Re: Repairing old dents

"Dr. Trumpet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "Greg Goodknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <major snippage of insulting commentary>
>
>  >If you recall, my
> > differences with you always start over the physics involved and your
> > propensity for pure fantasy (like this round started by the mystic
"trumpets
> > remember the sound of the player and slowly change when a new player
uses
> > it" that you repeated and blessed); when physics is involved you get
testy.
> > Are you still using O-rings to help adjust the bottom caps tension??!!
>
> If you recall further, you usually aren't a part of the discussion until
> I jump in.  BECAUSE,  if you enter the discussion first, I do not
> involve myself with it.  Go back and look, the record is clear.  You
> have a tendency to jump in only when I enter the discussion.
> >
> > BS Physics, Harvey Mudd College; MS Engineering, Loyola Marymount U. are
my
> > science and engineering degrees. And as for music and trumpeting, how
does
> > one classify two years of weekly study as a student of Jimmy Stamp and a
> > couple of academic years of fairly regular lessons with Mario Guarneri?
>
> The engineering is good.  My father is an engineer, as is my
> father-in-law.  They both do a lot of OTJ retraining with guys from
> those schols to get them up to snuff.  And, we're talking a major
> company, at least for my father.
>
> As far as trumpet playing goes, it gets you to about the level I was in
> high school.  So?  Those are great teachers.  So  are Bill Adam, Charlie
> Gorham and Dominic Spera.  The teacher doesn't make the player, the
> player makes the player.  The teacher is the guide.  If you have one
> hour lesson every week with a teacher, you spend 1/168 of your week with
> them.  If you did it every other week, it wasw 1/336 of your two weeks
> with them.  The rest of the time is up to the student to apply the
> principles taught in the lesson.
>
>
> >
> > Now, Albert, what was your science background?
>
> Doctoral accoustics courses at Indiana University.  Undergraduate
> courses in sciences and computer engineering at DePauw University.
> Reading texts by Benade, discussions with leading makers like Cliff
> Blackburn, Mark Curry, Dave Monette, Fred Powell and other, that were
> frankly more enlightening than anything else, since these guys design
> and make horns.
>
> Science and engineering degrees are great, and I am sure you are good at
> what you do.  I know from experience that being a greeat trumpet player
> in an orchestral setting doesn't immediately make you a great rock and
> roll player, and that being a great jazzer doesn't always mean you have
> superb ability to play orchestral concertos.  So, if you had told me
> your background was in accoustical engineering, or if you told me that
> you currently work in sound engineering and structural accoustics, that
> would mean a lot more to this discussion.
>
> You should know, as a current engineer and master's degree holder that
> school is not always the place you learn about your craft.  I can say
> with certainty that I learned more playing the trumpet the more I played
> as a professional.  They don't cover the in and outs of everyday life in
> school. The sore chops after a night of rock and roll followed by a
> Church service at 6:00 AM the next morning. Words can be said, but
> nothing except experience tells you about this.
>
> Which is how I view a lot of the stuff you say can't make a difference.
> I am in a position where I can try it.  A lot of it is hogwash.  Some of
> it works for me.  Some of it is frankly beyond the realm of what I do
> understand from a physics standpoint, and I've never tried to argue that
> point with you.  What I am arguing is that is shows a positive effect
> for me or my students, and if the effect is positive, regardless of the
> method, and as long as it does not damage, what difference does it make?
> If you care enough about your playing, and you are told that drinking a
> glass of <insert drink here> makes you a better player, and you do it,
> AND it does make you a better player, you will be a better player
> whether or not the drinking of that glass of <insert drink here> made
> any difference.  Kinda like lucky sock or a lucky shirt.  If it makes
> you better, you are better.  In music, who cares what the cause is?  The
> result is all that matters.  Scientifically, it can be hogwash, but if
> it makes a positive difference for a player, it makes a positive
> difference in the music they make, and they are better for it.
> Scientifically measureable is then of no importance.  The difference to
> the person who realizes the difference is greater than anything
> scientific.  As you say, they probably don't want to know.  Why?  Ruin
> the myth.  Shatter the dream. Mess with something good.....no way.
>
> Show me were a kid who can suddenly play the triplet section of Ropartz'
> Andante and Allegro because I spaced his third valve cap cares about
> what you're telling him, that is isn't supposed to work.  He cares about
> what every teacher I have ever had cares about:  playing the part right.
>
> Show me an orchestral players who doesn't constantly mess with gadgets
> and "voodoo" as you call it, and I'll show you a fellow who has in the
> past, and has found what works for him and what doesn't.
>
> The guys on this list, and for the most part, on the entire internet,
> are not going to look at either you or I and claim either of us to be
> correct.  They'll look at the logic and the reasonability of the
> arguement, and still do what they want.  You might sway a few to not do
> something,  and I might sway a few to try it.  What does that do to
> those players?  The ones who try it know, and the ones who do not are
> still left in the dark.  If they play a friends horn in three years with
> heavy caps and love it, what will they say about you then?  If they play
> it and hate it, they'll say I was wrong.
>
> Trying to convince people of something takes a talent that you nor I
> have, and that is to communicate in a way that people are willing to
> listen to what you have to say.  I full well realize that most of the
> people in this forum are tuning this entire exchange out.  So what does
> it prove if we continue?  That we are too stubborn to realize that both
> of us are doing harm by continuing this thread and this pointless
> arguement.
>
> I full well know that if a double blind test proved the materials did
> not work, I wouldn't take them off my trumpets.  I full well know that
> if it did prove valuable in a test, you would not add them to your horn.
> Maybe what I do subscribe to is a placebo effect, and maybe what I
> subscribe to exist for me.  Does that mean it is wrong when I am a
> better player with this stuff applied to my horn?
>
> I am not attacking anyones position here, but rather pointing out that
> the error of both our ideas is that the people here will listen to us if
> we can prove the other wrong often enough.  Greg, it isn't going to
> happen.  As fiercely independent as you and I both are, it is clear than
> neither of us would respond to the test in any way but to espouse our
> own belief and find fault in the other person or the testing method.
> And, from what I have read, it seems pretty much par for the course
> within the history of science and scientific experimentation.
>
> > PS I'll be happy to air your dirty laundry in public as long as you
want,
> > Al.
>
> I'll not do that to you.  It would be wrong and unfair.  The Al of the
> past is not the Al here today;  I've worked at becoming less anger
> filled and more patient with people, as I have been trying to show you b
> responding as evenly as I can.  Michael Anderson and I had a long talk
> after the last time something happened on TPIN, and I started working
> toward less anger and more understand.  I hope that you can take a
> similar path, but that of course is your choice.  My opinion may not
> always agree with your, and you might think me a fool to say this, but
> who cares?  Does it really matter?  A hundred years from now, will the
> record of any of these exchanges make one bit of difference?  Doubtful.
> At best, if you became a renowned accoustical engineer, and I a major
> orchestral player in a world class orchestra, they would report these as
> "spirited debates".  I've read enough in philosophy and music history to
> know this.
>
> Have a good day, unless you've made other plans, Greg.  I'm going to
> continue to be nice about this, as long as I can.  Funny, but writing
> this has diffused all of my anger toward you.  It's the Christmas
> season, I'm gonna finish up my document and celebrate.


Thanks for the post Al. I can see where you were/are coming from.


Spencer


>
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> If replying by direct e-mail, please reply to alillyatscicandotnet,
> where you replace "at" with "@" and "dot" with ".".
> _______________________________________________________________________