Still more stuff about this versatility business

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU]

The following is IED's response to Jeff Dalton's latest flame.
In order to be fair to Jeff as well as to himself, large parts
of Jeff's original posting have been re-posted, so please bear with us.

>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 agrees with Jeff on these points, and has repeatedly
tried to remind the readers that his own comparison was not
between a drum and a violin, but between a violin and
a banjo. Jeff has objections to this comparison, as well,
and these IED considers below.

>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?
>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.

As a matter of fact, yes IED HAS played a banjo with a bow
(albeit badly, since he is neither a banjo nor a violin virtuoso!).
More enlightening was a demonstration of the banjo by a professional
player and friend of IED's a couple of years ago; even he, who has
played in a Dixie band for years (he used to work at Disneyland!),
was more than willing to admit to the severe limitations of his
instrument. As difficult as it may be to swallow for those with
an affection for the banjo, it is a plain fact that the sonic
capabilities of the instrument are very slim, in comparison with those
of a violin -- even a cheap one, Jeff!
IED didn't say that the violin would sound EXACTLY like a banjo,
but even a reasonably talented amateur violinist should be able
to apply the strumming techniques and metal ringpicks devised for the
banjo to a violin, and produce a reasonably faithful facsimile. A banjo,
when played with a bow, sounds something like a cross between a saw
(meaning a saw played as a musical instrument, with a bow, which makes
a weird, Moog-like synth sound) and a skinned cat, but it does NOT sound
ANYTHING like a violin.
IED chose his analogy with
some care, and he has yet to see someone find a hole in it.

>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.

It is revealing of the crude origins of banjo-playing that,
according to my friend, a "good" banjo is judged to be one
that will last longest, is easiest to play, and is decorated most
lavishly and with the most expensive ornaments. Comparably
little attention is paid to whether the banjo has a good
"tone," since the instrument, and its repertoire, have not yet
progressed to a point where distinctions of tone are
valued highly.
As for your last comment above, the contention (that banjo players
choose the banjo despite having had the option to play the violin)
in no way supports the argument that banjos possess
subtle or versatile sound capabilities -- it may just as easily
mean that musicians who choose the banjo are people to whom
subtlety or versatility of sound are either unimportant or inaudible.

>> 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.

This is wrong. The analogy of a violin and a banjo is one which has
a clear, provable answer: one IS more versatile than the other.
Therefore, IF someone still insists -- against the factual evidence --
that they are still apples and oranges even as regards versatility,
and that a demonstration of greater versatility in the violin is in no
way in the violin's favor -- then he is someone who clearly
rejects any such judgments, INCLUDING judgments of quality between
good and bad banjos, or good and bad violins.

>Second, I don't think anyone claimed there were no "provable differences"
>in range of expression.

No-one specifically did, that is true. IED pointed out last week,
in a flame to Kevin, that one of the qualities in Kate's singing
-- which he had expressed initial distaste for -- was its frequent
changes of timbre and style. The next day, this Slime fellow
wrote a series of inane responses, each of which indicated -- with
the lowest form of wit -- that he felt Kate's voice was not versatile,
but that it was as limited as anyone else's. They are re-posted here,
following the relevant comments by IED:

>>Despite frequent attempts
>>to alter his vocal style and timbre, he
>>inevitably sounds like himself, and, as
>>a result, his stylistic changes fail to
>>make any substantive difference in the music.

>And who/what does Kate sound like?  I've been able peg her everytime I heard
>her.

>>Kate Bush, on the other hand, has what one might call
>>a kind of "Rorschach" voice: the actual
>>physical vocal timbre of her voice is
>>quite classic and pure -- a less flattering
>>way to describe it would be "anonymous".

>I see she sounds like a "nobody".  You said it not me!

(Put very badly, but yes, that is exactly what IED has been saying.)

>>To put it another way,
>>Kate's voice is to Costello's
>>as a Stradivarius is to a banjo.
>>the former is the product of centuries
>>of cultural refinement, honed to a
>>level of finish that defies the mundane
>>plane of our mortal existence; the
>>latter is a crude, innately vulgar
>>contraption fashioned over a few years
>>of rustic sub-culture, incapable of
>>escaping its own limited range of sound,
>>and ultimately reflecting nothing except
>>itself.

>And what does a Stradavarius reflect?  You're starting to sound like
>an Ethno-centric European.  You know Hitler would have agreed with you.

As you can see, Jeff, Slime's comments are breathtaking in their
stupidity, and need not be answered again, but they do show that
someone, at least, has not accepted the versatility of Kate's voice.

>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".
>
>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.

But IED has NOT been insisting that the greater versatility
of Kate's voice means that it is of higher "quality". IED
never said that. He said that it had "a higher quality of
versatility;" admittedly a poor choice of words, but pretty
clearly intended to mean "a greater degree of versatility."
He has never insisted that her versatile vocal style was
testimony in itself to a higher "quality" in her music.
In fact this is about the fifth time IED has had to
remind you people that he hasn't been saying that!

What he DID say, and still maintains, is that those
who prefer a less versatile vocal style are exercising
their option according to taste -- that is, their choice
demonstrates only the state of their own musical aesthetics,
and nothing about the music itself.

>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.

This point is capital -- and obvious; and it was not claimed in the
"original message" at all! The contention that there may be some
specific vocal musical stylings that Costello is BETTER at than
Kate has not appeared before in Love-Hounds. Obviously, there is
one thing that EVERY singer can do better than any other singer,
and that is: sound like him- or herself! IED's point is that
"sounding like oneself" is not something that ought to be held
in such high regard. This is, in fact, exactly what Kate Bush
consciously tries NOT to do. Instead, she tries to sound like
the MUSIC.

-- Andrew Marvick