Klarinet Archive - Posting 000584.txt from 2005/03

From: Ed Wojtowicz <ewoj@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] that nice dark sound
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:24:50 -0500

If words are the problem, then most of the descriptors that composers,
conductors or anyone else uses are up for grabs. We can all have
slightly different interpretations on what those words mean. Countless
hours are spent in rehearsals coming to some common agreement as to how
we will play things.

There were previous arguments stating "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." Much of what we do
cannot be clearly quantified. Sometimes you will find directions such
as "raucous", "with intensity", or for that matter "dolce". I don't
know how to measure any of those. If we are not able to discuss it, if
a student asked how to play dolce and what type of tone should be used
for such a passage what does one say? If a conductor asks to play that
passage more dolce, should I ignore the request because I cannot define
it?

Hopefully, that is where my knowledge and experience kick in.

Ed

On Mar 23, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:

> In fact, it has always bothered me that Grainger calls for "reedy"
> sound in pieces like Children's March. I'm don't know what knob to
> turn to change my tone from "not reedy" to "reedy", and I don't know
> how to tell the rest of my section whether we are all "reedy" enough.
>
>> Lets get it done and assign a word or several words to the tonal
>> characteristics of which you are in dispute.
>>
>
> We have the WORDS. The problem is the words have no universal meaning.

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