The Tyranny of Pop Music

[P. G. Tipps]

Because it is. Simples. But that's not really the point here, methinks.

.
Sorry, just saying 'because it is. Simples.' is hardly a convincing answer ahinton. And the point was entirely my own to make!

And, in case YOU hadn't noticed, there are still quite a few live music performances still happening!

Indeed. The 21st Century doesn't exactly preclude those, ahinton ...

The point here, though, is that there is an inevitable difference between a live performances and a recorded one which it seems one member here is reluctant to grasp.

That indeed may be your point but it certainly has little to do with mine! Of course there are differences between live and quality recorded listening but is one necessarily better than the other? There are advantages and disadvantages with both.

[Bryn]

... A recording is what it says it is - in other words, a copy of the real thing; that's not a criticism thereof - what else could it be?

Indeed:

[gradus]

'Quad ....for the closest approach to the original sound'
I think that was their slogan and their products from 50 years ago still sound good.

[Lat-Literal]

My basic point is plain and simple and my flabber is absolutely gasted that folk do not understand it. All audio items have destinctive sound waves that have a certain shape and a certain range of amplitudes and we all know that a jet is louder than a scooter (at full volume - I have to keep saying that otherwise MrGG will give an example of a scooter being louder than a jet), a lion can out-volume a chicken, an orchestra can out-volume a string quartet. These are basics. Why are they not reproduced on radio, TV, recordings, as accurately as is possible and comfortable just as the shape of a sound wave is reproduced as accurately as is possible and comfortable, bearing in mind AHinton's comments as to absolute accuracy in #372?

UNLESS …… a special effect is required.

A Lion Can Out-Volume a Chicken.

It has to be the Gabriel era rather than the Collins one and A Nod's as Good as a Wink To a Blind Horse. I don't get this thread now. I just don't get it. It has travelled further than any Letter from America. All volume is bombast - and I am guilty of it myself, although in an ever so cutesy kind of way or so I like to think and no one frankly will convince me otherwise. But there is volume and volume. Volume as in loudness rather than amount is a big statement of often unintended clout. It is rapid and can't see beyond its own navel. Amount, I guess, is an unintended grinding down against the odds although I am sure in most instances the intention is to delight. What strikes me is that punk rock was always tinny compared with the 1812. Any moderation of sound on BBC Radio 3 is the BBC's subtle veneer. The 1812 impulse is strictly in the boardrooms where all policy is dictated.

Incidentally, I was considering putting forward the argument that bombast is an exclusively male trait, especially in music terms, but also that it is essentially no different from the female version of it which might well be described as digging the heels in. But then I decided against it on the basis I don't believe really in such distinctions even when qualified.

In short - and if I knew I may well agree with you - what is your key point on the "tyranny" of "pop" music? Not that I would wish to encourage precis if it had a comfortable title!

[NatBalance]

What strikes me is that punk rock was always tinny compared with the 1812. Any moderation of sound on BBC Radio 3 is the BBC's subtle veneer. The 1812 impulse is strictly in the boardrooms where all policy is dictated.

Funny you should mention the 1812, we had that on our last show couple of weeks ago which is still there at about 9 minutes in if you want to hear what I mean by a more natural volume balance:-

http://www.calonfm.com/105fm/?page_id=28681

No doubt there will be comments about the quality but I'm learning. At least I can't be accused of turning the 1812 into piped music :)

[Lat-Literal]

Funny you should mention the 1812, we had that on our last show couple of weeks ago which is still there at about 9 minutes in if you want to hear what I mean by a more natural volume balance:-

http://www.calonfm.com/105fm/?page_id=28681

No doubt there will be comments about the quality but I'm learning. At least I can't be accused of turning the 1812 into piped music :)

I'm sorry but I've only just recovered from Nicola Sturgeon on DID referring to Labi Siffre as Labi Siffra.

Also, she should have chosen this one if she was going to choose one by him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DuWOMqc9-M

[ahinton]

I'm sorry but I've only just recovered from Nicola Sturgeon on DID referring to Labi Siffre as Labi Siffra.

At least she didn't call him Cziffra...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I suppose some people might be put off this thread by the title, thinking it must be about Simon Cowell.

[MrGongGong]

You keep mentioning this but I do not see the relevance at all. Isn't a main objective of recording techniques to try to reproduce the natural sound, unless of course you want a special effect?

It's ALL a "special effect" that's one of the things music is
and NO the main objective isn't necessarily to reproduce what YOU seem to regard as "natural" sound

Don't you want recorded sound to sound like the real thing?

Remember you're a Womble?

It is the "real" thing
It's a REAL RECORDING

FFS

My basic point is plain and simple and my flabber is absolutely gasted that folk do not understand it. All audio items have destinctive sound waves that have a certain shape and a certain range of amplitudes and we all know that a jet is louder than a scooter (at full volume - I have to keep saying that otherwise MrGG will give an example of a scooter being louder than a jet), a lion can out-volume a chicken, an orchestra can out-volume a string quartet. These are basics. Why are they not reproduced on radio, TV, recordings, as accurately as is possible and comfortable just as the shape of a sound wave is reproduced as accurately as is possible and comfortable, bearing in mind AHinton's comments as to absolute accuracy in #372?

UNLESS …… a special effect is required.

It's ALL a "special effect"

Why do we assume that 'live' is best?
:

For what?

I can think of lots of musics that are more interesting as recordings.

Today I went to a very large religious building and the choir sang some music I co-wrote
Then I went to a long rehearsal for a performance tomorrow that i'm not doing in person but have made a pile of pre-recorded parts for and worked with technicians to get them to work with the instruments that will be played live
as far as I can grasp ALL of these things were "REAL" , my recordings are real electroacoustic music, the choir was real, the musicians were real (we had some real coffee and I had some real halloumi in my salad) and it was a real long journey home
I recorded the choir piece, even though I used a fairly expensive high end machine it won't sound the same as being in the same space as the singers, why would I imagine it could?

A recording is what it says it is - in other words, a copy of the real thing; that's not a criticism thereof - what else could it be?

I disagree with this.
A recording IS a real thing, it's not a copy
The painting of the pipe is useless if you want to smoke it
it has a different existence

[P. G. Tipps]

I disagree with this.
A recording IS a real thing, it's not a copy
The painting of the pipe is useless if you want to smoke it
it has a different existence

No, though you are absolutely correct to point out that the painting of the pipe has a different existence from the pipe itself and both are realities, the former is not entirely useless if one can imagine one is smoking that pipe. The human mind is an amazing thing, you know. Assuming one is not incontinent one's reality may be that a visit to the toilet is due but one can imagine it is not and postpone that reality and that new state becomes the reality, however temporary. I'm sure the celebrated Professor Scruton could explain it far better than I, Mr GG.

However, I do agree that such a 'virtual reality' can have some very personal limits. I would have some very serious worries and concerns at attempting to imagine myself as Ms Nicola Sturgeon appearing on Desert Island Discs, for example. That might be simply much, much too awful to contemplate becoming the reality in my then clearly fevered imagination ...

[ahinton]

Sorry, just saying 'because it is. Simples.' is hardly a convincing answer ahinton. And the point was entirely my own to make!

...and mine to respond to; what I wrote was an honest expression of my view and is analagous to drawing attention to a comparison between an original and a photocopy. It's by no means only my view, incidentally!

That indeed may be your point but it certainly has little to do with mine! Of course there are differences between live and quality recorded listening but is one necessarily better than the other? There are advantages and disadvantages with both.

I don't think that such value judgements are what brought this issue into focus here anyway.

[ahinton]

Indeed:

It was only a matter of time; I'm just surprised at how much time!...

[NatBalance]

It's ALL a "special effect"

A poor excuse for dumbing down volumes

[MrGongGong]

A poor excuse for dumbing down volumes

But (as has been pointed out countless times) this isn't what is happening
and anyway how on earth can one "dumb down" (other cliches are available) volumes in the first place?

I suspect you really haven't bothered to read anything that disagrees with your misunderstandings.

So (AGAIN)
What makes you think that there is something "natural" about a recording?

[P. G. Tipps]

So (AGAIN)
What makes you think that there is something "natural" about a recording?

And what is 'natural' about electronic music composition or any musical instrument, for that matter?