Klarinet Archive - Posting 000147.txt from 2009/10

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] New articles published on the web!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:32:15 -0400

At 3:36 PM -0500 10/13/09, Michael Nichols wrote:
> > For the umpteenth time, I never said anything about "habitual" vibrato
>> (which is a meaningless term). You seem, however, to be obsessed with it.
>
>I know you didn't. I made the term up myself (and only because you
>object to my use of conventional music jargon). But I did at least
>give you a definition, so you have no reason to call it meaningless.

Your definition is "the customary use of vibrato on all or most
sustained notes." That is meaningless. What custom is "customary"
referring to? What is a "sustained note"? Who are the practicioners
of this supposed custom?

I know that I for example, and every wind or string player whom I
know in the professional world who uses vibrato (which is the vast
majority exclusive of a some clarinetists and horn players), uses
vibrato on a minority of notes, and certainly not on "all or most
sustained notes". So none of these people fit into your "customary
use" definition. Who does?

> >> Indeed, there are alternative explanations (such as the theory I just
>>> presented) that are consistent with the evidence, but that do not rely
>>> on the assumption that Muhlfeld customarily played with vibrato.
>>
>> You have not presented any evidence to the contrary, and your explanation as
>> I have shown above doesn't hold water.
>
>No, no, that's not the way this works. YOU made the claim that
>vibrato was part of Muhlfeld's personal style to begin with and YOU
>provided the evidence, from which you have reached that conclusion. I
>have accepted your evidence as being true, for the sake of argument.
>However, I claim that YOUR evidence supports more than one possible
>conclusion, one of which is my theory about Brahms suggesting a
>selective use of vibrato in that one piece.

Ridiculous! Are you seriously suggesting that it was Brahms who told
Muhlfeld to use vibrato in that one section of that one piece, and
that happens to be the one section of the piece that the person in
Brymer's book is referring to, and that Muhlfeld never used vibrato
anywhere else ever.

Your logic is so flawed, it's not worth continuing this discussion.

>I don't have to provide
>my own evidence (even though I did), if all I'm doing is showing that
>your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence you've
>already provided.

The use of vibrato has been a common practice on all instruments that
can vibrate for several hundred years. On top of that well-known,
and well-documented fact, I have shown copious specific evidence
regarding Muhlfeld's case.

End of story.

Best regards,
--
Jonathan Cohler
http://jonathancohler.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jonathan-Cohler/54146714115
http://youtube.com/cohler59

------------------------------------------------------------------