Guitars, drums, etc.

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>]

In my view, |>oug and IED's attempted refutations of Kyle almost
entirely miss the point.  Here's |>oug, for example:

>> From: kyle@CS.UCLA.EDU

>> OK, I have a question for you, which is a more versatile instrument?

>>       a) a guitar
>>       b) a drum

>> The answer in my opinion is very dependent on what one values in an
>> instrument and one's personal cultural experiences.

And |>oug replies:

> No, it isn't.  A guitar is capable of making a wider range of sounds
> than a drum is.

That depends, though, on what types of sounds you want to make.  If what
you value is percussive sounds a guitar will be seriously deficient.  A
guitar does not make a wider range of percussive sounds, and the endless
variety of other noises it makes may be irrelevant.  It may still seem
that a guitar is capable of greater total range than a drum, but think for
a minute about what it would take to show this.  Neither instrument's
sounds are a subset of the other's.  How many different sounds can a guitar
make, anyway?  The types of differences that we will be willing to call
significant is certainly culturally influenced.  But even if we could
develop an objective measure, what would it really show?  Perhaps the range
we are most interested in expressing can be better expressed by a drum.
(Remember the guitar vs synth debate, and synthesisers can sound a lot like
guitars.)

Even if something (e.g., "range of sounds") is objective it may be
irrelevant.

IED also tries his hand at instrumental superiority:

> Now, it is possible to imagine a fairly faithful imitation
> of the banjo's sound played by a talented violinist on a Strad; but
> the banjo, even when put in the hands of a master banjoist,
> is utterly incapable of sounding like a violin. 

Do you really think a violin can imitate a banjo?  The sounds made when the
strings are plucked are noticeably different, and even a good violinist
might have trouble with fast finger picking.  Neither is a banjo "utterly
incapable" of sounding like a violin.  It may not sound much like a good
violin, but have you ever played a banjo with a bow?

But to IED, this sort of reasoning is anathema:

> Apparently it is your opinion, Mr. Slime, that all forms of judging
> quality are invalid. If, as you propose, there is no intrinsic,
> provable difference in quality between the range of expression
> obtainable from a Stradivarius and that which a banjo offers, then
> it must follow that there is no intrinsic difference between a
> good banjo and a bad banjo -- or between a Stradivarius violin and a
> Sears model, or between any two instruments.

There are a number of replies that might be made to these charges.  First,
it is certainly not the case that it "must follow" that there is no
difference between a good and bad banjo.  Saying, for example, that there's
no intrinsic, provable difference in quality between the taste of apples
and oranges does not at all imply that there's no difference between good
apples and bad.  Someone might indeed feel that all absolute quality
judgements about fruit taste were impossible, and that no apples were truly
good or bad, but that would be a different and stronger claim.

Second, I don't think anyone claimed there were no "provable differences"
in range of expression.  There are certainly a number of provable,
differences, presumably even "intrinsic" ones.  That leaves the word
"quality".  Judging quality is often difficult.  In some cases, there are
some fairly clear, testable criteria.  For example, one tool might be
better than another because it's stronger, longer lasting, etc.  But this
assumes that we are using the tools for certain purposes.  Perhaps for a
slightly different purpose the formerly inferior tool would be better.
Suppose, for example, we live in a culture that does certain things that
require very strong tools and that, within limits, we're willing to use
heavier tools if they're stronger.  A different culture might have the same
sorts of tools, and do pretty much the same things with them, but in a
different context in which weight is more significant (perhaps they fly
where we sail).  For them, the best tools might be lighter, even though
this would mean they were weaker.  Heavy, excessively strong tools might be
a sign of manufacturing flaws.

Even this simple case, then, involves difficulties.  And I don't have to be
any kind of relativist to see them.  Musical "range of expression" sounds
like it might be a more or less objective measure, like the strength of a
tool.  But it's more like a measure of what the tool can be used for; i.e.,
"greater range" is analogous to "better tool".  

Note that IED compares a generic banjo with a Strad, implicitly putting the
whole weight of our classical tradition behind the superiority of the
latter.  I suspect that IED has little notion of what makes the best banjos
better than merely good ones, nor even of what accounts for their continued
existence at all.  Those with access to banjos typically also have access
to fiddles (and guitars), and they have not decided to throw the banjos
out.

Remember how this argument started.  IED was trying to show Kate's vocal
superiority to Elvis Costello by reducing it to her greater vocal purity
and versatility.  I am arguing that we would be quite right to say that
versatility, in the sense that a Strad might be more versatile than a
generic banjo, or a guitar than a drum, does not say which of two singers
is the better in an absolute or total sense.  Indeed, "better" means very
little without some notion of purpose -- "better for what?", we should ask.

In terms of a particular musical tradition that values a particular kind of
purity and versatility, Kate may well be a better signer; in fact I think
she is.  But even within that tradition, it doesn't mean she's better than
Elvis in every way.  There may well be some things that Elvis can express
more effectively than can Kate, and that was all the original message was
claiming.

That's right, a completely reasonable point that happened to be slightly
critical of Kate has resulted in all these flames about musical range,
cultural relativism, and the relative advantages of guitars and drums,
Strads and banjos.

-- Jeff