Klarinet Archive - Posting 000174.txt from 2009/02

From: "Keith" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:25:59 -0500

Tony Pay wrote in response to Jonathan Cohler:
<snip>
>In fact, German setups, with their heavier reeds, are less sensitive
to longish periods of not being played. One of the striking things
about Leister's masterclasses, which you can view on the Internet, is
the way he is able to pick up an instrument and play it immediately,
without seeming to need any sort of warmup.

Indeed. I had, as you did, the pleasure of playing many of Nick Shackleton's
collection. He kept them all with reeds on, tied on with string. A quick
lick and they were ready to go - no fussing about dunking in water,
readjusting etc.

<snip>
>Now, what I finally want to say to you -- and what motivated me to
respond to your post in the first place -- is that I don't think you
represent at all well the scientific ideal. Though I understand
Keith, who said that musicians are better off not trying to meddle in
science, I think that THE SCIENTIFIC IDEAL is something we can ALL
aspire to.

Exactly. I did not mean to imply that you were not being scientific, Tony -
you have a mathematical/scientific training and do understand the scientific
method, and also know not to meddle! But you do have great experience in
using metaphor to teach and to describe musical phenomena and processes, and
this I value.

<snip>
>The scientific ideal is always on the lookout for more information.
As my friend Michael McIntyre put it, it involves saying to yourself
something like, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks
like a duck....let's see if it SWIMS like a duck."

And lays eggs like a duck ...

<snip>
>What YOU do is rather to take a few bits of knowledge you've picked
up, and then hold forth, dogmatically.

>It wouldn't occur to you to enquire of me what my experience has
taught me, and find out more about the truth of the matter, as a real
scientist would.

Yes, this is the nub of the matter. I don't have a quibble with the
scientific ideas that Jonathan used - harmonic content, cut-off frequency,
etc., though it's worth noting that the formant (of which cutoff frequency
is a simplified aspect) is a property of the pipe, and doesn't completely
determine how the pipe-plus-mouthpiece-and-reed behaves. But he was in
essence proposing a hypothesis (as dogma). The scientific method is based in
empiricism; theory is not necessarily good enough to predict the sound from
such ideas, (in this case it is not) and even if it were, it needs testing.
As you imply above. You offered empirical evidence based on your experience
(experiments) with closely the same clarinets that Muhlfeld used, which
indeed disproved one hypothesis. Any further hypothesis has to embrace these
data. For example, showing that with your pair of Ottensteiners you can
indeed set up the Bb to produce the acoustic effect appropriate to the
passage in question.

Instead Jonathan offered ridicule and speculation, which I find unconvincing
to say the least.

The motto of the Royal Society, one of the better scientific academies of
the world, is "Nullius in verbum" - essentially, don't take anyone's word
for it. Do the experiments and apply all the critical tests one can.

Keith Bowen

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3836 (20090207) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------