 |
 |
The comment about being superfluous shows you how your own house can become a glass house when you live long enough for your own schtick to go out of style. 12 tone music is pretty much a dead duck by now. Beat, John On Apr 5, 2015 3:21 PM, "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > All good points. Schuller is talking specifically about the influence of > recordings on careers, but the need to be "different" has always been with > us, and the overall picture is that what Schuller is describing is the > process whereby, over time we get further and further away from the real > musical style of the composer, an understanding of which his contemporaries > would have been taking for granted. Here, recordings over the last century > can be very instructive, and we should study them. Not to imitate them, > but to learn from them. Egs--the way Caruso applies his superb legato to > the music of Puccini and the way orchestral conductors encouraged beautiful > string portamenti before they became verbotten in the more clinical, > "objective" decades that followed. > Best, John > On Apr 5, 2015 3:00 PM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I disagree with Schuller somewhat on this, and keep in mind that as a >> composer, his investment is in the score-loyal side of things. With >> classical music scored in such detail, I think the only thing that makes it >> interesting is the different interpretations by its conductors and players. >> Slavish devotion to every notation in the score is one interpretation, >> maybe the best in some cases. But it's not always the best. By the way, I >> don't know what sort of radical "be different" was going on in 1997, unless >> it was who could be the most dull and generic! Go back 40 years earlier and >> you get different. >> >> A great case in point. Emerson, Lake and Palmer, whatever one may think >> of them, took the "rock" genre in a new direction by interpreting and >> "rock-izing" classical pieces. There's a documentary about them on YouTube, >> apparently the video that's on a DVD in one of their box sets. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNv_CycsWmc >> One of the interesting stories told by the group is how they got >> permission to use Aaron Copland's "Rodeo" in their own arrangement and >> setting. According to the band's manager, shown telling the story in the >> video, the publisher gave them a flat-out "no" and did the equivilent of >> turning their noise up and walking away. Well, the manager found Aaron >> Copland's home number in the phone book (remember those), and "rang him >> up." Copland said, send me a tape. A few weeks later, permission was >> granted by Copland's people, and word got back that Copland loved ELP's >> interpretation of his music. >> >> Schuller's interest in jazz stands in interesting contrast to his >> statements about obeying scores. The whole point of jazz music is to not >> obey a score, but rather use it as a "head arrangement" to facilitate >> improvisation. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 12:05 PM >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" >> >> >> Here's some more from Gunther Schuller and his advocacy for the score: >>> >>> "The difficulty in this discussion lies in the fact that no human being, >>> no artist, no conductor can ever be totally objective in >>> artistic/interpretive matters, or - to put it another way - can ever avoid >>> being subjective to some extent. Clearly, the argument generally mounted by >>> the opponents of textual fidelity - to wit, that someone is too 'objective' >>> in his performance, too cold, too intellectual, too inexpressive, too >>> reliant on the score - is itself false and specious, because even that >>> alleged 'objectivity' is bound to incorporate a great or lesser degree of >>> subjectivity.... >>> >>> "We are, after all, what we are; and conductors are what they are. No >>> conductor is purposely bad or purposely good. Every conductor is trying to >>> evolve out of his talents the highest and most personal expression. >>> Unfortunately, this often fails because (a) there is among conductor's >>> views of themselves a sizable gap between perception and reality, that is , >>> between their perception of themselves and the reality as seen by others; >>> and (b) conductors now increasingly try 'to be different' in order to carve >>> out for themselves some special career niche.... >>> >>> "This alarming trend can best be seen and heard in recordings...in that >>> conductors, battling it out in the fiercely competitive recording market, >>> have now learned that they will stand out, will be reviewed and discussed >>> more readily, and will thus attract more attention the more they can >>> interpret a work differently from the several dozen recordings of it that >>> are already in the market place. This has become more than a trend in >>> recent years; it has become an obsession and a specific skill, eagerly >>> supported by managers and, of course, most record companies. At that point >>> the composer's score becomes, alas, a total irrelevance, an annoying >>> burden. In this perverse view of things, the music becomes fair game to be >>> exploited for whatever career gains it can provide. Beyond the immediate >>> negative effects of specific personal mis-, under-, or over-interpretations >>> by these conductors, there is an unfortunate cumulative effect as well: the >>> varied distinctive qualities and characteristics of the great symphonic >>> masterpieces are submerged in one generalized, (ironically) depersonalized, >>> generic, amorphous, androgynous performance style. Instead of the >>> personality of the composer - and the true personal and special essence of >>> the work in question - we get the personality of the conductor." >>> >>> That was published in 1997. The record companies are not so influential >>> now. These days it looks like the same marketing is deployed more broadly >>> to 'save classical music.' >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto: >>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine >>> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:41 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" >>> >>> I'll say this about Boulez -- I love that he's so polarizing! Good for >>> him! A big part of my disinterest in most orchestras and conductors today >>> is that they either try to be everything to everyone, or they pander to try >>> and "get the kids interested," or they are stuck in the mud of >>> over-caution. None of that is interesting. Boulez is different and >>> controversial. I like some of his recordings, do not like others. I even >>> like that he's played the Legend card in France to amass a big pile of >>> state funding for classical music (who has the power to do that here?). The >>> very things that David Lewis mentioned -- the "ice cold" interpretations, >>> the super-precision to certain scores, are liable to totally turn off >>> American fans who, for instance, loved the Bernstein approach to music. >>> There's nothing wrong with that! Alternative and even opposite approaches >>> to music are great, and so is debate about it. What's not great is >>> un-original thinking, over-caution and working so hard to be "inclusive" >>> that one never plants their foot on decisive lines. Be bold or be bored! >>> >>> -- Tom Fine >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:21 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" >>> >>> >>> BTW, the DAC2 is a substantial improvement on the DAC1, various >>>> versions of which I've owned since >>>> it came out over ten years ago. Even the analog path is better. Still, >>>> I hear a difference with it >>>> between Toslink and coax from the same Redbook source. Always have. I >>>> know, I know.... The async >>>> USB is also audibly better than with the standard driver, whatever the >>>> data rate. It was such an >>>> impressive upgrade that I splurged on their new amp. It replaces a >>>> Bryston, which is no toy. The >>>> combo is highly revealing, yet not annoyingly so, as there often is a >>>> tradeoff between >>>> transparency and musicality. I find it correct for whichever hat I'm >>>> wearing, mixer or >>>> music-lover. >>>> >>>> Another aside, regarding Boulez. I don't dismiss the work of such a >>>> sophisticated and accomplished >>>> musician, who has gained the respect of some of the most demanding >>>> orchestras out there. It can be >>>> instructive to hear his way with music. His old Debussy series was >>>> praised for its objectivity and >>>> scrupulous attention to detail, and is still valuable for it. Similarly >>>> his Mahler, yet it needn't >>>> displace Barbirolli, et al. Just as with audio arts, there is no one >>>> correct way, and we don't >>>> always see the value in something until time gives us perspective. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto: >>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>>> Of Tom Fine >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:49 AM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" >>>> >>>> Hi John: >>>> >>>> I think what you're hearing with 96k is the 24-bit word length. I am >>>> not convinced that the >>>> super-high sampling rates capture anything audible above what 44.1 or >>>> 48k capture, but I do think >>>> that the Nyquist filtering and other factors make the audible top end >>>> sound better. However, many >>>> DACs up-sample 44.1k before filtering and converting anyway. For >>>> instance, the Benchmark design, >>>> of which there are many variants, up-samples everything to three >>>> hundred and something kiloHertz, >>>> re-clocking so as to strip out jitter, then converts to analog. >>>> >>>> Here's a "white paper" about Benchmark's DAC1 approach: >>>> http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/white-papers/13127453- >>>> asynchronous-upsampling-to-110-khz >>>> >>>> For the DAC2 series, the describe the "improved" system this way: >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> UltraLock2™ Jitter Attenuation System >>>> >>>> UltraLock2™ is an improved version of the UltraLock™ system used in the >>>> DAC1 and ADC1 product >>>> families. DSP processing is 32-bits, DSP headroom is 3.5 dB, sample >>>> rate is 211 kHz, and >>>> jitter-induced distortion and noise is at least 140 dB below the level >>>> of the music - well below >>>> the threshold of hearing. Benchmark's UltraLock2™ system eliminates all >>>> audible jitter artifacts. >>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Up-sampling and over-sampling DAC designs have been around for a long >>>> time, but I do think modern >>>> designs are more sophisticated in how they strip out jitter from the >>>> source. The consumer high-end >>>> designers first got the jitter-rejection religion, especially when they >>>> started recognizing >>>> consumer demand for USB interfaces (USB is notorious for jitter due to >>>> inconsistent clocking built >>>> into typical computer CPUs). Companies like Benchmark and Mytek and >>>> Lynx, which have feet in both >>>> consumer and pro audio, have put out well-reviewed and good-sounding, >>>> to my ears, jitter-rejecting >>>> products in recent times. The other focus where I think some strides >>>> have been made recently is >>>> the analog stage after conversion, there are some super-quiet and >>>> near-transparent designs out >>>> there now. A modern digital system should operate so quietly that it >>>> essentially has no audible >>>> noise floor in even a quiet real-world room. >>>> >>>> A simple test would be to convert some well-known analog material at >>>> 96/16 and 48/16 and see if >>>> you hear a difference. Then 96/24 and 48/24, and then compare the >>>> 24-bits to the 16-bits. I think >>>> that's where you'll hear the differences. >>>> >>>> To my ears, 24-bit makes a difference, especially with "air and space" >>>> in something like an >>>> orchestral recording. Just transferring in 24-bit makes a difference, >>>> if you've got a good >>>> dither-down conversion system to get to a CD master. >>>> >>>> -- Tom Fine >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:44 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" >>>> >>>> >>>> CORRECTION. When I said "catching a whole octave above 48 kHz in >>>>> frequency," I meant "catching a whole octave in frequency above what is >>>>> captured by a 48 kHz sampling rate." Sorry about that. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:38 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for posting the NY Times Boulez article, Tom, which could have >>>>>> been >>>>>> entitled "A bunch of famous musicians sitting around kissing up to >>>>>> Pierre >>>>>> Boulez." They remark how "influential" (i.e, famous) he is. That he >>>>>> is. >>>>>> Does that make him a great conductor? Nope. I loved the Gunther >>>>>> Schiller >>>>>> quote. Obviously, Boulez has occasionally succeeded with a piece of >>>>>> music. Like they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. >>>>>> And many >>>>>> great orchestras could occasionally deliver a great performance even >>>>>> while >>>>>> ignoring a monkey on the podium. >>>>>> >>>>>> If DGG digital recordings had max resolution of 48 kHz, as you know >>>>>> that >>>>>> is not an appreciable difference from 44.1 kHz. The difference in >>>>>> frequencies (pitches) those sampling rates will capture is the >>>>>> difference >>>>>> between 22,500 and 24,000 Hz. Way up there, that is a difference of >>>>>> only a >>>>>> note or two (think extended piano keyboard). I have never been able >>>>>> to >>>>>> hear the slightest difference between a recording at 44.1 kHz and one >>>>>> at 48 >>>>>> kHz. Recording at 96 kHz is a whole 'nother thing, catching a whole >>>>>> octave >>>>>> above 48 kHz in frequency, but also seemingly able to capture more >>>>>> detail >>>>>> based on double the number of samples. Or maybe I should say capture >>>>>> the >>>>>> detail with greater accuracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since we routinely make hi-def dubs (at least 96/24) from analog >>>>>> master >>>>>> tapes these days that can sound really great, I have to wonder if, >>>>>> all else >>>>>> being equal, those results will outshine an original digital >>>>>> recording made >>>>>> at only 48 kHz. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am another one who has never felt that your average DGG orchestral >>>>>> recording captured a lot of the sheer excitement of the sound of a >>>>>> great >>>>>> symphony orchestra. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask] >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mark: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So from what you're saying, I gather that the maximum resolution of >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> Boulez/CSO master would be 48/24? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Tom Fine >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Donahue" < >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:13 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Tom Fine < >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't recall if it was Yamaha or Studer digital consoles, but I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you are correct in your descriptions of "4D". being a true DDD >>>>>>>>> system in >>>>>>>>> that the last time anything was analog was when the mic plugged >>>>>>>>> into the >>>>>>>>> console and the mic preamp went to a ADC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>> The DG 4D system was comprised of a stagebox containing custom >>>>>>>> remote mic >>>>>>>> preamps and Yamaha converters that connected digitally at 24 >>>>>>>> bits/44.1/48k >>>>>>>> to an RTW bit splitter that allowed them to record 24 bit 16 track >>>>>>>> on a >>>>>>>> Sony3324. The signal was also distributed to the input of a pair of >>>>>>>> Yamaha >>>>>>>> DMC-1000 digital consoles. The normal orchestral kit that I would >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>> in the states was a pair or three stage boxes with a pair of >>>>>>>> machines for >>>>>>>> 32 track recording. It was basically modular and could be scaled >>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>> job. >>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>> -mark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>