Hi Bruce:
As someone said, that's why there are horse races. Different strokes for different folks.
To your point, I have no idea why Rachmaninoff sounds more "there" when he was actually playing a
piano in front of a mic, despite the limitations of the primative recordings. It's just my own
personal aesthetic. Others may like the mechanical reproduction of piano rolls, recorded in
brilliant high fidelity. It's a choice rather than an "argument." For what it's worth, I prefer the
original mono flawed recording of Glenn Gould actually playing "Goldberg Variations" over the new
digital re-creation of the performance. Again, just a matter of personal aesthetic.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon, Bruce" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acoustic to digital
So, when it's a recording of acoustics, noise and speed variation are not an issue, but when it's a
recording of the performer's action upon the keys and the pedals, it's a question of insufficient
resolution of the recording / reproducing instrument. How much resolution would be necessary for a
faithful reproduction equal to a noisy, wobbly disc recording?;-)
-Bruce
Bruce J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
U.S.A
tel. +1(617) 495-1241
fax +1(617) 496-4636
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Don. I have that CD. It's interesting but the playing sounds mechanical (which it
> is). I have this problem with all piano roll recordings I've heard. They sound like a bad scan of
> a stereoscopic photograph -- where the scan hasn't picked up quite enough so the people in the
> foreground look like cardboard stand-ups and each layer of the background looks the same. In
> theory, all the "essential elements" are there, but the "connective" subtle stuff isn't.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tait" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acoustic to digital
>
>
> I have heard those recordings. They are inferior to Rachmaninoff's phonograph records, for me.
> Rachmaninoff's touch and tone and the subtleties of his chording, despite the limitations of the
> processes used to record his playing, are not duplicated.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Don Tait
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon, Bruce <[log in to unmask]>
> To: ARSCLIST <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 1:03 pm
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acoustic to digital
>
>
> We-e-e-e-elll, maybe--maybe not.
>
> See "A Window in Time: Rachmaninoff performs Bach, Chopin, Mendelssohn,
> Paderewski, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and others" Telarc Digital, 20-BIT CD-80491.
> Piano rolls were also used to capture performance.
>
> -Bruce
>
> Bruce J. Gordon
> Audio Engineer
> Audio Preservation Services
> Harvard University
> Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
> U.S.A
> tel. +1(617) 495-1241
> fax +1(617) 496-4636
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Donald Tait <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, exactly. A sound recording, no matter how primitive or advanced, by
> definition preserves sound created by the performer(s). A piano roll does not.
> It is a mechanical device and system used to play a piano.
>>
>> Don Tait
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: ARSCLIST <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 12:23 pm
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acoustic to digital
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2013, Randy Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Bt do we consider piano rolls "accoustic"? If yes, the earlier
>>> mentioned Rudolf Serkin qualifies. And a few others I researched last
>>> night but can't remember off the top of my head.
>>>
>> No, a piano roll is not an acoustic recording. The sound is not recorded
>> at all.
>>
>> It is more like an annotated score.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
|