[Lord Vetinari]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:08:15 -0700, Lord Vetinari wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

Absolutely.

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform.

And I have

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to
be a
very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your
choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one
of
the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little
dynamic range.

I feel so sorry for you, for having such a narrow view of music. "Pop"
is
not a genre in and of itself. It's an abbreviation of "popular", which
can
refer to any number of different genres - all at the same time.

Don't you think I'm aware of that?

No, I didn't think that you were aware of that. I'm not even certain that
you are _now_.

I use the word "pop" on purpose. In my
usage, the word "rock" refers to all forms of rock-n-roll (which I
despise)
and "pop" means everything else in that broad gen

Ah, _which_ broad genre would that be?

reggea, country & western,

"we got _both_ kinds of music!" Heh. Country and Western really are two
seperate genres, and Bluegrass is too.

rap, hip-hop, salsa, so called "world music" etc. (none of which do
I wish to spend one moment listening to). And don't feel sorry for me,

I don't actually feel sorry for you, I was merely being polite. Personally,
I despise narrow-mindedness of all stripes.

the "narrow view of music" which you seem to find so pitiful is merely
a shorthand view used to express a point in this conversation.

In reality, it's a knee-jerk reaction. That's OK, as in Sturgeon's
Revelation regarding Science Fiction, ninety percent of anything is
crap...and that does include the music that you _do_ listen to. So, go
ahead, throw the baby out with the bathwater, I don't mind...it's _your_
loss.

A point which, in spite of your sorrow, you seem to have "gotten" anyway.
:-)

If your point was that you know little of the subject on which you rant,
yes, I got it.

Rock contains within itself such a huge range of modalities, that it is
not
especially an useful term as you've used it.

I use it only asa general term for music employing electric guitars and
people screaming while someone hammers on a drum set.

You're describing a very small subset of rock. Reminds me of a joke - the
punchline being "several musicians, and a drummer"....or the celtic
variation, "several musicians, and a piper".

I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever
devised. Therefore, I naturally eschew any musical form that uses them.

That certainly limits you, doesn't it.

I also hate "oversinging" from either males of females, and since that
seems to
be the modern style of pop singing, I try to avoid that too.

Why bother making up new terms which no concensus can be reached on, when
there are perfectly good terms that everyone (or at least, most) do agree
upon? Bad singing is bad singing. Why legitimize it by attaching a
specific label to it?

Without much effort, I could
give you a stack of rock music with serious dynamic range, just out of my
own small collection, that you couldn't lift.

I DID say that my exposure to rock is limited.

You've certainly made that clear enough.

What I know of it is always loud, all the time.

That characterization is inaccurate. It is nothing more, and nothing less
than an attempt at incitement.

Since I have never heard, either on purpose or by happenstance, any
rock music that I didn't dislike intently, my exposure is, understandably,
somewhat limited.

I suspect that your decision to hate most music was most likely due to
having had some unfortunate incident, wherein your preferred music was
ridiculed by some who bullied you. I could have been like you, if
circumstances had been slightly different.

The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly,
although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy
compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these
types
of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me.

I'd be interested in learning under what conditions you've listened to
MP3s,
and how said MP3s were produced.

The majority of the MP3s floating around are made by individuals with
little
to no understanding of the technology that they're abusing, resulting in
truly pathetic MP3s. With proper equipment & software, one can achieve a
level of quality that I can guarantee that _you_ would be hard-pressed to
distinguish from source. However, anyone serious about portable music at
this point will likely be producing AAC(LC) files, which play rather
nicely
on the iPod, and are far superior to MP3s.

That's what I use, lossless compression.

If you're using AAC(LC), then you are using lossy compression. Are you by
any chance using Apple Lossless? While it uses the same file extension, it
isn't the same thing.

BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better
than
MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc
product,
HDD
or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system).

You've not looked in the marketplace, nor yet Googled, either. Take a
look,
it may just cheer you up a bit.

Did you check this out? Here, look at what Sony is currently saying about
it.
http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:27:32 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you
the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually.
But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin
and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from
the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Hmmm... Is this an ugly sound to you:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2...db6fb9a8902bda
Played on a Martin.


I saw a bunch of files :Teleman, Beethoven, etc, played several didn't hear
anything that I would call a solid body electric guitar (or any guitar for
that matter). What should I have been listening for?

Sorry... not electric, but steel string Martin. Click on the file
"Matilda".

The harpsichord in the
Teleman sounded like a cheap sampling synthesizer,

Really? Well, to each his/her own, of course ;-)

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:21:03 -0700, Lord Vetinari wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:08:15 -0700, Lord Vetinari wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

Absolutely.

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform.

And I have

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to
be a
very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your
choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one
of
the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little
dynamic range.

I feel so sorry for you, for having such a narrow view of music. "Pop"
is
not a genre in and of itself. It's an abbreviation of "popular", which
can
refer to any number of different genres - all at the same time.

Don't you think I'm aware of that?

No, I didn't think that you were aware of that. I'm not even certain that
you are _now_.

I use the word "pop" on purpose. In my
usage, the word "rock" refers to all forms of rock-n-roll (which I
despise)
and "pop" means everything else in that broad gen

Ah, _which_ broad genre would that be?

reggea, country & western,

"we got _both_ kinds of music!" Heh. Country and Western really are two
seperate genres, and Bluegrass is too.

rap, hip-hop, salsa, so called "world music" etc. (none of which do
I wish to spend one moment listening to). And don't feel sorry for me,

I don't actually feel sorry for you, I was merely being polite. Personally,
I despise narrow-mindedness of all stripes.

So. You would characterize someone who doesn't like the taste of excrement as
being narrow-minded? I don't like brussel-sprouts either. Does that make me
narrow-mined in the food department as well? You are making the mistake of
characterizing people whose taste doesn't correspond to yours as being
narrow-minded. Notice, that nowhere did I make a value judgement about people
who actually like pop and rock music, I merely stated that I don't. There is
no accounting for taste and its something you can't argue.

the "narrow view of music" which you seem to find so pitiful is merely
a shorthand view used to express a point in this conversation.

In reality, it's a knee-jerk reaction. That's OK, as in Sturgeon's
Revelation regarding Science Fiction, ninety percent of anything is
crap...and that does include the music that you _do_ listen to. So, go
ahead, throw the baby out with the bathwater, I don't mind...it's _your_
loss.

Well, the point is that mass entertainment, of all kinds, is an indicator of
the health of society. That all forms of pop entertainment have consistently
declined since WWII shows that our society is in decline. The fact that YOU
might like the products of that decline or that I might not is largely
irrelevant. That change is occurring, like it or not. Nietzsche once noted
that when people's tastes change, it is rarely for the better. I think he has
something there.

A point which, in spite of your sorrow, you seem to have "gotten" anyway.
-)

If your point was that you know little of the subject on which you rant,
yes, I got it.

You know perfectly well what my point is. I don't like modern so-called pop
music. Any of it. While what I don't know about pop and rock or rap or hiphop
or any other "musical" forms that I eschew would likely fill a large library,
I do not deny that. I'm simply not interested in wading through that "90% of
everything that's junk" to find any "gems" which might lurk there.

Rock contains within itself such a huge range of modalities, that it is
not
especially an useful term as you've used it.

I use it only asa general term for music employing electric guitars and
people screaming while someone hammers on a drum set.

You're describing a very small subset of rock. Reminds me of a joke - the
punchline being "several musicians, and a drummer"....or the celtic
variation, "several musicians, and a piper".

I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever
devised. Therefore, I naturally eschew any musical form that uses them.

That certainly limits you, doesn't it.

Not at all. I have thousands of records and CDs. Not an electric guitar in
the bunch. The fact that you think that would be limiting shows the depth and
width of your musical experience a lot more than it shows mine.

I also hate "oversinging" from either males of females, and since that
seems to
be the modern style of pop singing, I try to avoid that too.

Why bother making up new terms which no concensus can be reached on, when
there are perfectly good terms that everyone (or at least, most) do agree
upon? Bad singing is bad singing. Why legitimize it by attaching a
specific label to it?

I've been told that the breathless screaming that passes for pop "singing"
these days is called "oversinging." I've never heard it referred to by any
other label. Whatever it is, I'm assaulted by it in stores, other people's
radios, etc. It's offensive in the extreme to me.

Without much effort, I could
give you a stack of rock music with serious dynamic range, just out of my
own small collection, that you couldn't lift.

I DID say that my exposure to rock is limited.

You've certainly made that clear enough.

What I know of it is always loud, all the time.

That characterization is inaccurate. It is nothing more, and nothing less
than an attempt at incitement.

Since I have never heard, either on purpose or by happenstance, any
rock music that I didn't dislike intently, my exposure is, understandably,
somewhat limited.

I suspect that your decision to hate most music was most likely due to
having had some unfortunate incident, wherein your preferred music was
ridiculed by some who bullied you. I could have been like you, if
circumstances had been slightly different.

That's just a lot of psychobabble and bull. And for someone who "hates most
music" I sure do have a lot of records and CDs and certainly spend a lot of
time and effort recording more live music in a year than most people hear in
a lifetime.

The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly,
although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy
compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these
types
of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me.

I'd be interested in learning under what conditions you've listened to
MP3s,
and how said MP3s were produced.

The majority of the MP3s floating around are made by individuals with
little
to no understanding of the technology that they're abusing, resulting in
truly pathetic MP3s. With proper equipment & software, one can achieve a
level of quality that I can guarantee that _you_ would be hard-pressed to
distinguish from source. However, anyone serious about portable music at
this point will likely be producing AAC(LC) files, which play rather
nicely
on the iPod, and are far superior to MP3s.

That's what I use, lossless compression.

If you're using AAC(LC), then you are using lossy compression. Are you by
any chance using Apple Lossless? While it uses the same file extension, it
isn't the same thing.

I use Apple Lossless Compression when I use any compression at all.

BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better
than
MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc
product,
HDD
or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system).

You've not looked in the marketplace, nor yet Googled, either. Take a
look,
it may just cheer you up a bit.

Did you check this out? Here, look at what Sony is currently saying about
it.
http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/


Nice to see that Sony has just moved ATRAC to the new medium of solid-state
and HDD-based memory rather than abandoning it. I hope it obsoletes MP3, but
I doubt if it will. For my limited iPod/Apple TV usage, I find ALC more than
"good enough."

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:23:56 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:27:32 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you
the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually.
But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin
and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from
the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Hmmm... Is this an ugly sound to you:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2...db6fb9a8902bda
Played on a Martin.


I saw a bunch of files :Teleman, Beethoven, etc, played several didn't hear
anything that I would call a solid body electric guitar (or any guitar for
that matter). What should I have been listening for?

Sorry... not electric, but steel string Martin. Click on the file
"Matilda".

But my beef is with solid body electric rock guitars and the "Jimmi Hendrix"
school of playing them, not with traditional bodied steel string guitars
which I like (Andres Segovia, The Romeros, John Williams, Christopher
Parkening, Alexander LaGoya, etc.)

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

Well, the point is that mass entertainment, of all kinds, is an indicator
of the health of society. That all forms of pop entertainment have
consistently declined since WWII shows that our society is in decline. The
fact that YOU might like the products of that decline or that I might not
is largely irrelevant. That change is occurring, like it or not. Nietzsche
once noted that when people's tastes change, it is rarely for the better.
I think he has something there.

Well, FN did not like Wagner either, so there is no accounting for taste.
But, to be fair, Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner was not mostly music
related, although that was a component. In the latter, he was, of course,
aesthetically wrong, inasmuch as Wagner was one of the four or five top
composers within our Western tradition. However, I know what you mean.

Michael

[bob]

On Sep 18, 5:28*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:23:56 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):



In article ,
*Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:27:32 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? *I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you
the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. *
But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway. *

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin
and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from
the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Hmmm... *Is this an ugly sound to you:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2...db6fb9a8902bda
Played on a Martin.

I saw a bunch of files :Teleman, Beethoven, etc, played several didn't hear
anything that I would call a solid body electric guitar (or any guitar for
that matter). What should I have been listening for?

Sorry... not electric, but steel string Martin. *Click on the file
"Matilda".

But my beef is with solid body electric rock guitars and the "Jimmi Hendrix"
school of playing them, not with traditional bodied steel string guitars
which I like (Andres Segovia, The Romeros, John Williams, Christopher
Parkening, Alexander LaGoya, etc.)

I don't think too many classical guitarists use steel strings.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:03:28 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

Well, the point is that mass entertainment, of all kinds, is an indicator
of the health of society. That all forms of pop entertainment have
consistently declined since WWII shows that our society is in decline. The
fact that YOU might like the products of that decline or that I might not
is largely irrelevant. That change is occurring, like it or not. Nietzsche
once noted that when people's tastes change, it is rarely for the better.
I think he has something there.

Well, FN did not like Wagner either, so there is no accounting for taste.

True. But that doesn't make his point any less valid.

But, to be fair, Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner was not mostly music
related, although that was a component. In the latter, he was, of course,
aesthetically wrong, inasmuch as Wagner was one of the four or five top
composers within our Western tradition. However, I know what you mean.

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", Wagner's music is pretty much without peer. The great Wagnerian
themes and leitmotif's echo through the ages as some of the greatest music
ever written. "The Ride of the Valkyries", "Siegfried's Rhine Journey", the
Overture to "Die Fliegende Hollander" changed the world's conception of the
way music can define character, place and time. Hell, Wagner practically
invented the film music score, and did so before film even existed as an
artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa, Steiner, Korngold, Williams,
Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner (and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and
Debussy). But Wagner's librettos tended to be tiresome and long-winded and
Nietzsche's criticisms in that area were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music
that changed the world, not his librettos. I dare say were the music not so
splendid and stirring, that his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:36:04 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 18, 5:28*pm, Sonnova wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[Moderator's note: More of you need to do this on your own or we'll
start returning them much more often for excessive over-quoting.
-- deb]

But my beef is with solid body electric rock guitars and the "Jimmi Hendrix"
school of playing them, not with traditional bodied steel string guitars
which I like (Andres Segovia, The Romeros, John Williams, Christopher
Parkening, Alexander LaGoya, etc.)

I don't think too many classical guitarists use steel strings.

bob

Depends on the music.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", Wagner's music is pretty much without peer.

I would say it is without peer.

Wagner practically invented the film music score , and did so before
film even existed as an artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa,
Steiner, Korngold, Williams, Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner
(and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and Debussy).

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande was, in its own way, quite Wagnerian, albeit
within the former's impressionistic style. I would also add Mahler, who
was completely under Wagner's spell, but, unlike the latter, really needed
an editor.

But Wagner's librettos tended
to be tiresome and long-winded and Nietzsche's criticisms in that area
were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music that changed the world, not his
librettos. I dare say were the music not so splendid and stirring, that
his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

The libretto issue is, perhaps, an intrinsic problem with "music-drama." As
far as his operas being forgotten without them being splendid and stirring,
one could say that about any composer's music, I guess.

Approaching Wagner is complex. From a hi-fi standpoint, it's difficult to
satisfactorily express what is going on over two speakers. The recording
aspect is problematic. First, the music is very dynamic, and really
requires exceptional gear. Recording Wagner is difficult, at best. The
Bayreuth recordings suffer from peculiar acoustics, and stage noise
interferes. The studio recordings have their own peculiarities.

[On a side note, and since this is the vinyl revival, the most unusual set
of records ever produced was a release of the entire Ring by the
Murray-Hill company, who somehow squeezed upwards of 40 minutes a side (it
was a selling point!) of Furtwangler's '50 La Scala. This is likely the
worst sounding recording ever made of one of the great performances. The
only way to listen is to "crank it up to about 10" and pretend you're
hearing the original radio broadcast over an old tube short wave receiver.]

Next, the roles are difficult to sing. Few have the ability.

Then, for non-German speakers it takes a while to understand what is going
on. Also, in our ADHD world, few people have the desire, or the
inclination and ability, to sit through 4 hours of a performance, whereas
it is easy to listen to a symphony.

Finally, for maximum appreciation one might, to cite an example, want to
plow through Schopenhauer before confronting Gotterdammerung, and who wants
to do that, today? On the other hand, and to cite another example, I don't
think anyone can come to grips with the end of Western music until they
have digested Parsifal. But that is just my opinion.

Anent your views on the general health of Western civilization, or what is
left of it, I am in agreement. Nietzsche wrote of the "spector of
nihilism" knocking on the door of Europe. Today, that door has been flung
wide open, the "uncanny guest" has pretty much moved into our living room,
he's raided our refrigerator, and now lives quite well.

Michael

[bob]

On Sep 20, 11:08*am, Sonnova wrote:

But my beef is with solid body electric rock guitars and the "Jimmi Hendrix"
school of playing them, not with traditional bodied steel string guitars
which I like (Andres Segovia, The Romeros, John Williams, Christopher
Parkening, Alexander LaGoya, etc.)

I don't think too many classical guitarists use steel strings.

bob

Depends on the music.

Yeah? What music did Segovia record playing a steel-string guitar?

Williams played electric guitar for Sky, but I doubt that's what you
had in mind.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:41:09 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", Wagner's music is pretty much without peer.

I would say it is without peer.

Wagner practically invented the film music score , and did so before
film even existed as an artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa,
Steiner, Korngold, Williams, Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner
(and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and Debussy).

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande was, in its own way, quite Wagnerian, albeit
within the former's impressionistic style. I would also add Mahler, who
was completely under Wagner's spell, but, unlike the latter, really needed
an editor.

Don't forget Richard Strauss. He was heavily influenced by Wagner and the
idea of 'Heldenmusik'.

But Wagner's librettos tended
to be tiresome and long-winded and Nietzsche's criticisms in that area
were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music that changed the world, not his
librettos. I dare say were the music not so splendid and stirring, that
his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

The libretto issue is, perhaps, an intrinsic problem with "music-drama." As
far as his operas being forgotten without them being splendid and stirring,
one could say that about any composer's music, I guess.

Approaching Wagner is complex. From a hi-fi standpoint, it's difficult to
satisfactorily express what is going on over two speakers. The recording
aspect is problematic. First, the music is very dynamic, and really
requires exceptional gear. Recording Wagner is difficult, at best. The
Bayreuth recordings suffer from peculiar acoustics, and stage noise
interferes. The studio recordings have their own peculiarities.

[On a side note, and since this is the vinyl revival, the most unusual set
of records ever produced was a release of the entire Ring by the
Murray-Hill company, who somehow squeezed upwards of 40 minutes a side (it
was a selling point!) of Furtwangler's '50 La Scala. This is likely the
worst sounding recording ever made of one of the great performances. The
only way to listen is to "crank it up to about 10" and pretend you're
hearing the original radio broadcast over an old tube short wave receiver.]

I have heard those Murray Hill recordings, I know what you're saying. They
are legendarily dreadful!

Next, the roles are difficult to sing. Few have the ability.

Very true. A Birgit Nilsson or a Wolfgang Windgassen comes alone only once in
a great while.

Then, for non-German speakers it takes a while to understand what is going
on. Also, in our ADHD world, few people have the desire, or the
inclination and ability, to sit through 4 hours of a performance, whereas
it is easy to listen to a symphony.

Also true. Of course, when it takes 40 minutes of singing for Siegfried to
get up off a cot, take his sword down from hanging on a peg on the wall, gird
his loins with it and walk out the door to engage Fafner, you're bound to
start thinking to yourself "OK, fine, now GET ON WITH IT!"

Finally, for maximum appreciation one might, to cite an example, want to
plow through Schopenhauer before confronting Gotterdammerung, and who wants
to do that, today? On the other hand, and to cite another example, I don't
think anyone can come to grips with the end of Western music until they
have digested Parsifal. But that is just my opinion.

Sit through Parsifal? ALL of it? With nothing to eat? God save us!

Anent your views on the general health of Western civilization, or what is
left of it, I am in agreement. Nietzsche wrote of the "spector of
nihilism" knocking on the door of Europe. Today, that door has been flung
wide open, the "uncanny guest" has pretty much moved into our living room,
he's raided our refrigerator, and now lives quite well.

Amen to that! Rockers (and most young people) don't see it that way, though.
We, as a society, have been taught that all change is good. Which is,
perhaps, why its the lietmotiff for our elected (or about to be elected)
officials. They keep screaming about change (from both sides, the left and
the right) as if mere change for the sake of change is a panacea for all that
ails society. I have heart rendering news for them all. Change for change
sake is never good. Some things were better the way they were.

[vlad]

On Sep 20, 12:35*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:41:09 -0700, wrote
(in article ):



Sonnova wrote:

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", *Wagner's music is pretty much without peer.

I would say it is without peer. *

Wagner practically invented the film music score , and did so before
film even existed as an artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa,
Steiner, Korngold, Williams, Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner
(and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and Debussy).

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande was, in its own way, quite Wagnerian, albeit
within the former's impressionistic style. *I would also add Mahler, who
was completely under Wagner's spell, but, unlike the latter, really needed
an editor.

Don't forget Richard Strauss. He was heavily influenced by Wagner and the
idea of 'Heldenmusik'.





But Wagner's librettos tended
to be tiresome and long-winded and Nietzsche's criticisms in that area
were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music that changed the world, not his
librettos. I dare say were the music not so splendid and stirring, that
his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

The libretto issue is, perhaps, an intrinsic problem with "music-drama." *As
far as his operas being forgotten without them being splendid and stirring,
one could say that about any composer's music, I guess.

Approaching Wagner is complex. *From a hi-fi standpoint, it's difficult to
satisfactorily express what is going on over two speakers. *The recording
aspect is problematic. *First, the music is very dynamic, and really
requires exceptional gear. *Recording Wagner is difficult, at best. *The
Bayreuth recordings suffer from peculiar acoustics, and stage noise
interferes. The studio recordings have their own peculiarities.

[On a side note, and since this is the vinyl revival, the most unusual set
of records ever produced was a release of the entire Ring by the
Murray-Hill company, who somehow squeezed upwards of 40 minutes a side (it
was a selling point!) of Furtwangler's '50 La Scala. *This is likely the
worst sounding recording ever made of one of the great performances. *The
only way to listen is to "crank it up to about 10" and pretend you're
hearing the original radio broadcast over an old tube short wave receiver.]

I have heard those Murray Hill recordings, I know what you're saying. They
are legendarily dreadful!



Next, the roles are difficult to sing. *Few have the ability.

Very true. A Birgit Nilsson or a Wolfgang Windgassen comes alone only once in
a great while.

Then, for non-German speakers it takes a while to understand what is going
on. *Also, in our ADHD world, few people have the desire, or the
inclination and ability, to sit through 4 hours of a performance, whereas
it is easy to listen to a symphony.

Also true. Of course, when it takes 40 minutes of singing for Siegfried to
get up off a cot, take his sword down from hanging on a peg on the wall, gird
his loins with it and walk out the door to engage Fafner, you're bound to
start thinking to yourself "OK, fine, now GET ON WITH IT!"


You have to listen Wagner operas (as all other operas) with text.
It is virtually impossible to seat through Sigfried without text. With
text you will understand why it took 40 minutes. Now days, if you
watch video you can turn subtitles, if you listen it from CD or LP,
you can always open the booklet with text and follow singers bar-by-
bar. I listened Wagner this way in college and I got hooked on
Wagner's operas for life.



Finally, for maximum appreciation one might, to cite an example, want to
plow through Schopenhauer before confronting Gotterdammerung, and who wants
to do that, today? *On the other hand, and to cite another example, I don't
think anyone can come to grips with the end of Western music until they
have digested Parsifal. *But that is just my opinion.

Sit through Parsifal? ALL of it? With nothing to eat? God save us!



Anent your views on the general health of Western civilization, or what is
left of it, I am in agreement. *Nietzsche wrote of the "spector of
nihilism" knocking on the door of Europe. *Today, that door has been flung
wide open, the "uncanny guest" has pretty much moved into our living room,
he's raided our refrigerator, and now lives quite well.

Amen to that! Rockers (and most young people) don't see it that way, though.
We, as a society, have been taught that all change is good. Which is,
perhaps, why its the lietmotiff for our elected (or about to be elected)
officials. They keep screaming about change (from both sides, the left and
the right) as if mere change for the sake of change is a panacea for all that
ails society. I have heart rendering news for them all. Change for change
sake is never good. Some things were better the way they were.

Please, do not convert it into a political discussion. There non-audio
groups for that. RAO comes to mind :-)

vlad

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:36:04 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 18, 5:28*pm, Sonnova wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[Moderator's note: More of you need to do this on your own or we'll
start returning them much more often for excessive over-quoting.
-- deb]

But my beef is with solid body electric rock guitars and the "Jimmi
Hendrix"
school of playing them, not with traditional bodied steel string guitars
which I like (Andres Segovia, The Romeros, John Williams, Christopher
Parkening, Alexander LaGoya, etc.)

I don't think too many classical guitarists use steel strings.

bob

Depends on the music.

True, to the extent that classical music is virtually never played on
steel strings, at least not by professionals or serious students.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:30 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

Subject: Vinyl Revival
From: vlad
Date: Yesterday 4:38 PM
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

On Sep 20, 12:35*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:41:09 -0700, wrote
(in article ):



Sonnova wrote:

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", *Wagner's music is pretty much without peer.

I would say it is without peer. *

Wagner practically invented the film music score , and did so before
film even existed as an artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa,
Steiner, Korngold, Williams, Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner
(and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and Debussy).

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande was, in its own way, quite Wagnerian, albeit
within the former's impressionistic style. *I would also add Mahler, who
was completely under Wagner's spell, but, unlike the latter, really needed
an editor.

Don't forget Richard Strauss. He was heavily influenced by Wagner and the
idea of 'Heldenmusik'.





But Wagner's librettos tended
to be tiresome and long-winded and Nietzsche's criticisms in that area
were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music that changed the world, not his
librettos. I dare say were the music not so splendid and stirring, that
his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

The libretto issue is, perhaps, an intrinsic problem with "music-drama."
*As
far as his operas being forgotten without them being splendid and stirring,
one could say that about any composer's music, I guess.

Approaching Wagner is complex. *From a hi-fi standpoint, it's difficult to
satisfactorily express what is going on over two speakers. *The recording
aspect is problematic. *First, the music is very dynamic, and really
requires exceptional gear. *Recording Wagner is difficult, at best. *The
Bayreuth recordings suffer from peculiar acoustics, and stage noise
interferes. The studio recordings have their own peculiarities.

[On a side note, and since this is the vinyl revival, the most unusual set
of records ever produced was a release of the entire Ring by the
Murray-Hill company, who somehow squeezed upwards of 40 minutes a side (it
was a selling point!) of Furtwangler's '50 La Scala. *This is likely the
worst sounding recording ever made of one of the great performances. *The
only way to listen is to "crank it up to about 10" and pretend you're
hearing the original radio broadcast over an old tube short wave receiver.]

I have heard those Murray Hill recordings, I know what you're saying. They
are legendarily dreadful!



Next, the roles are difficult to sing. *Few have the ability.

Very true. A Birgit Nilsson or a Wolfgang Windgassen comes alone only once
in
a great while.

Then, for non-German speakers it takes a while to understand what is going
on. *Also, in our ADHD world, few people have the desire, or the
inclination and ability, to sit through 4 hours of a performance, whereas
it is easy to listen to a symphony.

Also true. Of course, when it takes 40 minutes of singing for Siegfried to
get up off a cot, take his sword down from hanging on a peg on the wall,
gird
his loins with it and walk out the door to engage Fafner, you're bound to
start thinking to yourself "OK, fine, now GET ON WITH IT!"


You have to listen Wagner operas (as all other operas) with text.
It is virtually impossible to seat through Sigfried without text. With
text you will understand why it took 40 minutes. Now days, if you
watch video you can turn subtitles, if you listen it from CD or LP,
you can always open the booklet with text and follow singers bar-by-
bar. I listened Wagner this way in college and I got hooked on
Wagner's operas for life.

I know that many people feel that way, but I'm not one of them. While I love
Wagner's music, I find the operas themselves less interesting. When I listen
to operas, I'd rather not know what they are singing about (I've listened
both ways). I'm fond of Puccini, for instance, but I like to listen to the
voices in a way so that I can regard them as just another instrument in the
ensemble. Knowing what the lyrics to Nessun Dorma or Una Babbino Caro mean,
does not, in any way enhance my love for those arias. I am also a fan of
English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams, but find that the ENGLISH lyrics to
his opera "Hugh, The Drover" make the work unlistenable to me (I like the
music though). It would be much better if I couldn't understand what the
characters were saying. Then I could enjoy the voices and the orchestra
without being forced (by my understanding of the lyrics) to follow the story
line. Likewise, the great Finnish oratorio "Kulervo" by Jean Sibelius would
be a lot less interesting to me if I could actually understand what the
singers were going on about (of course in all of these cases, I do know what
the story lines are because I've read the plot synopsis. I just don't know
-or care to know- what the characters are saying at any given moment. I'd
rather the music just wash over me like a tide.).

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:30 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 20, 12:35*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:41:09 -0700, wrote
(in article ):



Sonnova wrote:

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", *Wagner's music is pretty much without peer.

I would say it is without peer. *

Wagner practically invented the film music score , and did so before
film even existed as an artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa,
Steiner, Korngold, Williams, Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner
(and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and Debussy).

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande was, in its own way, quite Wagnerian, albeit
within the former's impressionistic style. *I would also add Mahler, who
was completely under Wagner's spell, but, unlike the latter, really needed
an editor.

Don't forget Richard Strauss. He was heavily influenced by Wagner and the
idea of 'Heldenmusik'.





But Wagner's librettos tended
to be tiresome and long-winded and Nietzsche's criticisms in that area
were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music that changed the world, not his
librettos. I dare say were the music not so splendid and stirring, that
his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

The libretto issue is, perhaps, an intrinsic problem with "music-drama."
*As
far as his operas being forgotten without them being splendid and stirring,
one could say that about any composer's music, I guess.

Approaching Wagner is complex. *From a hi-fi standpoint, it's difficult to
satisfactorily express what is going on over two speakers. *The recording
aspect is problematic. *First, the music is very dynamic, and really
requires exceptional gear. *Recording Wagner is difficult, at best. *The
Bayreuth recordings suffer from peculiar acoustics, and stage noise
interferes. The studio recordings have their own peculiarities.

[On a side note, and since this is the vinyl revival, the most unusual set
of records ever produced was a release of the entire Ring by the
Murray-Hill company, who somehow squeezed upwards of 40 minutes a side (it
was a selling point!) of Furtwangler's '50 La Scala. *This is likely the
worst sounding recording ever made of one of the great performances. *The
only way to listen is to "crank it up to about 10" and pretend you're
hearing the original radio broadcast over an old tube short wave receiver.]

I have heard those Murray Hill recordings, I know what you're saying. They
are legendarily dreadful!



Next, the roles are difficult to sing. *Few have the ability.

Very true. A Birgit Nilsson or a Wolfgang Windgassen comes alone only once
in
a great while.

Then, for non-German speakers it takes a while to understand what is going
on. *Also, in our ADHD world, few people have the desire, or the
inclination and ability, to sit through 4 hours of a performance, whereas
it is easy to listen to a symphony.

Also true. Of course, when it takes 40 minutes of singing for Siegfried to
get up off a cot, take his sword down from hanging on a peg on the wall,
gird
his loins with it and walk out the door to engage Fafner, you're bound to
start thinking to yourself "OK, fine, now GET ON WITH IT!"


You have to listen Wagner operas (as all other operas) with text.
It is virtually impossible to seat through Sigfried without text. With
text you will understand why it took 40 minutes. Now days, if you
watch video you can turn subtitles, if you listen it from CD or LP,
you can always open the booklet with text and follow singers bar-by-
bar. I listened Wagner this way in college and I got hooked on
Wagner's operas for life.



Finally, for maximum appreciation one might, to cite an example, want to
plow through Schopenhauer before confronting Gotterdammerung, and who wants
to do that, today? *On the other hand, and to cite another example, I don't
think anyone can come to grips with the end of Western music until they
have digested Parsifal. *But that is just my opinion.

Sit through Parsifal? ALL of it? With nothing to eat? God save us!



Anent your views on the general health of Western civilization, or what is
left of it, I am in agreement. *Nietzsche wrote of the "spector of
nihilism" knocking on the door of Europe. *Today, that door has been flung
wide open, the "uncanny guest" has pretty much moved into our living room,
he's raided our refrigerator, and now lives quite well.

Amen to that! Rockers (and most young people) don't see it that way, though.
We, as a society, have been taught that all change is good. Which is,
perhaps, why its the lietmotiff for our elected (or about to be elected)
officials. They keep screaming about change (from both sides, the left and
the right) as if mere change for the sake of change is a panacea for all
that
ails society. I have heart rendering news for them all. Change for change
sake is never good. Some things were better the way they were.

Please, do not convert it into a political discussion. There non-audio
groups for that. RAO comes to mind :-)

vlad


I agree. My intent was only to show that this society has become obsessed
with the idea of change and used the fact that politicians bring-up the
subject of change in every speech and every discussion and debate as if
simply changing things (for the sake of change, presumably) is the answer for
everything. Today's pop culture, for instance, is much poorer than the pop
culture of past generations simply because each new generation seeks to
define itself by adopting its own set of cultural values, the main criteria
of which seems to be that these values are different than those which came
before. There seems to be no regard for the quality of the material with
which each successive generation defines their popular cultural values, but
rather just that that material be different. Since we are talking music here,
the examples will be musical.

The following is my personal view on on the subject and not meant to be taken
as some kind of capsule history of pop music. First of all I'm not qualified
to write such a history, so all I can do is state how it seems to me
personally.

Rap and hip-hop seem to be the most prevalent examples of today's pop music.
If we look at the pop music of the '30's through today we can see a steady
decline in the quality. In the 30's and '40's, pop music was characterized by
great composers like George Gershwin and Cole Porter played by big bands such
as Artie Shaw and Glenn Miller with stunning arrangements rich in
sophisticated rhythms and marvelous instrumentation. Vocalists like Crosby,
Russ Columbo, Bob Eberly, Frank Sinatra, Helen Forest, and Joan Froman were
popular because they had beautiful voices that people wanted to hear. Same
was true in the early fifties with singers like Vic Damone, Perry Como, Nat
Cole, Rosemary Clooney, etc. Then, in 1955, rock-n-role came in and suddenly
all that changed. Now pop singers voices weren't all that important. While
Presley did have a very good voice, pop stars like Little Richard, Fats
Domino, Rickey Nelson, Frankie Valli et al, did not. While the pre-Beatles
era did produce some real talents (Beach Boys come to mind - more for Brian
Wilson's arrangements and innovative stylings than anything else) the quality
of the songs and the quality of the musicianship just wasn't as good as that
of a generation earlier. The music was much more simplistic with the emphasis
shifted from great tunes and arrangements to lyrics and "the beat". As long
as the music had a driving rock beat and lyrics that spoke to that
generation's youth, the songs were hits. The Beatles were neither very good
singers nor great musicians, but Lennon and McCartney were, at their best,
very good tunesmiths FOR THEIR TIME. After that, studio tricks and
"showmanship" over musicianship started to dominate pop music. The lyrics and
the driving rock rhythm took more and more precedent over the actual melodic
content. Pop music continued to devolve until rap reduced it to its two most
primitive basics: doggerel poetry for lyrics and a beat with any melody,
finally, completely done away with in many instances. All through my life,
I've watched and wondered how mainstream, youth oriented pop music could get
any worse and each time it has. It's about time that this new generation made
its musical mark. I will be interested to see how much more minimalist pop
music can get.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

Well, the point is that mass entertainment, of all kinds, is an indicator
of the health of society. That all forms of pop entertainment have
consistently declined since WWII shows that our society is in decline. The
fact that YOU might like the products of that decline or that I might not
is largely irrelevant. That change is occurring, like it or not. Nietzsche
once noted that when people's tastes change, it is rarely for the better.
I think he has something there.

Well, FN did not like Wagner either, so there is no accounting for taste.
But, to be fair, Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner was not mostly music
related, although that was a component. In the latter, he was, of course,
aesthetically wrong, inasmuch as Wagner was one of the four or five top
composers within our Western tradition. However, I know what you mean.

Then again, if you don't accept the premise that 'all forms of pop entertainment
have consistently declined since WWII', then the whole argument kind of
dissolves , doesn't it?

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[vlad]

On Sep 21, 7:45*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:30 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):



* * * * * Subject: Vinyl Revival
* * * * * * * From: vlad
* * * * * * * *Date: Yesterday *4:38 PM
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

On Sep 20, 12:35*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:41:09 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

Some of his criticism of Wagner WAS warranted. As the great "symphonic
dramatist", *Wagner's music is pretty much without peer.

I would say it is without peer. *

Wagner practically invented the film music score , and did so before
film even existed as an artistic medium! Where would the likes of Rozsa,
Steiner, Korngold, Williams, Bernstein, or Goldsmith be without Wagner
(and, perhaps a nod to Ravel and Debussy).

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande was, in its own way, quite Wagnerian, albeit
within the former's impressionistic style. *I would also add Mahler, who
was completely under Wagner's spell, but, unlike the latter, really needed
an editor.

Don't forget Richard Strauss. He was heavily influenced by Wagner and the
idea of 'Heldenmusik'.

But Wagner's librettos tended
to be tiresome and long-winded and Nietzsche's criticisms in that area
were spot-on. But it's Wagner's music that changed the world, not his
librettos. I dare say were the music not so splendid and stirring, that
his operas would mostly be forgotten today.

The libretto issue is, perhaps, an intrinsic problem with "music-drama."
*As
far as his operas being forgotten without them being splendid and stirring,
one could say that about any composer's music, I guess.

Approaching Wagner is complex. *From a hi-fi standpoint, it's difficult to
satisfactorily express what is going on over two speakers. *The recording
aspect is problematic. *First, the music is very dynamic, and really
requires exceptional gear. *Recording Wagner is difficult, at best. *The
Bayreuth recordings suffer from peculiar acoustics, and stage noise
interferes. The studio recordings have their own peculiarities.

[On a side note, and since this is the vinyl revival, the most unusual set
of records ever produced was a release of the entire Ring by the
Murray-Hill company, who somehow squeezed upwards of 40 minutes a side (it
was a selling point!) of Furtwangler's '50 La Scala. *This is likely the
worst sounding recording ever made of one of the great performances. *The
only way to listen is to "crank it up to about 10" and pretend you're
hearing the original radio broadcast over an old tube short wave receiver.]

I have heard those Murray Hill recordings, I know what you're saying. They
are legendarily dreadful!

Next, the roles are difficult to sing. *Few have the ability.

Very true. A Birgit Nilsson or a Wolfgang Windgassen comes alone only once
in
a great while.

Then, for non-German speakers it takes a while to understand what is going
on. *Also, in our ADHD world, few people have the desire, or the
inclination and ability, to sit through 4 hours of a performance, whereas
it is easy to listen to a symphony.

Also true. Of course, when it takes 40 minutes of singing for Siegfried to
get up off a cot, take his sword down from hanging on a peg on the wall,
gird
his loins with it and walk out the door to engage Fafner, you're bound to
start thinking to yourself "OK, fine, now GET ON WITH IT!"

* * You have to listen Wagner operas (as all other operas) with text.
It is virtually impossible to seat through Sigfried without text. With
text you will understand why it took 40 minutes. Now days, if you
watch video you can turn subtitles, if you listen it from CD or LP,
you can always open the booklet with text and follow singers bar-by-
bar. I listened Wagner this way in college and I got hooked on
Wagner's operas for life.

I know that many people feel that way, but I'm not one of them. While I love
Wagner's music, I find the operas themselves less interesting. When I listen
to operas, I'd rather not know what they are singing about (I've listened
both ways). I'm fond of Puccini, for instance, *but I like to listen to the
voices in a way so that I can regard them as just another instrument in the
ensemble. Knowing what the lyrics to Nessun Dorma or Una Babbino Caro mean,
does not, in any way enhance my love for those arias. I am also a fan of
English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams, but find that the ENGLISH lyrics to
his opera "Hugh, The Drover" make the work unlistenable to me (I like the
music though). It would be much better if I couldn't understand what the
characters were saying. Then I could enjoy the voices and the orchestra
without being forced (by my understanding of the lyrics) to follow the story
line. Likewise, the great Finnish oratorio "Kulervo" by Jean Sibelius would
be a lot less interesting to me if I could actually understand what the
singers were going on about (of course in all of these cases, I do know what
the story lines are because I've read the plot synopsis. I just don't know
-or care to know- what the characters are saying at any given moment. I'd
rather the music just wash over me like a tide.).

Note to moderator: this discussion deviated much from original topic.
So feel free to cut me off. However I cannot resist to add my $0.02.

Make a little experiment: try to listen Gustav Mahler's "Das Lied von
der Erde" first without text and then tracking synchronously bar-by-
bar with English translation. Then try the same experiment with
"Kindertoten (Songs on the Death of Children)". You will be amazed
with the difference.

The opera is a synthesis of three different forms of art - music
(including singing), drama and visual (scene decorations). What you
are advocating is reducing it to singing with music only. Doesn't make
sense to me. In old times when we were forced to this reduction by LP/
CD's it was kind of justified. But even then text was essential for
understanding of the dramatic part of the opera. Now days when you can
have video presentation I don't see any reasons to limit yourself to
audio portion of the operatic performance. My $0.02.

vlad

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
vlad wrote:

Make a little experiment: try to listen Gustav Mahler's "Das Lied von
der Erde" first without text and then tracking synchronously bar-by-
bar with English translation. Then try the same experiment with
"Kindertoten (Songs on the Death of Children)". You will be amazed
with the difference.

The opera is a synthesis of three different forms of art - music
(including singing), drama and visual (scene decorations). What you
are advocating is reducing it to singing with music only. Doesn't make
sense to me. In old times when we were forced to this reduction by LP/
CD's it was kind of justified. But even then text was essential for
understanding of the dramatic part of the opera. Now days when you can
have video presentation I don't see any reasons to limit yourself to
audio portion of the operatic performance. My $0.02.

vlad

I agree that opera is generally better with the visual aspect, but
sometimes it's great to focus only on the music. *The famous "Tristan
Chord", for example, is not related at all to the visual dramatic
action, sets, costumes, or other visual data. *But the significance in
purely musical terms is immense. *Wagner's extreme use of chromaticism,
for example, deserves careful listening on its own merits.

Then there's the issue of how generally terrible opera singers are as
actors! *;-)

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Then again, if you don't accept the premise that 'all forms of pop
entertainment have consistently declined since WWII', then the whole
argument kind of dissolves , doesn't it?

To say that all forms have declined would probably be mistaken, since rarely
can anyone make all encompassing judgments without some exceptions.
However, jazz has certainly declined since the 50s, rock and roll wasn't
invented until after the war, so it's hard to relate that form to anything
other than a nascent pre-war state, and Brittany Spears was not born until
much later. So, you have a point. And who knows? As the general social
IQ drops, maybe one day hip hoppers will be lamenting the fact that their
own "art" has declined. I can't wait.

Michael

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Then again, if you don't accept the premise that 'all forms of pop
entertainment have consistently declined since WWII', then the whole
argument kind of dissolves , doesn't it?

To say that all forms have declined would probably be mistaken, since rarely
can anyone make all encompassing judgments without some exceptions.
However, jazz has certainly declined since the 50s, rock and roll wasn't
invented until after the war, so it's hard to relate that form to anything
other than a nascent pre-war state, and Brittany Spears was not born until
much later. So, you have a point. And who knows? As the general social
IQ drops, maybe one day hip hoppers will be lamenting the fact that their
own "art" has declined. I can't wait.


If you followed hip hip, you'd know that some fans have been saying that
for years now.





--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:34:06 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Then again, if you don't accept the premise that 'all forms of pop
entertainment have consistently declined since WWII', then the whole
argument kind of dissolves , doesn't it?

To say that all forms have declined would probably be mistaken, since rarely
can anyone make all encompassing judgments without some exceptions.
However, jazz has certainly declined since the 50s, rock and roll wasn't
invented until after the war, so it's hard to relate that form to anything
other than a nascent pre-war state, and Brittany Spears was not born until
much later. So, you have a point. And who knows? As the general social
IQ drops, maybe one day hip hoppers will be lamenting the fact that their
own "art" has declined. I can't wait.


If you followed hip hip, you'd know that some fans have been saying that
for years now.

Hard to imagine that the bottom of the musical barrel COULD decline ;-)

We've ended up arguing "taste" here, never a very fruitful endeavor and I
think our moderators have been very patient while we took this little
excursion. But I think it's time to get back to audio gear.