Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-03-03 04:54
"The only way to compare the sound qualities of clarinets made with different materials is to have two sets (that is, a good sample) of clarinets in each material manufactured to identical specifications played by the same player and played with the same mouthpiece, ligature, and reed, etc. in the same environment and with a good sample of listeners. In short, with only one variable to test: the body material."
Seems to me that the best this experiment could do is determine which material is better for a particular player, mouthpiece, ligature, reed etc. in a given set of environmental conditions. There would be no way of knowing, whether the material would still be optimal if the player changed or the mouthpiece changed, or the temperature went up (or down) by 5 degrees, or the humidity changed, etc. In other words, while the experiment might have internal validity (one could trace a difference in outcomes to the material used) it would lack external validity (the ability to generalize results). Any attempt to address this question in a meaningful way would probably require large-scale randomization to control for other variables.
"Giving the customer what s/he wants" is sometimes referred to as "consumer sovereignty." As a general rule, is "consumer sovereignty" adequate justification for a professional to sell a customer a product or provide a client a service that the customer/client requests (demands) but the professional knows or, at least, strongly believes, is not in the customer's/client's best interests? Or are there circumstances when a professional's integrity should demand that s/he refuse to serve the customer. In the face of strong belief, is it enough to inform the customer that there is a better choice? Is the desire to make a buck sufficient justification? (I don't consider these to be trivial questions.)
Best regards,
jnk
|
|