Klarinet Archive - Posting 000554.txt from 2005/03

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] that nice dark sound
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:12:14 -0500

As the chief poo-pooer of the phenomenon described by Vann Joe
Turner, I want to add that those who continually harp that dark
and bright are helpful terms, I think exactly the opposite is the
case. They are loser terms.

For one thing, unlike the word "big" that Joe brought up, dark
and bright cannot be measured. Thus it is impossible to measure
if one sound is darker than another or brighter than another.
And if you can't measure it, you really can't talk about it in
any serious way. And for anyone to say, "I know it when I hear
it," is a statement that is beneath contempt. Will your student
know it when he hears it?

Tony, a few notes ago, brought out the often given assertion that
dark and bright DO have well defined meanings in terms of the
number of high partials. And many players, in expressing that
idea, believe that they have said something meaningful. But the
natural question that has to arise from any student is, what must
I do to get more or less of the things that acoustics suggests
defines the distinction between dark and light?

It's technical blather, nothing more.

There was once a youngster on this list who did an "emperor's new
clothes" routine without realizing how profound he was being. I
was so impressed by this kid's earnestness, that I quoted him in
the piece about "That Nice Dark Sound." He said, "I'm always
being told that I need a nice dark sound. But what is it, how do
I get it, and how do I know when I've gotten it?"

Now as to Vann Joe Turner's suggestion that those who poo-poo the
terms don't have anything better to offer, all I can say is that
he is a johnny-come-lately. On at least a half dozen occasions,
both I and others have suggested alternatives, but since he
hasn't been with us in the discussion for 6 years or so, he does
not know what happened earlier than the last few weeks. But even
if some alternative vocabulary had not been suggested, that is no
reason to blindly accept meaningless terms that cannot be
adequately explained or even described.

Just as Vann Joe thinks that I'm full of doo-doo (something that
may well be true), I, on the other hand, believe that he thinks
about this problem to a depth of 3 millemeters. He needs to think
a lot deeper.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Vann Joe Turner [mailto:medpen@-----.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:51 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: [kl] that nice dark sound

What skywinkle writes is true: "Terms like bright and dark take
on a limited
degree of usefulness only in a relative context."

There are many adjectives that have no meaning whatsoever, except
in
context, as skywinkle pointed out. What is *big*? a 6 foot man,
the Empire
State Building, or the queen bee in the hive? Strictly a matter
of context.
Same for loud and soft, high and low, etc.

The words we use to describe music have mostly been appropriated
from other
fields. This is the nature of language itself. When you need to
describe
something in a "new field", you don't create a new word like H.P.
Lovecraft
or science fiction writers, rather you borrow existing words,
appling to
them a new definition which is understood in context.

For example, what does *run* mean?..
I'm sorry, I was referring to a defect in a woman's hose.
Or if I were out hunting, it'd mean the track in the forest which
deer have
made.
Language applies existing words to new contexts to denote
specific things,
and in the context they are widely understood.

Our words high and low referring to notes are a just widely
accepted means
of description. There is nothing literally higher in C3 than in
C1. *High*
and *low* are spacial words, and are merely conventions used to
describe
relationships between notes. It would have been just as fine had
the
convention arisen to describe such as smaller and bigger, or
righter or
lefter. What matters is the convention sticks, and becomes widely
used.

"Dark and rich" are such words describing something real,
something many
recognize, and so use.

That some pooh-pooh the words do not negate them, or negate that
to which
they refer. They are "metaphors" extrapolated from the language
and applied
to a new context. That is not to suggest that "Dark and rich" are
the best
words there are to describe it. But in the silence from the
pooh-poohers in
offering an alternative, I guess they'll continue to be around
for long
time.

Perhaps if we could document the use of such terms by such
muscial statures
as Pablo Casals, or Toscanini, perhaps the pooh-poohers would
consider what
such greats have thought on the matter, and compare their
thinking on it,
with that of the heights of muscianship.

Best wishes,
Vann Joe Turner

-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
http://www.woodwind.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org