RE: TONE [ain't ~sound~]

>Exactly my point. One of them is wrong [Ak! He made a
>value judgement! Call out the Generalization Guard!].
>I think we all [95% of us who take harp seriously]
>know which one. That can be measured by, say- - -


>That's the reason I'm defending this seemingly small
>point.  That people on harp-l will argue about
>something isn't evidence that ~tone is relative to
>what your preferences are~. No it isn't.

Actually, it is.  Moreover, you just gave the exact reason for it in
your previous sentences.  Anything that can only be measured by a vote
or poll is inherently subjective.  You are looking for the majority of
people's opinions.  What you are trying to do is transfer that into an
objective standard.  However, that does not work: the subjective can no
more be made into an objective than the objective into a subjective.

For example: the Who played a concert at some ridiculous figure like 120
decibels (probably way off, but irrelevant for the point--let's call it
"x" and agree that it was the loudest concert then recorded).  By any
objective standard of measurement this is a very loud sound.  But, if
someone were to ask if it was too loud, that would be subjective as it
would depend on the individual being asked.  Thus "too loud" cannot be
measured in an objective manner.  One could do a study and find the
statistics of what people consider "too loud", but that doesn't make
"too loud" any less subjective, it just indicates what the tendencies of
people are towards the perception of "too loud".

Tone is no different, and again you prove this with faulty reasoning
that was intended to show the opposite.  You dismiss all of Tom's
criteria and suggestions for tone as being "after-the-fact" tone, but
then you say the following (from the same paragraph as above):

>or by measuring how much air leaks out of
>his hand-cupping, etc

I do not believe that "hand-cupping" is any more or less related to a
player's tone than any of the factors that Tom mentioned.  Can it be a
part of someone's tone if used effectively?  Yes.  Can someone have
"good tone" without using their hands at all?  In my opinion, yes.  And
that's the important thing for this debate--it's _my opinion_, not
quantifiable, not objective, not a science but an art.  

Certain things could possibly be measured that relate to tone
(projection, "resonance", frequency content, etc...), but "good tone"
can not be quantified or set in stone because it is based in the
perception of the individual.  This isn't Tolkien's fantasy where orcs
are bad and elves are good and nothing in-between nor any debate about
it.  When I hear someone and say "they have great tone" someone else can
say "they have horrible tone" and we can both be right, because we both
are right: for ourselves.  Say we find that the people you consider as
having "good tone" tend to fall within certain of objective measurements
of projection, volume, etc...(assuming these can somehow be measured).
But, what if the people I consider as having "good tone" fall into
completely different areas on those same criteria?  Obviously that would
indicate that we have different criteria for defining "good tone".  What
it wouldn't say in any way shape or form is which one of us is "right",
as you would claim.

This isn't some "PC" thing or the "Generalization Police" as you would
dismiss those who find logical fault with your premises; it is simply
recognizing that there is a difference between the objective and the
subjective.  To put it into a simple sentence, there is a difference
between art and science, and it is the wise man that recognizes the line
between the two.  Nota Bene, that is a definitive sentence and even a
generalization, things with which I have no problem when used in the
right place.

(PS, you are not now nor have you ever been nor will you ever be
harp-l's philosopher king.  That title is held in perpetuity by

 ()()   JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()  & Snuffy, too:)

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.