that no matter how
> much imagination is involved. Instead it will sound like a
> clarinet trying to sound like a trumpet.
Only because we have decent enough resolution to hear the difference!
A vision impaired person might not be able to see the difference between
an impressionist and a cubist painting, for example. A creature with
higher resolution would see differences humans can't percieve, I assume.
Perhaps also there are "resolutions" to perception: not in physical
senses, but in understanding. My flatmate describes himself as "tone
deaf" (hearing his whistling, I believe him), and claims not to be able
to "hear" the difference between various types of scales, or the order
of short sequences of notes. I believe he means percieve, instead of
hear.
> Having one instrument approximate the sound of another is a task
> whose accomplishment is in the ear of the listener.
Agreed. Though, I do get the intuitive feeling that viewing things
though a soley objective/subjective divide is inherently limited. I'm
not sure exactly how to apply his thoughts to this context of sound, but
Pirsig suggested that quality - I think in our case, tone quality (I am
avoiding saying "perception of tone quality", which is soley in the
listener) - happens *before* the objective/subjective divide takes
place. He said it is quality which *creates* objectivity and
subjectivity, I think.
Your thoughts very much welcome.
--
Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
|
|
|