| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
April 3, 2007 - 4:06am
#1
Musical musings
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
It is important for these groups to start offering their concerts on-line just like The Milwaukee Symphony and The Phildelphia Orchestra is doing. They are not the only ones, but this is going to be the future of financial income for them I believe. The future of broad spectrum symphonic music will depend upon it.
If they cannot obtain the mechanical rights to perform and record works, there is ample Public Domain music to be performed and sold. I hope they figure it out.
There is certainly high enough quality microphones (tube, condenser, or ribbon) available from Neumann, Royer, AKG, EarthWorks, and Sennheiser, to name only a few that can do the job. It may be to capture the "live experience" 5.1 SACD or DVD-A might? be needed.
Give JA his choice and a DSD rig from Ed Meitner and magic would be captured for sure. This I am sure of.
I just attended a concert this past Sat at Emory on the Jaeckel OP 45 Pipe organ. I am trying to procure a copy of the performance, hopefully soon, so I can try and compare it to my sonic memory...which is fading fast. They appear to use a close ORTF pair of what looks like Audio Technica 4050's, hung from the high ceiling, 15 feet up from the main seating floor.
The natural reverb tails in Emerson Hall were nearly 3 seconds long, but the organ was crystal clear, full bodied, with no muddiness at all. That hall is excellent.
Unfortunately we cannot even begin to get close to recording and playing back the sound of acoustic instruments playing live. Effortless" is a delicious description of the sound.
We can approximate the sound, and this is wonderful fun and a delightful hobby - but we are no where near fooling even the worst set of ears into believing that the sound coming out of a set speakers is real.
Video and film are the same way. We can create spectacles and produce films that are moving, but no one has any difficulty recognizing the difference between the real physical world and a movie.
I have some Telarc (Michel Camilo) and DMP (Warren Bernhardt) that come pretty close for me. We have a Steinway B at church and over the last few weeks I have been playing it for almost an 1+ hour a day. These DSD recordings are awfully close to me.
I would also say that JA's efforts are an excellent rendition of the piano sound, hall and performance.
I would rather have any of these recordings than sit in the last row of our 1100 seat sanctuary listening to our Steinway live.
I do get your point. We still do not have the devices to capture it all...yet...if ever. The question is...is a pair of Neumann 149's better than my ears? Yes, probably.
>>Quote "Another thing that really struck me was that the average age of the audience hovered around the 65 year mark. At 38, I was one of the youngest members of the audience. It was pretty sad that the vast majority of younger people miss out on such magic and such wonderful performance." << Quote
I don't mean to nit-pick the language of your post for the sake of nit picking, but, while I agree that it is sad that the average concert goer is around my age, I think an important point is missed by your use of the phrase, "miss out". Younger people aren't being deprived of great musical experiences by action of some outside force, they are, as a group deliberately and consciously avoiding them. You're observing the young crowd exercising free choice. It is a stupid choice in my opinion, but it is theirs. You'll see that they avoid the Art Museum too. Sadly, you're stuck in an age group which offers evidence all too frequently that their appetites are about as base as they come. Guess we have to hope that they'll grow out of it.
I don't mean to nit-pick your language either, but would you explain why people (young or not so young) are making a "stupid" decision because they don't listen to the same music YOU do? Why is society so intolerant of others just because they do something different. How can anyone's taste in music be wrong? It's wholly subjective. One may find music nirvana in a rock hall while another may find it in an intimate chamber setting. Or both. As you said, free choice. Not stupidity.
Regards,
Bob
I think that it's too bad that a younger crowd is missing out on really wonderful musical experiences. Yes, they're making a free choice and it is their choice to make. However, I think that if there was greater exposure (for lack of a better word) of classical music or perhaps if American society was more focused on classical music and arts, I think the lives of the younger crowd would be that much richer.
I remember reading somewhere that Sting heard a classical piece at the ripe old age of 30 or there about. He exclaimed: "Now, that's music!" I wonder how many of the younger folks would feel the same if exposed to some of the classical works.
You'll have to excuse me, Bob B, because I thought I had made it perfectly clear that it was MY OPINION that the choice to avoid music like that of The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields is stupid. I have as much right to that opinion and to voice it as you have to disagree with it and to question my right to hold it.
I'm not so sure I agree with you that society today is all that intolerant. There appears to be a large group - perhaps a majority of the 40 and younger crowd - that supports the idea that the greatest sin one can commit is to be "judgmental". Clearly, I disagree with that - and it appears you do too since you chose to judge my behavior.
We're free to do that sort of thing. This is, though just barely, still America.
Regards,
I suppose our society isn't really geared toward the appreciation of finer things. Life experience may introduce these things at a later age than previous generations. Given the fast paced lifestyle of most people, I'm not sure that Classical music would stand a chance of holding people's attention in modern America.
Interestingly, China is enjoying a boom of interest in Classical music. I expect we will see increased interest as well as the boomers begin to slow down and retire from the rat-race. I know it took me slowing down to start enjoying many things that I was too busy to give more than a passing glance in my younger years.
I agree mostly with Monty and AlexO; Nowadays, certain things, such as classical music, may be introduced to Americans at a later point in life than was once the case in previous generations. For instance, I know that, at some point, classical music was taught, along with basic math and grammar and whatever else, in elementary schools and high schools. However, classical music was never introduced to me as part of any school curriculum. That
So, Stephen, the kid chooses the cheeseburger because he "knows" it. How did he come to know it? Why doesn't he also know the tuna salad sandwich? Maybe that is the fault of a ten year old's parents, but isn't that beside the point?
No one is suggesting that one's music collection should be limited to Brahms, Bach, and Beethoven. And we're not talking about "kids" here. We're talking those numerous baby boomers and gen X'rs. Some of them are pushing fifty, and all of them are old enough to vote and drink legally. Time they took responsibility for their own behavior - some of which, like settling for MP3's and ignoring Mozart, is STUPID.
I'm not suggesting that the music with sufficient worth to remain popular for hundreds of years be chosen to the exclusion of other genres. You know me better than that. Classical should be an inherent part of any music lovers collection, together with Jazz, Rock, Country, Punk etc.
If your favorite foods and your favorite music are still the same as they were when you were twelve, you're cheating yourself. It's stupid to cheat yourself and you have no one else to blame. If, at my advanced age, I can keep giving free jazz a chance to fit into my eclectic collection, perhaps others can give the classics a listen or two.
The Philadelphia Orchestra is now offering podcasts to take you behind the scenes of the orchestra. Check it out at:
http://podcasts.philorch.org/
I am right proud of my hometown orchestra. Between the downloads in FLAC and now the podcasts, they are quite progressive in embracing new technology.
Regards,
Bob
Classical music (at least in New York) can be very accessible and very affordable. Lots of times it's free. The nose bleeder seats at the Met are only $25, so those who are on a budget can enjoy opera just as much as those with some cash to spend. I enjoy rock music just as much as classical. I go see various bands playing in the village and all around town.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that liking cheeseburgers shouldn't preclude one from enjoying an occasional steak and steak lovers shouldn't keep away from an occasional burger.
It's amazing the kind of stuff that's available for little or no money. All you need is some interest and desire to look for it.
Joey Ramone is much more interesting than Maria Callas. Sings better too! I wanna be sedated. Maria Callas is SEDATION. Elvis doing GOSPEL is teh best OPERA there is. Get his 2 CD sets of GOSPEL. Elvis truly was/IS The King. Most Opera singers can't do anything but Opera, boooooring. Elvis could do it ALL. One you hear teh CD sets of Elvis GOSPEL, even opera singers with acclaim seem like ametuers. Praoratti is like an american Idol winner/Loser depending on your point of view. Pavoratti is the Taylor Hicks of music. While Elvis is untouchable. Thank you, thanky you very much. Now let's get them both a cheeseburger.
Acoustic RECORDING done right on CD? http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=3732
Err... newsflash: Both Elvis and Joey Ramone are dead. So, that sort of puts a damper on your concert going activity. I suggest you try opera. Pavarotti is still alive.
Joey or Elvis are much more entertaining , dead or alive. their music and spirit lives. At least they sing in English....what are those Opera singers saying anyway? Maybe Opera is the orginal hip-hop Rap crap? Neither one ya understand.
What are those opera singers saying????
They're saying "buy demagnetizers for your plastic, cables are worth $15k and you haven't experienced Elvis unless you've heard it on a LP".
What else would they be saying??
Actually I have ELVIS #1 on DVD-A....it do sound mighty impressive. those original ANALOG recorders did a fine job. So if the DIGITAL copies are showing us how good the ANALOG recorders where, that would mean Digital is as good or BETTER. I have many Elvis LP Some of them limited ones that are now worth afortune, yupper, gonna retire the Elvis 24K is now $75. !!! Whoopie, Sounds good, DVD-A sounds BETTER. LP is priced more and ya get less. Modern consumer electronics and entertainment goes the other way. you know the old marketing scamm. Price something real high and people will of course ASSume it has to be better. Has worked on many different products. The entire laser optical medium Philips devloped was to lower cost, improve quality, eae of use etc. CD/DVD/SACD all Philips inovations that worked out quite well. LP is cumbersome, not long lived, not easy to use. CD /DVD is a winner. BUT the LP has been around many decades, so has teh Analog cassette (another Philips invention) will laser opticl discs stay around that long, possibly maybe, but CE seems on such a fast pace compared to even 30 years ago, who knows? But DVD-A sounds better than the LP version. Without a doubt, much easier to use too.
Something that always baffled me was the zeal with which LP enthusiasts defend the medium.
It seems to me that the inherent problem with LP playback is that it so heavily relies on mechanical precision. The platter has to be very precisely leveled, the tone arm has to apply a very precise amount of pressure, the platter has to spin at a precisely set rotational speed, the needle has to track the grooves precisely. Furthermore, the closer you get to the end of the record, the faster the relative rotation of the record to the needle becomes. Hence, inherently, the pitch varies as you get closer to the end.
Given all these inherent limitations, and having heard many record players, for the life of me, I don't get how anyone can claim that records sound BETTER. I think that it would be valid to say that one likes listening to records because it reminds them of their youth, they like to watch the record spin or they enjoy the mechanical precision that it takes to create a quality record player. That's all well and good, but I don't understand the absoluteness with which some put their foot down and state unequivocally that LPs sound BETTER than ANY digital source.
Exactly, I AGREE, right on. LP lovers, set yourself free, it's 21st century. And just think what the $100K will buy TODAY instead of a spinning platter at the end of a belt!!! No amount of medication, physcological talks, will ever justify a $100K TT. Think about how mnay precision bearings, fit and finish are in a $100K car!!! But what gets me, the COPY onto a 10 cnet CD-R manages to allow one to hear this sonic wonder!!! That says CD-R technology is more stunning. And where those copies made at teh EXACT same levels etc? The louder one will sound better. Again measurements needed to say that they all heard the $100K TT sound better than the other one. So easy to pull a fast one. Not that any kind of schenanigans evr happen in audio. Are there any people still trying to cloing onto analog tv broadcasts, claiming it's warmer, better than current HDTV digital? i want my FUZZ tv.!!!
I asked MF that same question: the fact that he burned the sound output from a 100k player vs a 5k player onto a CD-R and the results were heard by laymen, does that mean that CD-R is a superior medium? He never answered me. Would be funny if these differences were heard when he played his CD-R on a computer via a sound card. Would be even funnier if he had made a 128k MP3 and the differences were heard. I would die laughing if that were true.