Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
Based on a number of discussions on Two other audio forums in regards
to performance quality in classical music, I decided to post a couple simple single blind comparisons of the same piece of music on those forums for the other forum members to rate. Only catch was they weren't allowed to know who the artists were. In one poll I had eight versions of a Chopin Etude played by many different pianists from different eras with different reputations. In the other I simply made it two selections. I only got two voters in one poll and four in the other. The one that got four was barely blind since it was in reaction to the old guard v. the new young talent debate and it was easy to discern which was the more modern recording and which was the "historical" one. Naturally all four voted for the historical one. But anyway. I was quite surprised at the lack of participation. Whenever I have the opportunity this is something i enjoy doing when auditioning performances of classical music. This is how musicians audtion now for orchestras! I have always been a bit suspicious of classical music fans as a group. IME they tend to favor popular reputation over real merit.This just adds another a little more fuel to that fire. I guess it is much easier to know who your favorite musicians are as long as you "know who they are." |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On Feb 13, 7:50=A0pm, Scott wrote:
Based on a number of discussions on Two other audio forumsin regardsto pe= rformance qualityin classical music,Idecided toposta couplesimple single bl= ind comparisons of the same piece of music on those forums for the other forum members to rate. Only catch was theyweren't al= lowed to know who the artists were.In one pollIhad eightversions of a Chopi= n Etude played by many different pianists fromdifferent eras with different= reputations.In the otherIsimply madeit two selections.Ionly got two voters= in one poll and fourin theother. The one that got four was barely blind sin= ceit wasin reactionto the old guard v. the new young talent debate andit wa= s easy todiscern which was the more modern recording and which was the"hist= orical" one. Naturally all four voted for the historical one.Butanyway.Iwas= quite surprised at the lack of participation. WheneverIhave the opportunit= y thisis somethingienjoy doing when auditioningperformances of classical mu= sic. Thisis how musicians audtion now for orchestras! Ihave always been a bit suspicious of classical music fans as agroup.IME = they tend to favor popular reputation over real merit.Thisjust adds another= a little more fuel to that fire.Iguessitis mucheasier to know who your fav= orite musicians are as long as you "know who they are." Looks like I jumped the gun. At one of the forums the other forum members have started to take an interest and participate. Of course with the open discussion it is not entirely blind anymore. but so far the results have been varied so we don't seem to have anyone following the heard. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On 2/13/2012 9:50 PM, Scott wrote:
Based on a number of discussions on Two other audio forums in regards to performance quality in classical music, I decided to post a couple simple single blind comparisons of the same piece of music on those forums for the other forum members to rate. Only catch was they weren't allowed to know who the artists were. In one poll I had eight versions of a Chopin Etude played by many different pianists from different eras with different reputations. In the other I simply made it two selections. I only got two voters in one poll and four in the other. The one that got four was barely blind since it was in reaction to the old guard v. the new young talent debate and it was easy to discern which was the more modern recording and which was the "historical" one. Naturally all four voted for the historical one. But anyway. I was quite surprised at the lack of participation. Whenever I have the opportunity this is something i enjoy doing when auditioning performances of classical music. This is how musicians audtion now for orchestras! I have always been a bit suspicious of classical music fans as a group. IME they tend to favor popular reputation over real merit.This just adds another a little more fuel to that fire. I guess it is much easier to know who your favorite musicians are as long as you "know who they are." First, the obligatory two words: Joyce Hatto. That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Same for pianists. If you think otherwise, two words: Joyce Hatto. Doug McDonald |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On Feb 14, 4:39=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:50 PM, Scott wrote: Based on a number of discussions on Two other audio forums in regards to performance quality in classical music, I decided to post a couple simple single blind comparisons of the same piece of music on those forums for the other forum members to rate. Only catch was they weren't allowed to know who the artists were. In one poll I had eight versions of a Chopin Etude played by many different pianists from different eras with different reputations. In the other I simply made it two selections. I only got two voters in one poll and four in the other. The one that got four was barely blind since it was in reaction to the old guard v. the new young talent debate and it was easy to discern which was the more modern recording and which was the "historical" one. Naturally all four voted for the historical one. But anyway. I was quite surprised at the lack of participation. Whenever I have the opportunity this is something i enjoy doing when auditioning performances of classical music. This is how musicians audtion now for orchestras! I have always been a bit suspicious of classical music fans as a group. IME they tend to favor popular reputation over real merit.This just adds another a little more fuel to that fire. I guess it is much easier to know who your favorite musicians are as long as you "know who they are." First, the obligatory two words: Joyce Hatto. That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Same for pianists. If you think otherwise, two words: Joyce Hatto. The object wasn't to name the performers. The object was to rate the performances. That is easy to do blind. And folks have started getting into it. The performances are easy to distinguish from one another. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
In article ,
Doug McDonald wrote: That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Sure, in many cases. Many performers approach certain challenges in the literature in predictable ways, and some tonal qualities are quite unique. -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On 2/15/2012 10:56 AM, Jenn wrote:
In , Doug wrote: That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Sure, in many cases. Many performers approach certain challenges in the literature in predictable ways, and some tonal qualities are quite unique. Sure ... how many Joyce Hattos can YOU identify? How many Joyce Hattos WERE identified without non-blind A-B comparisons with the originals? How many Youtube live performances can you identify just listening? Doug McDonald |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On Feb 15, 4:39pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 2/15/2012 10:56 AM, Jenn wrote: In , Doug wrote: That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Sure, in many cases. =A0Many performers approach certain challenges in the literature in predictable ways, and some tonal qualities are quite unique. Sure ... how many Joyce Hattos can YOU identify? How many Joyce Hattos WERE identified without non-blind A-B comparisons with the originals? How many Youtube live performances can you identify just listening? I could identify a few. But that isn't the point. No one is being challenged to identify artists blind. They are being offered an oportunity to evaluate different performances of the same piece blind. This is how musicians are now evaluated when they audition for orchestras. It can be very revealing to listen to these things under blind conditions. If one could easily identify the artists under blind conditions then the test really is no longer blind. I asked that if anyone recognize a given performance and can identify the artist that they keep it to themselves so as to keep the comparisons blind for the other people on the forum. I'm thinking of doing a second comparison now that it looks like the first one has taken off over at the Steve Hoffman forum. I wanted to do these comparisons because I believe that in classical music that reputation carries far more sway than is deserved with many fans of the genre. Take away the identity and the performance has to stand on it's own merits. In these kinds of comparisons I don't think tone is much of a give away. Certainly not for piano. I think tone is far more a function of the instrument, the hall and the recording. The musician has far more control over other aspects of the sound than tone. If you recognize a particular artist it is far more likely because of the interpretation and the execution of that interpretation than the tone per se. Tone will be far more recognizable with musicians playing string and reed instruments than piano. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:39:21 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ): On 2/15/2012 10:56 AM, Jenn wrote: In , Doug wrote: That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Sure, in many cases. Many performers approach certain challenges in the literature in predictable ways, and some tonal qualities are quite unique. Sure ... how many Joyce Hattos can YOU identify? How many Joyce Hattos WERE identified without non-blind A-B comparisons with the originals? How many Youtube live performances can you identify just listening? Doug McDonald I can tell Rubenstein from Horowitz on the piano, but that's about the size of it. OTOH, I can distinguish many different composers from their style, even if the work is unfamiliar to me. For instance Beethoven sounds like no one else. Sibelius is unique as is Vaughn Williams, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, and Debussy. I can do this with perhaps 20 major composers (and all of the major film composers). But performers are harder. At one time I was pretty good at picking-out a performance by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra because Ormandy whipped that group into an unmistakeable "sound". But he's been gone for several generations, and whatever it was that he brought to the Philadelphians is long gone with him. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
In article ,
Doug McDonald wrote: On 2/15/2012 10:56 AM, Jenn wrote: In , Doug wrote: That said, telling a performer blind is almost impossible, except in rare cases where you recognize the exact performance. A well-listened person can tell, using violinists, can tell Elman (who recorded well into the hi-fi era) from Heifetz or any of a huge number of modern virtuosi. But can they tell Heifetz from any of those modern folks ... or the modern ones from each other? Sure, in many cases. Many performers approach certain challenges in the literature in predictable ways, and some tonal qualities are quite unique. Sure ... how many Joyce Hattos can YOU identify? How many Joyce Hattos WERE identified without non-blind A-B comparisons with the originals? How many Youtube live performances can you identify just listening? Doug McDonald Depends. If I'm played some performances of trombone music and am asked to identify which is Friendman and which is Allesi, my accuracy rate would be very high. Which Tchaikovsky concerto is Heifetz and which is Perlman? No problem. Identify without comparison? I'd still do pretty well. Some performers have easily identifiable traits. -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
Scott,
You'll get much better results by spending some money. Find folks who are somewhat knowledgeable about music. Music schools and univ. music depts are full of such people so put up ads there. Offer $25/hr for their time. Have a good playback system in a comfortable room. If it's a long trial schedule break time. A pleasant test and reasonable money will attract participants through word of mouth. It should be easy to do this in a double-blind fashion, too. You may be able to recoup some of your money by getting an article published in an audio magazine. Dave M. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On Feb 21, 5:49=A0pm, "Dave M." wrote:
Scott, =A0 =A0You'll get much better results by spending some money. Find folks = who are somewhat knowledgeable about music. Music schools and univ. music depts a= re full of such people so put up ads there. Offer $25/hr for their time. Hav= e a good playback system in a comfortable room. If it's a long trial schedule break time. =A0 =A0A pleasant test and reasonable money will attract participants thr= ough word of mouth. It should be easy to do this in a double-blind fashion, to= o. You may be able to recoup some of your money by getting an article publis= hed in an audio magazine. Dave M. Well I did it so the folks out there could try it, have some fun and maybe learn a little about how they listen to classical music. Turns out that after a slow reception the folks over at the Steve Hoffman forum are really enjoying doing blind comparisons. If you or anyone else wants to check it out here is a link. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D277315 I am thankful the moderators here let me start this thread. It is really more about music than audio but I suppose the theme of blind protocols makes it relevant. I have no interest in spending money on it though. The time I spend putting the programs together for each comparison is enough of a proverbial donation. But at the same time putting those comparisons together is always an interesting process and I end up learning something more about the music and the musicians along the way. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
[snip] At one time I was pretty good at picking-out a performance by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra because Ormandy whipped that group into an unmistakeable "sound". But he's been gone for several generations, and whatever it was that he brought to the Philadelphians is long gone with him. Ormandy is recognizable because he generally reduced tempi compared to others and coaxed a dreamy sound out of the orchestra. Their recording of The Firebird - especially at the end - is so very different for -any- other rendition I've ever heard. Beautiful, too! |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
An unexpected reluctance to participate ina blind comparison
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:06:10 -0800, Jason wrote
(in article ): [snip] At one time I was pretty good at picking-out a performance by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra because Ormandy whipped that group into an unmistakeable "sound". But he's been gone for several generations, and whatever it was that he brought to the Philadelphians is long gone with him. Ormandy is recognizable because he generally reduced tempi compared to others and coaxed a dreamy sound out of the orchestra. Their recording of The Firebird - especially at the end - is so very different for -any- other rendition I've ever heard. Beautiful, too! While what you say is definitely true, he also coaxed a unique string sound from the Philadelphians; one that was unmistakeable. While he and the orchestra were good at most any classics, they were especially good - even great at interpretations of late romantics and post romantic composers such as Sibelius, (his 'Finlandia' with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is without peer), as well as Debussy, Ravel, and Resphigi (his "Roman Trilogy" and Church Windows is great). But he was also especially effective with Tchiakovsky, and Rachmaninoff. Unfortunately, too many of his best performances, such as the aforementioned choral 'Finlandia' remain unavailable (as in never been released) on CD. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why GeoSynch thinks he's smart enough to participate here.... | Audio Opinions | |||
Unexpected clicking noise | Pro Audio | |||
Blind leading the Blind into Stupidity | Audio Opinions | |||
My Unscientific But Probably Valid Reluctance To Use MDF | Audio Opinions |