Klarinet Archive - Posting 000193.txt from 2009/02

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org>
Subj: RE: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:11:22 -0500

At 7:25 PM +0000 2/8/09, Keith wrote:
>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.

Of course, it doesn't describe the complete=20
behaviour of the clarinet, and I never said it=20
does. But it DOES describe quite precisely how=20
much high frequency content is radiated out of=20
the system, which is why it is the single=20
important number in determining the brightness of=20
each fingering. (Note: there is actually a=20
cut-off frequency for each fingering. "Good"=20
clarinets are designed so that the cut-off=20
frequency is fairly constant through the range of=20
the instrument, so we sometimes speak of a cutoff=20
frequency for the clarinet, but it does actually=20
change from note to note.)

>But he was in
>essence proposing a hypothesis (as dogma). The scientific method is based i=
n
>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=
=2E

Yes, and all of the ideas I presented have had=20
extensive testing by numerous scientists under=20
rigorous scrutiny from many other scientists over=20
many decades of work. This IS the scientific=20
process and definitely is not dogma.

What Tony is presenting (and now you) is=20
definitely NOT science. It is called annecdotal=20
evidence from two people who think that they have=20
a similar system to M=FChlfeld, and who think that=20
their personal playing of the system and their=20
personal opinions of the system are definitive.=20
Definitely, not science. In fact, this is=20
precisely where dogma comes from.

>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 thes=
e
>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.

Tony presented no scientific data of any kind at=20
any point in the discussion. In fact, all he did=20
was to continually ridicule science.

>Instead Jonathan offered ridicule and speculation, which I find unconvincin=
g
>to say the least.

Again false. Nowhere did I ridicule. Just the facts.

Definitely, I included speculation. That's all=20
one can do when presenting opinions about=20
historical facts.

>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.

Yes. Real experiments.

--
Jonathan Cohler
Artistic & General Director
International Woodwind Festival
http://iwwf.org/
cohler@-----.org

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