Quote Steve Hill:

---

usually when the remaining budget will cover about 10 minutes of his time, but he'll probably work half the night to do it anyway.

---

Uh huh, exactly. And they were demands. Not requests.

ken

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

I think we should all read the score and listen to our own imaginings

Quote Baltazar:

---

Hey that’s better. Good to see “emmy nominees, gramophone award winners, [and] sony award winners” capable of civilized discussion on the internet. I knew you could do it guys.

---

Can we cut the patronising comments, please? The smilies don't serve as an excuse or apology.

You're apparently new here and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the interest of a worthy debate, but there's a hint of trolling that concerns me...

Quote:

---

First, the appeal to authority contained in idris y draig’s post should be rejected. What matters are the arguments, not the medals on someone’s chest. This is a discussion forum, not an army parade ground.

---

So is it just your arguments, with an unknown pedigree, experience or relevance, that matter here? Are we to dismiss and ignore the views already given and yet to appear from those who have spent years in the business at all levels and in all spheres, winning professional and public accoldades left right and centre? Do their opinions not count too?

Quote:

---

Second, I accept that producers and CD labels will tell recording engineers to do bad things.

---

This is too much of a blanket statement to be able to discuss. Not every act of an engineer can possibly be described as 'bad', and even then, it is only your personal view of what is bad...

If a musician decides to play a movement several times, and then choose the best and most satisfying take for the released CD recording, is the engineer 'bad' to cut that in to the master tape? Is the recording 'bad' because of that selection? Utter Nonsense!

Quote:

---

But that’s a further reason to move towards a set of published recording standards.

---

What? Like all microphones must be suspended and they can only be Earthworks SR30s? Please...

How can you have 'standards' when every orchestra, every performance, every venue sounds completely different. There is no standard and never can be.

Quote:

---

Once in place, an engineer told to do something which falls outside them can object and his objection will carry more weight.

---

No, it'll carry him to the exit door and the dole queue...

Quote:

---

Third, the purist accusation can be rejected. There’s nothing purist about wanting to know what’s been inserted between composer and audience.

---

Demands for a single stereo pair (regardless of venue orchestral forces, or performer's positions) -- which is what the petitioner is demanding in his code -- is absolutely purist.

Wanting to know how a recording was made and post-produced has nothing to do with purism, and is not an unreasonable request. Some record labels already make that information available. But it is the record labels you need to be addressing this request to, and it has absolutely nothing to do with poor old much-maligned 'kevin and his magical computer'. But the reality, of course, is that yours is but one of a very small number of voices amongst the classical CD buying public wanting or even being interested in such information...

Quote:

---

Fourth, I reject the ‘don’t worry your pretty little head it’s too complicated for you to understand’ argument.

---

I'm not sure anyone has made that argument directly, have they? It's not complicated to understand why musicians, and conductors want their performances edited. It's not difficult to understand why a simple stereo pair is rarely sufficient to capture a complete and meanigful balance. And it's not hard to understand the practical and aesthetic reasons for dynamic control on a product intended to be listened to over a scrawny stereo in someone's front room without waking the kids up late at night, or in a car travelling down the motorway with wind and tyre noise drowning the music out.

It is difficult. however, for me to understand quite what you think 'kevin' does to classical recordings with his computer jiggery-pokery...

Quote:

---

Exactly. I trust my own ears in the concert hall because I know they’re connected directly, via the performers, to the score.

---

Their (and the conductor's) interpretation of the score at that time, in that venue, with that particular orchestral force. Not really much direct connection with the composer's real intentions, is there? Half the time the works aren't even played on the right instruments... So perhaps a sense of proportion and reality would be useful here.

At the end of the day, it's all about interpretation and producing something that pleases the audience -- whether in a concert hall, or on a recording. If it doesn't please, then people won't go back and listen to that conductor/orchestra/venue again, or won't buy their CDs or CDs from a particular label. And that's exactly as it should be.

If you want purist recordings made in one take, with a simple stereo pair, go and buy CDs from Nimbus or York, or Naxos. Small niche labels that cater precisely for small niche demands such as yours.

Quote:

---

I want to be able to trust my own ears when listening to a CD but a recording engineer, his computer, and his paymaster, has subverted the medium.

---

Subverted how, exactly? What is it you think every recording engineer on the planet does that is so abhorrent to every recording? I really am at a loss as to what your complaint really is...

Quote:

---

It’s not unreasonable to seek to cut the middlemen down to size and reassert a direct connection between composer and audience.

---

How does that work then? Will the composer send his manuscript round in the post? That's pretty direct. We could cut out the interfering nonsense of the conductor's interpretation, those annoying musicians playing it 'their way', the over-charging venue owners and the way they maintain their venues.

Or perhaps we should just do away with recording engineers, and let the conductors record their performances for us with a dictaphone strapped to the lecturn. That would be direct, no nonsense stuff. Lovely jubbly...

Quote:

---

I’ll return to this thread tomorrow.

---

I'm looking forward to it... possibly.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Baltazar:

---

I want to be able to trust my own ears when listening to a CD but a recording engineer, his computer, and his paymaster, has subverted the medium. It’s not unreasonable to seek to cut the middlemen down to size and reassert a direct connection between composer and audience.

---

Fine. You need to scrap the CD format and its crazy 16-bit/44.1KHz limitations, and get rid of the hi-fi because at whatever price point it is just interposing a whole load of electronic interference.

Buy a Steinway grand and hire musicians as and when needed to come and perform for you in your salon. Another million or so should enable you to have some moving baffles to adjust the reverb time of the listening room to give a reasonable approximation of the differences between chamber music and concert hall music.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

It’s interesting that before I was permitted to post a response to the hail of abuse and criticism directed at me I was TWICE required to accept the terms and conditions of submission. Presumably you are all free to comment as you wish.

When I posted my piece I expected some ‘for’ and some ‘against’ responses.
Now I feel like a Yamaha at a Harley Davidson convention.
SOS is clearly a meeting place for professionals and having worked in the industry myself I respect and admire you all for your expertise.

I am naturally disappointed that the result has been 100% negative. I am even more disappointed that the comments have been originated without first reference to the samples I uploaded.

The point is that, irrespective of all the comments, a simple comparison would demonstrate which method produces the most natural sound.

Let’s be open-minded and approach the matter being honest with ourselves.

I will propose the First movement of the Brahms symphony no 1, the uploaded sample, which was recorded in the manner outlined in the petition.
You demonstrate a better recording, with details of the technique involved.

I should perhaps mention that my audio system comprises, firstly, and most importantly, a pair of Tandberg Monitor loudspeakers 3005. Clearly such a test could not be undertaken with plastic surround sound crap.
The amp is a Tandberg 3003, preamp 3002.
I am confident that you all employ similar high standard equipment for listening.

Here’s a little anecdote for you:

How I lost my job at the Philips West-End recording studio. This was in my early days. My colleague and I were instructed to mount 7 microphones around a single harp
I made comments as we did so. Unfortunately, my comments were overheard in the control room because one of the mics was already live.
The gratification was that 5 of the mics were removed for the afternoon session.

I go back as far as cutting acetates, MONO!

Your obvious decrepitude goes a long way towards explaining your post.
Just because your poll didnt give the result you were hoping for doesnt give you the right to dismiss our opinions because they don`t coincide with yours.
I have refrained from either voting or posting up until now because I really had no strong feelings about how classical music is recorded, but fatuous comments about acetates and what HIFI system you use are unlikely to win you any friends on here.

You should have learnt better from your experience at Philips and maybe either kept your opinions of the rank and file members on here to yourself or at the very least expressed them in a less pompous and judgemental way.

I am well known as a grumpy old fart on here, but I hope I always bring my objectivity into play when I need it.
Come to think of it, I think I even admitted I was wrong about something on here once or twice.

A test:
Fill a bucket (plastic or galvanised) with water.
Immerse your index finger (left or right) in the water.
Withdraw your index finger.
If you leave a finger-shaped hole in the water, you are infallible.
If you don`t, you are not infallible.


P.S. Who`s your daft mate?

Off topic, but has anybody besides me suspected that what we have here could well be described as dual personality trolling in the grand tradition?
I`d like to see the url of the "classical site" discussinfg this thread.
Maybe some of us could go ever there and troll them back.
All together:
RANGE WARRRR! Saddle up yer broncs and git yer guns, boys!

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Ivan, I just tried your test and my finger got wet - you don't cover that eventuality in your post. Can you tell me the result.

P.S. - the bucket was made of wood staves; perhaps this is the cause of the skewed result?

Quote lazinov:

---

You demonstrate a better recording, with details of the technique involved.

---

And who, exactly, is going to determine which is the 'better' recording? You? Me? Simon Rattle?

Silly boy! Aney fule gno you have to wrap your finger in saran wrap or the oofle dust washes off.
Try again.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Quote lazinov:

---

I should perhaps mention that my audio system comprises, firstly, and most importantly, a pair of Tandberg Monitor loudspeakers 3005. Clearly such a test could not be undertaken with plastic surround sound crap.
The amp is a Tandberg 3003, preamp 3002.
I am confident that you all employ similar high standard equipment for listening.

---

I'm not sure the engineers who designed those pieces can be trusted to not stick some duff in the mix, so I would propose equal legislation that all listening must be done in approved locations on approved equipment. cheers

--------------------
"A warning , with love and peace"

Quote lazinov:

---

I should perhaps mention that my audio system comprises, firstly, and most importantly, a pair of Tandberg Monitor loudspeakers 3005. Clearly such a test could not be undertaken with plastic surround sound crap.
The amp is a Tandberg 3003, preamp 3002.
I am confident that you all employ similar high standard equipment for listening.

---

Since you're so keen to get your knob out, please detail your listening environment. Are your monitors free standing or built into the wall? Details of acoustic treatment present in the listening room please. Room dimensions? Have you recently had your hearing tested to give an idea of which vital high frequencies you're missing out on entirely?

Naturally you can appreciate the need for this information to be known before any comparative listening tests can begin.

I think a better way to improve the dreadful technical quality of 16-44 is to issue with each CD a special green marker pen which can be applied to the rim to improve the sound.
Highly regarded audiophiles have reported that this improves the musicality, the warmth and reduces the level of intefering resonances and feedback vibrations.
If the green marker is applied in the factory it does not work to the same degree, it needs to be applied by the person listening to the system as only they can judge the technical effects of their system, exactly how much of the green ink needs to be applied and the imperfect application of the human hand will cancel out the jitter inherent in the phono interconnects.
Of course, gold, oxygen free power cables need to be used to supply the system with clean power, otherwise the 'skin effect' will mask any improvements.
Audio grade stones placed carefully in the resonant space will improve the sound still further by absorbing the nasty hi frequency hash that is inherent in the digital medium.

The argument lazinov and Baltazar put forward about a purist approach is flawed. We do not hear Bach as listeners in Bach's time would have heard it.

Firstly, to us today the music of Bach and Beethoven is several hundred years old with several intervening styles and approaches including atonality, jazz and rock music, in Bach's time it was contemporary. Our ears are different today.

Secondly the pitch is a semitone higher now than it was in Bach's time and about a quarter of a tone higher than it was in Beethoven's. So presumably being moral engineers you would rather loose your job than record these composers at the wrong pitch.

Thirdly, much of Bach's work was intended for the church so why play it in the concert hall? The cantatas for instance were written for the congregation to sing the chorales. Presumably this means you would only record the cantatas if a. it was recorded as part of a church service and b. the chorales were sung by the congregation.

I have seen this discussion on a classical music forum and it reeks of snobbery. A large number of people (myself included) are working hard to show that classical music is for every one and these purists arguments will probably reinforce the idea that it is not. As far as I am concerned I will listen to classical music on what I want, not the hi-fi system you dictate. Actually listen to it on studio monitors.

I resent the idea that I am being conned and there is an elite group of 'purists' who can protect me from myself when it comes to buying CDs.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote IvanSC:

---

Off topic, but has anybody besides me suspected that what we have here could well be described as dual personality trolling in the grand tradition?
I`d like to see the url of the "classical site" discussinfg this thread.
Maybe some of us could go ever there and troll them back.
All together:
RANGE WARRRR! Saddle up yer broncs and git yer guns, boys!

---

Your wish is my.... etc


Lazinov gets about a bit (Scroll up a bit to post #77)

And you get to meet some sane posters there too - doesn't appear to be the haven of cryogenically frozen phono lead users you might expect.

Edited by reid (17/10/08 08:59 AM)

Quote:

---

I should perhaps mention that my audio system comprises, firstly, and most importantly, a pair of Tandberg Monitor loudspeakers 3005. Clearly such a test could not be undertaken with plastic surround sound crap.
The amp is a Tandberg 3003, preamp 3002.
I am confident that you all employ similar high standard equipment for listening.

---

Your confidence might be something more along the lines of blind arrogance. Who gives a crap what people are listening on. The majority of listeners are not going to be listening on a tip-top system all the time and nor should they be expected to. What essentially you are doing is telling others what they need to listen on as well you are tossing out the majority of your potential market. Sounds like a smart move to me.

Definitely you reek of snobbery, arrogance and obviously lack the ability to weigh all the factors. Your thought that you could come on here and be hailed as some sort of savior further solidifies this.

Quote:

---

It’s interesting that before I was permitted to post a response to the hail of abuse and criticism directed at me

---

To be quite honest you are not qualified to make this comment. With your large number of, what 4 posts, you haven't the faintest idea of this forum. I have never seen anyone get abused that didn't have it coming.

Quote:

---

Let’s be open-minded and approach the matter being honest with ourselves.

---

You know they say the best way for improvement is to look inside yourself. From the looks of things you are the one that is being the least open here.

Quote:

---

How I lost my job at the Philips West-End recording studio. This was in my early days. My colleague and I were instructed to mount 7 microphones around a single harp
I made comments as we did so. Unfortunately, my comments were overheard in the control room because one of the mics was already live.
The gratification was that 5 of the mics were removed for the afternoon session.

---

Only goes to show you have a history of opening your mouth when you shouldn't as well a history of not knowing your place.

I am not sure this thread has done anything to change your opinion. I feel that you brush all these comments off and keep the blinders on. It couldn't really be that the people here actually know something and have some valuable insight into what you propose. I suggest you go back to the top and read every response and give your freaking head a shake.

Have a happy happy joy joy day

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Secondly the pitch is a semitone higher now than it was in Bach's time and about a quarter of a tone higher than it was in Beethoven's.

---

Steady on there Ian - not quite right in the detail! But the gist of your point is correct.

Also, Baltazar and Lazinov, don't overlook the hundreds of different tuning systems in common usage during Bach and Beethoven's lifetimes.

Quote A Non O' Miss:

---

Definitely you reek of snobbery, arrogance and obviously lack the ability to weigh all the factors.

---

Steady on A Non O' Miss - that's a bit strong.


...or is it?

This just in from Classical Source Blog


"I have spent the past 60 years associated with sound and orchestras - my great passions. I arrived at a point where I could enter a new venue simply clap once on the stage, move to the auditorium, make a visual study of the hall and know exactly within a foot or two where the microphones had to be placed."

Iazinov (for it is he, aka Geoffery Terry) has clearly transcended the boundaries of normal sound engineering - a clap and a peek is all it takes for him to accomplish what 'Kevins' throughout the globe need hours to do. What a man.

Quote Rousseau:

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Secondly the pitch is a semitone higher now than it was in Bach's time and about a quarter of a tone higher than it was in Beethoven's.

---

Steady on there Ian - not quite right in the detail! But the gist of your point is correct.

---

Are you sure it is not right? The various sources I have read state baroque pitch is A = 415, a semitone lower. And a professional fortepianist told me the fortepiano is tuned to A = 430.

However the specialists not only use the correct pitch but also vintage 18th century Neumann microphones as well.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

I thought there were 100 cents in a semitone?

Ian's talking in Hz dude.

Cheers,

Chris

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Quote Rousseau:

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Secondly the pitch is a semitone higher now than it was in Bach's time and about a quarter of a tone higher than it was in Beethoven's.

---

Steady on there Ian - not quite right in the detail! But the gist of your point is correct.

---

Are you sure it is not right? The various sources I have read state baroque pitch is A = 415, a semitone lower. And a professional fortepianist told me the fortepiano is tuned to A = 430.

However the specialists not only use the correct pitch but also vintage 18th century Neumann microphones as well.

---

Unfortunately, 'baroque pitch' as a term is much abused and in essence meaningless. I'm just about to go an teach, so paraphrased this from Grove...

Some examples:

The pitch of the majority of big organs built in France before 1680 ranges from a =388 to a = 400; Harpsichords measured by Mersenne in the early 1700s were about a=404. Loads of stuff from the 18th century in France in between too.

In Italy, Mezzo Punto used up to about the end of the 17th century was a=464; then sometime in the early 1600s, possibly to do with castrati, possibly to do with emerging opera, pitch on many organs was lowered to about a = 384.


We are fortunate in having the original frequencies of at least 36 German organs whose pitch standard was also identified by name:

There are 13 examples of Cornet-Ton within a narrow and specific range, averaging a′ = 463. This level agrees well with the pitch of surviving cornetts.

There are 11 examples of Chorton, as high as a′ = 487 and as low as a′ = 437 (i.e. A+0, A+1, A+2). They average, however, a′ = 467.

There are two examples of Chormass at a′ = 489 and a′ = 466. (Chormass is a term frequently encountered in the 17th century and less in the 18th; it was evidently synonymous with Chorton).

Cammerton (ten examples) is also consistent and averages a′ = 416. This level compares well with woodwind pitch between 1680 and 1770.



Always amuses me when ppl dribble on about 'perfect pitch'.

Of course, my bad.

Quote Rousseau:

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Quote Rousseau:

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Secondly the pitch is a semitone higher now than it was in Bach's time and about a quarter of a tone higher than it was in Beethoven's.

---

Steady on there Ian - not quite right in the detail! But the gist of your point is correct.

---

Are you sure it is not right? The various sources I have read state baroque pitch is A = 415, a semitone lower. And a professional fortepianist told me the fortepiano is tuned to A = 430.

However the specialists not only use the correct pitch but also vintage 18th century Neumann microphones as well.

---

Unfortunately, 'baroque pitch' as a term is much abused and in essence meaningless. I'm just about to go an teach, so paraphrased this from Grove...

Some examples:

The pitch of the majority of big organs built in France before 1680 ranges from a =388 to a = 400; Harpsichords measured by Mersenne in the early 1700s were about a=404. Loads of stuff from the 18th century in France in between too.

In Italy, Mezzo Punto used up to about the end of the 17th century was a=464; then sometime in the early 1600s, possibly to do with castrati, possibly to do with emerging opera, pitch on many organs was lowered to about a = 384.


We are fortunate in having the original frequencies of at least 36 German organs whose pitch standard was also identified by name:

There are 13 examples of Cornet-Ton within a narrow and specific range, averaging a′ = 463. This level agrees well with the pitch of surviving cornetts.

There are 11 examples of Chorton, as high as a′ = 487 and as low as a′ = 437 (i.e. A+0, A+1, A+2). They average, however, a′ = 467.

There are two examples of Chormass at a′ = 489 and a′ = 466. (Chormass is a term frequently encountered in the 17th century and less in the 18th; it was evidently synonymous with Chorton).

Cammerton (ten examples) is also consistent and averages a′ = 416. This level compares well with woodwind pitch between 1680 and 1770.



Always amuses me when ppl dribble on about 'perfect pitch'.

---

Aw, you bet me too it and nearly word for word too! I must learn to type faster.

I'm really enjoying this thread though. It's quite a thing to see the big guns out.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/anthony-wall/sets/audio-reel
http://songsforvoiceandpiano.com/

Due to my wife being a classical musician, I get to a lot of classical concerts in a number of very fine venues in The Netherlands, many at the acoustically renowned Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. I am unable to suspend myself in some midair sweetspot alongside a pair of sd30s, so make do with a normal seat. I have sat at most positions in the hall, and it is only a very, very small number of seats where you can hear all sections of the orchestra clearly. This does not normally diminish the experience, just gives a different experience.

In fact the most memorable performance I had there was from behind the orchestra, just behind the first violins. It was a truly stunning audio experience, and no way would I have traded places with anyone there (except maybe, the row in front). You wouldn't want to record from that position however. My point being that one's experience of a performance is entirely subjective, and dependant on many factors. Microphones are always a poor approximation of the human ear, and I see nothing wrong with compensating for the shortcomings by having more than two.

Take another situation - Opera. Orchestra pits do EvilThings™ to the sound of an orchestra. They are always miked, to say nothing of the stage mics. Are you seriously suggesting that these should be dispensed with and replaced by two flat response microphones ?

Another situation springs to mind. I have often been to classical concerts that are being broadcast live. Horror of horrors they were actually using several microphones and a mixer to do this. Why? Because the conductor has no idea at all how it will be sounding over the airwaves. And yes, I did hear broadcasts in the sixties and seventies, and the quality today is simply better. Sorry, but you're chasing a golden-age-that-never-was.

One more point. The website is extremely contemptuous of engineers. How dare they sit there with scores, fading things in and out as though they were conductors? The cheek of the bounders! Be honest, have you any conductors going on record agreeing with this?

--------------------
Great googly moogly

Quote reid:

---

Lazinov gets about a bit (Scroll up a bit to post #77)

---

Scroll down a little further to my comment.
I thought I was quite polite....

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Ian,

Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you - just in a massive hurry this morning so just had to get the text on the screen.

The point you were making was spot on of course.

Cheers

Quote reid:

---

Quote A Non O' Miss:

---

Definitely you reek of snobbery, arrogance and obviously lack the ability to weigh all the factors.

---

Steady on A Non O' Miss - that's a bit strong.


...or is it?

This just in from Classical Source Blog


"I have spent the past 60 years associated with sound and orchestras - my great passions. I arrived at a point where I could enter a new venue simply clap once on the stage, move to the auditorium, make a visual study of the hall and know exactly within a foot or two where the microphones had to be placed."

Iazinov (for it is he, aka Geoffery Terry) has clearly transcended the boundaries of normal sound engineering - a clap and a peek is all it takes for him to accomplish what 'Kevins' throughout the globe need hours to do. What a man.

---

A thought: If he really HAS spent 60 years around the business he has been at it longer than me - I started aged ten and am now 64 and retired.
Well sort of.

My left ear is knackered.
My right one is not too bad for an old `un.
Wonder what his last proper hearing test came up with on his (estimated) at least 70 year old lugholes?

And I thought I was a recalcitrant old duffer.....

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

...and here I think we have this particular troll`s favorite bridge.

http://www.orchestralconcertcds.com/

What a twat.

I suppose he will now insist that there is no commercial bias in his assorted posts all over the place.


Out of curiousity, I tried to listen to a link from his site that supposedly plays a snippet of one of his fabulous recordings, but since the link didn`t work I can only assume that he realised after the fact that a crappy mp3 rendition of his masterworks were not going to impress anyone...

P.S. Just had a thought:
Wonder if he is planning on PAYING all those musicians and the conductors a royalty on his sales, which they most assuredly are entitled to?

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Edited by IvanSC (17/10/08 11:38 AM)

oh , and engineering geek head for a moment.

even if the philosophy wasn't utterly untenable.... and the idea remotely workable....

EARTHWORKS?


a tad noisy.... IMHO


the reason very few have bothered to download your samples is that the majority of respondents actually do this for a living and already know what a pair sounds like..... AND have serious issues with the philosophy and implications of the entire idea..... and THAT's what we're all going on about...

Even if I weren't keenly aware if what a range of Pairs sound like.... especially given that the results can be so widely varied, I don't much care what your recordings sound like.... I detest the philosophical viewpoint encapsulated in the "charter" and in the OP's stated positions.



Given that the edit lists are generated by artistes and producers... who want them made so that the end result presents the piece the way they WANT you to hear it... i find it insulting that both the engineer's hard work in making it presentable, and the artistes intent are deemed to be such negative aspects of the process.

who gave you the right to determine how an artiste is presented...?? surely that is down to their choice, their interpretation and performance.

it's like demanding DaVinci repaint the Mona Lisa , with more blue pigment , and curly hair.

Quote Rousseau:

---

Ian,

Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you - just in a massive hurry this morning so just had to get the text on the screen.

The point you were making was spot on of course.

Cheers

---

Not at all Rousseau, thanks for the information, it is fascinating. That the pitch was not consistent during that period is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that it rose as high A = 487. This makes the current Vienna pitch of A = 446? look positively low.
But of course it is even more evidence that the purist approach needs to be an open minded one. You only need an early music expert to say he is recording a Brandenburg Concerto at A = 415 with the harpsichord using Valotti tuning and lazinov decides it should be A = 416 with Kirnberger III tuning on the harpsichord and he will stamp out in the belief he has done conductors, musicians and listeners a huge service by maintaining high standards. No doubt he can walk in the room, clap twice and know exactly which edition the ensemble is playing from.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote IvanSC:

---

And I thought I was a recalcitrant old duffer.....

---

Don't worry Ivan, you're amongst friends here so we are not going to rob you of that title and give it to some upstart.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Quote Rousseau:

---

Ian,

Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you - just in a massive hurry this morning so just had to get the text on the screen.

The point you were making was spot on of course.

Cheers

---

Not at all Rousseau, thanks for the information, it is fascinating. That the pitch was not consistent during that period is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that it rose as high A = 487. This makes the current Vienna pitch of A = 446? look positively low.
But of course it is even more evidence that the purist approach needs to be an open minded one. You only need an early music expert to say he is recording a Brandenburg Concerto at A = 415 with the harpsichord using Valotti tuning and lazinov decides it should be A = 416 with a Kirnberger III on the harpsichord and he will stamp out in the belief he has done conductors, musicians and listeners a huge service by maintain high standards. No doubt he can walk in the room, clap twice and know exactly which edition the ensemble is playing from.

---

Absolutely.

Quote IvanSC:

---

...and here I think we have this particular troll`s favorite bridge.

http://www.orchestralconcertcds.com/

What a twat.

I suppose he will now insist that there is no commercial bias in his assorted posts all over the place.


Out of curiousity, I tried to listen to a link from his site that supposedly plays a snippet of one of his fabulous recordings, but since the link didn`t work I can only assume that he realised after the fact that a crappy mp3 rendition of his masterworks were not going to impress anyone...

P.S. Just had a thought:
Wonder if he is planning on PAYING all those musicians and the conductors a royalty on his sales, which they most assuredly are entitled to?

---

Quite. So he's "invited to tour" with sundry communist orchestras, not as a sound recordist. Nevertheless he does a bunch of bootleg recordings. Now he's selling them.

I should be extremely interested to learn what benefit is flowing to those orchestras and/or their successors, and what formal consents exist for the release of these works.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Rousseau:

---

Always amuses me when ppl dribble on about 'perfect pitch'.

---

I don't want to detract from this entertaining thread, but the people that always say that are the people who don't have pitch.

Can you explain why, in today's Western musical tradition where we mostly rely on one standard pitch system, that it's impossible to have someone with perfect pitch?

I presume that you're taking the word 'perfect' to mean just that, someone who can differentiate between 440 / 442 /444. Whilst my pitch is perhaps not that precise anymore (pitch gets affected by age I find), i've met people who have proved that they can indeed tell the difference between pitches so closely spaced.

--------------------
www.mikeandersonmusic.co.uk

Oh my god, I have looked at the web site and discovered the "Campaign for Real Stereo"

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote thejazzassassin:

---

I don't want to detract from this entertaining thread

---

Quote thejazzassassin:

---

Can you explain why, in today's Western musical tradition where we mostly rely on one standard pitch system, that it's impossible to have someone with perfect pitch?

---

There's a very thoroughly discussed thread on perfect pitch here.

Wow. That's pretty special! You're talking about this, right?

Quality Friday thread.

Good Morning, may I be so bold as to introduce myself, I'm Doctor B.L. Zeebub. I am little more than your nemesis, Scylla to your Charybdis, Achilles to your Hector, Obama to your McCain, Sootie to your Sweep, Cornwallis to your Washington. I, and I alone, killed Kenny.

Amusing then that as I type I am listening to Bernstein's score to The Ten Commandments. Ah well, know 'em afore ye break 'em.

Down here in my Infernal Studio of Doom, I produce orchestral music for the Silverscreen and my very own patented Haunted Fishbowl. Worse still, I do it with black boxes. None of those beige things, nor less those god awful toaster ovens with the fruit-based nomenclature. Just decent, honest, planet-destroying computers.

Now my computers, beloved that they are, produce noise based approximations of some terrible orkestra from Wien. Can't remember who they are, but they must be poo. After all, I used my flames to trap them in my boxes, and now they dance to my tune.



To take this back into the human domain, and out of the 7th level of hell, there is a corollory here: an enormous amount of media music is now created with samples and samplers, and the "composers" who do the work have to be at once musical, engineers, performers and producers all at the same time. Worse still, all of this has to be done with the Devil Himself (for once not us, but the client) watching over one's shoulder.

The end result?

Guitars.
Synthesizers.
Other demonic noises getting in the way of lovely tritone chords.
Consecutive fifths.
Britney Spears.
Consecutive octaves.
Pachebel's Canon & Gigue in D Major.
Overuse of modes.
Only four chords per score.
Hans Zimmer.
No inversions.
No counterpoint.
Pachebel's Bleedin' Canon & Gigue a Bleedin' again.
Damn thy harmony.
Et cetera ad infinitum.

To throw in a line from the wondrous Tom Lehrer, "The reason most folk songs are so atrocious is that they were written by the people. If professional songwriters had written them instead, they'd have turned out considerably differently." Does that stop them being beloved down the ages?

Now I happen to know for a fact that Dr Rousseau, venerable denizen of these forums despises Gilbert and Sullivan. Now obviously I put it down to his foreign heritage, as surely no self-respecting Englishman could find anything but joy in that composition "full of words and music, and signifying nothing!" However, others would see it as grandiose, quintessentially Victorian operetta infused with such glorious melodies evoking all the humor, pathos or majesty one could ever want on the stage.

I on the other hand produce muzak from my black boxes, utilising individual performers and "real" orchestras when budgets will allow, but more often than not churning out a terrible cacophony of canned noise. Do I do it for pleasure? Hell yes. But I also do it to get paid. I am answerable to my masters, The Client, and they in turn are answerable to the most critical audience on earth: The Paying Listener. It matters not whether the latter are buying a CD, going to the cinema, or sat down in their lounge with some Radioshack hifi, The Client has to produce an end result to satisfy them all, whilst I am working within the confines of the requirements set down by MY master, the client.

Surely, if we are to take this conceptual Code of Practice to its logical and seminal conclusion, then there is only one possible course of action:


ALL recordings must be done in exactly the same hall. It will be The Concert Hall.

These recording sessions will be attended by an audience numbering not more nor less the exact same number of people.

The audience will be identically clothed at all times, and their exact weights will be identical at all times. For ease of repetition, the precise same persons should be used, and their weight, density of bone and fatty tissue mass measured and controlled.

The hall will be hermetically sealed and environmentally controlled so that the precise same humidity and temperature is evenly distrubuted and maintained throughout every recording.

Only one conductor, ever, will be allowed to lead this orchestra. He will be allowed only to lead from the original score, with no deviation from the notation or dynamics originally envisaged by the composer.

Where the composer is unavailable for comment upon notation and dynamics due to being terminally inconvenienced or other such poor excuses, the Committee For The Correct Way To Perform Gounod will meet in quorate to agree upon the Correct Way.

Henceforth, only one orchestra will be employed worldwide, and the self-same players will be cryogenically frozen between performances to ensure the closest possible replication of playing style and ability.

All recordings will be captured purely by two microphones, of identical manufacture, and they will be of identical age at the time of recording - so these will be precision built at the predestined time prior to recording.

No recording engineer will be permitted within 1000 miles of the building, their input being deemed inadmissable and redundant. The same single stereo recording device will be utilised, solely operating on Hyper-DVD-Ultra-SACD-Blue-Mega-Ray-28squillionhertz-format.


Postscript:


Only Permitted Listeners will be allowed to purchase the finished recordings. These will be chosen post interview by the Committee For The Correct Way To Listen, meeting in quorate.

Before being submitted to interview, the listener must be proposed and seconded, thirded and fourthed by a quorate meeting of Permitted Listeners who shall only number three at any given century.

Prior to the quorate meeting of the Permitted Listeners Three, the prospective listener shall have his High-Fidelity equipment and location thoroughly inspected, have a full aural examination, and a quorate meeting of the Committee For High-Fidelity-no-Radio-Shack-it's-nasty-thankyou-very-much Equipment Inspectors will debate the apposite nature of the prospective listener's provision for audio transmission.




What utter, utter, utter, and I use this word with some enthusiasm, BALDERDASH.

I shudder as much at the audiophile as I do with someone who buys a Supermarket Boombox.

I don't buy VSO CD's to listen to the Konzerthaus, I buy it to hear how the conductor and each and every performer has contributed to an interpretation of a body of work. I have sung Handel's Zadok at 120bpm as many times as I have sung it at 80. I have performed Queen's Somebody to Love as a dirge and as a joyful exhortation.

Yes there are some terrible recordings out there, some of which I am sure were overseen by people on these very forums. There are also some of the most sublime works ever captured, overseen by the same people. They're not going to get it right each and every time. If I don't like the recording, I'm just as likely to not buy, or bin, the CD just the same way as I will despise an interpretation of a work that differs from my own thoughts on how it should be done.

I thought Pavarotti in the mid-70s was heaven-sent. I thought Pavarotti from the mid-80s onwards was so appalling the man should have been put out of his misery. However, the PAYING public only caught on to who and what he was, and how HE interpreted the works in the later stages of his career, a time when I couldn't abide the man. Does that make me right and them wrong? Don't be ridiculous.

The next time you denigrate a work, think a little further as to who's fault it is:

The engineer, for doing what he was told?
The producer, for letting the engineer do something wild?
The conductor, for not leading well enough?
The second trombone, for playing a trombone?
The paying public, for being so obsequiously led as to think it's worth buying?
You, for having a different opinion on how that work should have been performed/recorded/produced/played?

To single out The Engineer for all blame is utterly ludicrous. There are so many factors involved. Returning to myself, I have one person, and one person only to satisfy: The Client. If they're happy, I get paid, and they're happy if the work sells. Then they make money, and come back to me for the next one. Are a million listeners / watchers / buyers wrong because they like something I did which happened to use consecutive fifths? I think not. They liked what they heard, and they bought it.

To stand on a pedestal and decry the state of an industry with the single aim of putting thousand upon thousand of musicians, composers, conductors, engineers, teaboys and accountants out of work as it doesn't fit your exacting requirements, and ignore the appellations of the masses for works interpreted, performed and produced to their accepted high standards is arrogant at best, and self-deception at worse.

Here endeth the rant. I return now past Cerberus to the Pit of Hades from whence I came.

Quote Alex K:

---

There's a very thoroughly discussed thread on perfect pitch here

---

Cheers, I remember that one now!

--------------------
www.mikeandersonmusic.co.uk

Quote redleicester:

---

Good Morning, may I be so..... ad infinitum ......return now past Cerberus to the Pit of Hades from whence I came.

---

Slow day today Red?