From: Winslow Yerxa <76450.32~ompuServe.COM> Date: 03 Oct 96 15:32:49 EDT Subject: Proving the Existence of Fish
TO: internet:harp~arply.com
Siegfried Naruhn guesses:
My poor non-native English couldn't prevent my suspicion that a "fish" might be not only a trout or tuna but also a "thing of minor importance", right? Then, a balky slide is anything but a "fish".
Actually, that "not a Fish" tag got started when I was replying to Ray Beltran who had written that the pride and joy of my chromatic collection was a "Herring" and I wrote to modify that statement. Not a bad speculation, though.
I'm still tickled at your description of the "Miserable chirping reed" of a few weeks ago.
At first, the description of harp parts must be unequivocal. If you understand with 'mouthpiece' the uppermost part with the holes, then you can grind it's back into all eternity without achieving any an effect because it has no contact to the slide. You can only mean the back of the upper slide plate, but why should we talk in different languages. Mouthpiece or mouthpiece section must be differentiated, as the case may be.
I assumed it was the back of the mouthpiece because this does in fact jut out past the top of the slide casing by about 1mm, and the scraping marks on the slide conform to the slit cut into it to accomodate the transit of the extruding tip of the slide spring, but on close examination I see that the mouthpiece cannot contact the slide without considerable bending, and that the same slit exists in the front of the top of the slide casing. However, on a 64, it is the mouthpiece itself that does this scraping (by the way, I see it on the back of the slide as well. Is the tolerance too tight?)
You write:
Actually, I prefer again the original CX, of course modified, and find that there is rather 'music in the air' than 'plastic in the sound'. Maybe, you have a general aversion against plastic and are influenced in your jugdement. By the way, nobody could define how plastic has to sound.
I have no aversion to plastic combs, or metal or wood. They do sound different to my ears, and I like them all for different reasons. But the "total plastic" sound of the plastic-covered CX-12 and CBH, to my ears, is too much plastic. While it might be hard to characterize the all-plastic sound verbally (soft, lacking in high partials?), I do not find that I am the only one to comment on this.
Here I will take the opportunity to stand on a soap box and, while addressing no-one in particular, complain that there seems to be a tendency among those seeking scientific explanations to discount reported experience. I mean that if reported experience is not borne out by the theoretical models advanced, then the experience tends to be dismissed as invalid, and attributed to the gullibility, suggestibilty or prejudice of the person who has the experience.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am neither gullible nor suggestible and am in fact highly skeptical. I am also fairly open-minded, as in, willing to suspend disbelief and ascribe the unexplainable to unknown causes.
Recently someone on the list pointed out that in the early days of radio, this tendency to dismiss unexplained experience led radio eggheads to dismiss field reports that if taken seriously, would have led to the development of the transistor a good 20 years earlier than actually happened.
It seems to me that if the theoretical model cannot explain the experience, then maybe the model is inadequate.
I am reminded of an old Bernard Kliban cartoon captioned "Proving the Existence of Fish." It depicts a stern, bearded professor gesturing in front of a blackboard full of scrawled formulae. The audience members are all fish.
End of rant. Not to be taken as a personal affront to you, Siegfried. I just took the opportunity to vent something that's been bugging me lately.