Klarinet Archive - Posting 000148.txt from 2009/10

From: Michael Nichols <mrn.clarinet@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] New articles published on the web!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:50:51 -0400

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org> wrote:
> At 3:36 PM -0500 10/13/09, Michael Nichols wrote:
>>
>> =A0> For the umpteenth time, I never said anything about "habitual" vibr=
ato
>>>
>>> =A0(which is a meaningless term). =A0You seem, however, to be obsessed =
with
>>> it.
>>
>> I know you didn't. =A0I made the term up myself (and only because you
>> object to my use of conventional music jargon). =A0But 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? Wha=
t
> is a "sustained note"? Who are the practicioners of this supposed custom?

You really need me to tell you?

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

Well, you got one thing right--trying to have an objective discussion
with you about this topic is a waste of time. For whatever reason,
your beliefs concerning Muhlfeld are clearly very important to you,
and I have basically nothing to gain in convincing you to take what I
say seriously. So it's not worth the effort.

For anyone interested in exploring this subject for its own sake, I
made my point already, anyway. They can judge my ideas on their own
merits and, if they so choose, do their own research to test them. My
only interest is in uncovering the truth, whether that means my
hypotheses turn out to be true or false.

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