11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornI'm afraid I don't understand your argument, you seem to be suggesting it is not an aesthetic position upon which you stake your dislike of electronic music, but I can't make out a valid argument, could you explain?
I don't think it's possible to take the tonal centre away. No matter how atonal a piece of music is, I still hear a tonal centre there. That is always my criticsm of 12-tone music. Yes, it is still music, but the theory of such music is to create equality within the 12 tones in an octave, and l do not think that is possible, at least to western ears. I ...[text shortened]... tronic speaker. I don't want any medium put between the performer and me as the consumer.
What's the difference between a microphone and speakers and lets say an auditorium or concert hall? Both are designed to alter the original sound and bring it to the listener. The fact that one has electric current can hardly be a reason to dismiss it and if it's such that you require face to face contact with your performer what has electrics to do with that?
What about instruments which require electrics (electric guitars, hammond organs etc.)? The only music you can listen to without electrics is live, unplugged music, but there's still the medium of whichever sound space you're present in between you and the musician.
11 Apr 08
Yes, I can find a tonal centre in anything. I don't find that difficult to do at all and I think anyone can do that because that's just the way the human ear and brain work. However, yes, the tonal centre is constantly shifting in music and this is one of the things that makes music interesting.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by darvlayYou know I have had discussions about recordings of large orchestras verses live performance of them.
Nope. But what about seeing an orchestra perform at a larger venue? Do they amplify the sound or is it entirely acoustical? Is acoustical even a word?
One fella said that he always found a live performance of a large orchestra more powerful.
I think I did not agree totally. Because of sound engineering I think that a good recording of a large orchestral piece can munipulate the sound to be more impressive.
I kind of hope that I am wrong. What do you think?
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornIt is constantly shifting in Western chromatic music.
Yes, I can find a tonal centre in anything. I don't find that difficult to do at all and I think anyone can do that because that's just the way the human ear and brain work. However, yes, the tonal centre is constantly shifting in music and this is one of the things that makes music interesting.
Going from chord progression to chord progression in the same key is still dedicated to one tonal center.
Does anyone memorize 12 tone tone rows? I wonder if at Julliard School of Music students are tested to memorize tone rows of Webern and Schoenberg.
11 Apr 08
I would much rather hear a speaker in an auditorium without amplification of his/her voice. If people would learn to use their voice correctly, this is certainly possible. That's what had to be done until the 20th century, and what you hear is the natural voice, not something that has been magnified out of proportion. To me, if it comes through a speaker, whether a speaking voice or music, it is artificial, and I would much rather hear the real thing, not some imitation of it.
11 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillthis one?
What would you call the music of Blue Cheer ?
I'd say maybe it is as sweet as the sound of the Saturn Moon rocket taking off from about 100 feet away.
Are they still Ginnis Book of Records loudest musicians in the world? Or has time passed me by since the late 60s?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PlDPzlVSv8A
sounds great, delightfully raw. never heard it before... the actual volumes were probably the highest in the 60's, as now people are more inclined to take care of their ears (tinnitus anyone? *raises hand*)... but as far as roughness goes, the modern stuff goes about 2-3 orders of magnitude rougher. the ones I posted before are from the 'softer side' of noise music. merzbow probably takes the cake on that respect:
merzbow - minus zero
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pGzrL8J0t-c
edit: oh, and I don't think this particular kind of atonal music is possible (practically) without signal processing. you'd need something like an erupting volcano and those saturn rockets, manipulated in all possible ways in a flick of a switch. which just isn't really possible I think. - so there are places to which you can't get without electronics.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillThat is one of the things that orchestras do not like, a sound engineer manipulating what they have just played. Because of that, the listener never actually hears what the performer has done, and the performer is frustrated because all the artistic control he once had over that has been taken away from him. One of my friends, a top player in one of the major orchestras, calls it, "artistic decisions being made by non artists," and the public has bought into that.
You know I have had discussions about recordings of large orchestras verses live performance of them.
One fella said that he always found a live performance of a large orchestra more powerful.
I think I did not agree totally. Because of sound engineering I think that a good recording of a large orchestral piece can munipulate the sound to be more impressive.
I kind of hope that I am wrong. What do you think?
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornOh please. Orchestra players would hardly ever be heard if sound production was not employed. People would not pay high enough to warrant most orchestras continuing if CD's were not available or radio play not given. Even within the live performance the balance of the instruments changes from hall to hall, from empty hall to full hall, from solo to full orchestra, from humidity, from heat, from the spacing between the players etc. The notion that there is a way the performer can have artistic control over what the audience hears is nonsense. There's a hell of a lot more artistic effort and talent in producing a great mix than there is in leaving the sound up to the venue and environment.
That is one of the things that orchestras do not like, a sound engineer manipulating what they have just played. Because of that, the listener never actually hears what the performer has done, and the performer is frustrated because all the artistic control he once had over that has been taken away from him. One of my friends, a top player in one of th ...[text shortened]... calls it, "artistic decisions being made by non artists," and the public has bought into that.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornthe sound engineers call the same thing 'naive layman understanding of audio physics'.
That is one of the things that orchestras do not like, a sound engineer manipulating what they have just played. Because of that, the listener never actually hears what the performer has done, and the performer is frustrated because all the artistic control he once had over that has been taken away from him. One of my friends, a top player in one of th ...[text shortened]... calls it, "artistic decisions being made by non artists," and the public has bought into that.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by StarrmanYes, acoustics change from hall to hall, and the performer adjusts to that. If what you say is true, how did audiences hear performances before the 20th century?
Oh please. Orchestra players would hardly ever be heard if sound production was not employed. People would not pay high enough to warrant most orchestras continuing if CD's were not available or radio play not given. Even within the live performance the balance of the instruments changes from hall to hall, from empty hall to full hall, from solo to full ...[text shortened]... t in producing a great mix than there is in leaving the sound up to the venue and environment.
The performer is always concerned with artistic decisions involving things like resonance, tone quality, and the like, while the sound engineer cannot uinderstand that. All he sees is a sine wave, and these things cannot be shown on his electronic equipment. I have another friend who has a doctorate in music and a doctorate in physics who claims that in any disagreement between the artist and the engineer, the artist is always right, simply because the engineer can have no idea what the artist is doing. In this sense, there is always a breakdown in communication between the two, a Tower of Babel which is virtually impossible to overcome.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn"Beethoven used a special rod attached to the soundboard on a piano that he could bite—the vibrations would then transfer from the piano to his jaw to increase his perception of the sound. "
Yes, acoustics change from hall to hall, and the performer adjusts to that. If what you say is true, how did audiences hear performances before the 20th century?