[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Peter Wieck wrote:
: On Nov 7, 3:59=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote:

: I would posit that I would expect my equipment to have the capacity to
: reproduce the arguing and the waiter coming through the door. And were
: those sounds actually there as part of the base information, they
: should be there on the reproduction.

But the engineer on the scene (studio or live venue) makes all sorts of
choices -- why not mike himself talking to his assistant? Why not
reproduce the sound as it was to someone sitting very far left, so
everything is panned hard right? Why not record the performance as it
sounds outside the club, or in the kitchen? Etc. (Cooking wasn't the best
analogy, but it was the best I could think of at the time!).

Lots of people love the sound of the audience throughout a live recording.
I don't. It's a distraction from the music, and obscures the music in some
caes (loud audience), and I'm delighted to find recordings of live
performances that leave the audience completely out (or relegate them to
the intro and outro).

: After which I should be the one: making the choices -
:not the engineer at the scene.

But how do you block the sound of an annoying audience if it's there on
the CD? That's a decision the engineer/mizer/producer has to make before
creating the final product, and before you get it to your equipment.

: Of course that position is patently absurd as the engineer by nature
: makes a nearly infinite number of choices during the recording process
: each one of which precludes any alternative. Hence the basic silliness
: of the premise.

Ok, so we agree?

My experience in choosing recordings to audition is to
: follow those labels/orchestras/directors that have given me pleasure
: in the past and hope that they do so this time.

Sure, so you like good sounding music, and we agree. Question: suppose
fidelity to the original performance sounds worse to your ear than a minor
adjustment to the original performance? Which recording would you pick?
(And saying "both" doesn't count!).


-- Andy Barss

[Peter Wieck]

Let me try to be a bit more clear. Please note the interpolations.

On Nov 10, 2:14=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:

: On Nov 7, 3:59=3DA0pm, Andrew Barss wrote:

But the engineer on the scene (studio or live venue) makes all sorts of
choices -- why not mike himself talking to his assistant? Why not
reproduce the sound as it was to someone sitting very far left, so
everything is panned hard right? Why not record the performance as it
sounds outside the club, or in the kitchen? Etc. =A0(Cooking wasn't the b=
est
analogy, but it was the best I could think of at the time!).

Because in those cases either a) he is adding information that did not
occur spontaneously, or b) he is skewing the information radically, or
c) he is missing the point. The live audience experience is a function
of many things, including spontaneous ambient noises. And yet the
point of a recording is the music the audience wants to hear. The
engineer is charged with getting as close as possible to that - and
whether he wishes to enhance, modify, ignore or suppress ambient
information is where the choices come in.

Lots of people love the sound of the audience throughout a live recording=
.. =A0
I don't. It's a distraction from the music, and obscures the music in som=
e
caes (loud audience), and I'm delighted to find recordings of live
performances that leave the audience completely out (or relegate them to
the intro and outro).

That is just fine. Knowing that about yourself allows you to make
certain choices in what you wish to include and exclude. Preference is
not anything shameful.

: After which I should be the one: making the choices -
:not the engineer at the scene.

But how do you block the sound of an annoying audience if it's there on
the CD? =A0That's a decision the engineer/mizer/producer has to make befo=
re
creating the final product, and before you get it to your equipment.

Actually, I don't block the sound of an annoying audience. If I
actually find it so annoying as to make the experience insufferable, I
would reject the recording but certainly not blame the engineer for
making the choice of including what was 'actually there' during the
recording process. "Fidelity" is not only a matter of pure music - and
his interpretation of the term may include _all_ the relevent
information at the scene of the recording audible to the 'typical'
audience member.

Ok, so we agree?

Not impossible that we agree - but I think we are approaching the
problem from radically different views.

My experience in choosing recordings to audition is to
: follow those labels/orchestras/directors that have given me pleasure
: in the past and hope that they do so this time.

Sure, so you like good sounding music, and we agree. =A0Question: =A0supp=
ose
fidelity to the original performance sounds worse to your ear than a mino=
r
adjustment to the original performance? =A0 Which recording would you pic=
k? =A0
(And saying "both" doesn't count!).

Well, then - following your supposition, I would have to fault the
original performance, and not the engineer for capturing it
accurately. And, again, I always have the option of rejecting the
recording for something more pleasing to me. And lest you think I am
splitting hairs - how would you define a 'minor' adjustment? Altering
microphone position? Adding equalization because one instrument/
section dominates the others inappropriately? Would this last not be a
directing error? The engineer is a tiny piece of the puzzle.

Point being that any recording is a function of thousands of variables
and hundreds of small and large choices. It has a lot of science to it
but is as much art as science. And any recording played back in our
homes is necessarily subject to the vagaries of our personal choice in
equipment, the room that equipment lives in, and how we choose to
listen to which source. Setting a standard anywhere along that chain
without including the entire chain is about as useful as a $2,000 2-
meter line cord on an amplifier at the end of 100 miles of utility
grid. Futile, however interesting or well-meaning.

There are dozens if not hundreds of recordings of almost any even
vaguely popular bit of music composed in the last 1,000 years or more.
Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
removed this had he wished).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 10, 7:05=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
removed this had he wished).

One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
recordings are studio jobs.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:13:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 10, 7:05=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
removed this had he wished).

One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
recordings are studio jobs.



That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 11, 8:17=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:13:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 10, 7:05=3DA0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

=A0 Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
removed this had he wished).

One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
recordings are studio jobs.

That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?

Yes, indeed. Often times I've found myself listening to his recordings
solely to hear his humming, without which I'd have to regard them as
being incomplete.
Norman

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:27:03 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
recordings are studio jobs.

That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?

I once knew of a Canadian harp seal that hummed when it
played and had creaky stool, but, yes, I suspect the
poster was referring, in this case, to Gould.



Well, since I don't know any seals, and certainly haven't been close enough
to one to "hear" its stools, I'll take your word for it. 8^)

Yes, I suspect it was Glenn Gould as well.