 |
 |
"...appear more habit than inspiration." And there you have it. And that's what makes listening to an unfamiliar but fine performance so wonderful, getting a glimpse of a new phrasing that you know is either absolutely right, or at least very very good. clark On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Please don’t assume you know the whole of Schuller's point of view from > the excerpt I quoted. He is a composer, yes, but also a musicologist, > teacher, and once an accomplished rank-and-file orchestral musician. He is > as qualified as anyone to explore the subject, which he does in astonishing > detail. To get the subtlety of his arguments, read the book. Actually, I > read it up to the point where my limited technical understanding gave out, > not too far beyond part one, where he lays out the thesis. But, as he gets > into discussion of the scores, even a spectator can get a rich appreciation > for the complexity of the interpretive task and the performance traditions > that, upon scrutiny, appear more habit than inspiration. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clark Johnsen > Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:33 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise" > > This shouldn't be a fight, as it seems (to me anyway) that the printed > score cannot be, nor has it ever been intended to be, the end point. There > are so many ways to speak even a single English sentence such as this one. > Think: An American accent, an Oxford accent, a Cockney one, a Scots one > and so on. How can a composer put that stuff into any score? > > Mahler tried, Mahler tried! > > clark > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:20 PM, L. Hunter Kevil <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Not to start a fight, I never got very far into Schuller's rather > > dogmatic book years ago, given my doubts about the 'precision' of a > > score, no matter how detailed. He seems to have taken as gospel > > Toscanini's quip about not needing a performance tradition for Beethoven > since he had the score. > > > > I am now reading the book, Off the Record, by Neal Peres da Costa > > (recommended.) He is very convincing that the piano scores of 19th > > century composers do not give the full story on how to play their pieces. > > Unannotated expressive devices such as playing one hand before the > > other, arpeggiation, rubato, dotting, speeding u[p& slowing down, were > > all assumed by many composers and their performers. Testimony from a > > recording of Brahms playing his music and from his students shows that > > Brahms played in a manner that would disqualify him from entering > > Julliard today. Listen to the rather fascinating Arbiter CD, Behind > > the Notes: Brahms performed by colleagues and pupils. There is also > evidence of Brahms's 'Wagnerian' > > tendencies as a conductor. > > > > Hunter Kevil > > > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > > 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-ups > > ampling-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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >