The Tyranny of Pop Music

[NatBalance]

I am just now catching up with this week's Lunchtime Concerts, and with my sensibilities sharpened by this thread, I can say that while the players sound much as I imagine they would if I were listening from a good seat in the auditorium, the presenter is practically sitting on my shoulder (which might not be so irritating if it wasn't Katie Derham).

That's interesting Jean, although being a predictable fella I can't say that the thought of Katie Derham sitting on my shoulder is an irritating one :)

Went to see the new Bond Movie last night.

It was great but totally ruined by being out of scale.
Before it started there was an advert for a mobile phone and I could swear that it was at least 8ft tall on the screen, how 'unnatural' is that? What sort of size kecks do they think we have?

Ha ha, good try Gongers. Well, there are many reasons why the same policy would not work on film i.e. everything filmed from the same distance, but I cannot think of one good musical reason why it should be any other way for audio, any audio e.g. adverts / continuity announcer volume aswell. Unless, as I have stated many times before, unless an effect is wanted, such as Holst wanting a distant choir in Neptune.

[ahinton]

That's interesting Jean, although being a predictable fella I can't say that the thought of Katie Derham sitting on my shoulder is an irritating one

I don't know about predictability in this context, but the thought of this has no appeal for me and the actuality would have less although, that said, the source of the real irritation is the verbal content that she is wont to spout forth rather than anything to do with shoulders or being seated; in other words, it would be no less irritating wherever she might be sitting at the time.

[doversoul1]

Dear NatBalance
Before you start on full swing for the new week, would you mind telling me which of these has a typo?

Originally Posted by NatBalance
The problem is that radio broadcasting replicate all the different audio items at different 'scales'. A model railway keeps everything the same scale, a toy railway is not that bothered about accurate scales.

NatBalance
It's like looking at a model railway where every item on it is at a different scale, a car is at a bigger scale than a locomotive, making the car the same size as the locomotive

Thank you
ds

[jean]

I'm assuming that the it's like... in the second quote from Natbalance implies a conditional - model railways (as opposed to toy railways) aren't like this, but if they were, this is what you'd see.

(Can't you provide a proper reference to the post you're quoting?)

[NatBalance]

Dear NatBalance
Before you start on full swing for the new week, would you mind telling me which of these has a typo?

Yes I was puzzled by your question "Which shall we pick?". There is no typo. Sorry, I thought you understood the model railway analogy.

The first one …

"The problem is that radio broadcasting replicate all the different audio items at different 'scales'. A model railway keeps everything the same scale, a toy railway is not that bothered about accurate scales"

…. states that radio broadcasts all the different audio items so that they sound different distances, comparing it to a model railway that has every item at a different scale e.g. a locomotive a smaller scale than a car (in effect making them look different distances). The second sentence states that that is not how a model railway works. A model railway tries to replicate the real world accurately, therefore everything has to be the same scale e.g. a locomotive has to be the same scale as a car, which means that the car will of course be smaller than the locomotive (standard gauge locomotive that is, as opposed to a narrow guage or miniature gauge locomotive). It also states that that is not the case with a toy railway. Anything goes with a toy train set, a car could be the same size as a locomotive, the people could even be the same size as a locomotive. I think radio should broadcast everything the same 'scale' relative to each other (within reason) e.g. just as a locomotive is bigger than a car so should an orchestra be louder than a string quartet or folk group.

The second one ….

"It's like looking at a model railway where every item on it is at a different scale, a car is at a bigger scale than a locomotive, making the car the same size as the locomotive"

…. is just stating that listening to the present radio situation with volumes e.g. string quartet (at forte) virtually the same volume as an orchestra (at forte) is like looking at a model railway where every item is a different scale e.g. car same size as locomotive or house or cathedral …. whatever.

[doversoul1]

Model, toy or real. I am getting off this train. There is a limit to how long one can try to engage seriously. I wish you good luck.

[Bryn]

The 'clarification' does seem but to add more clay, and even silt, to the lute (no, not the kind you should not play to a cow, the potty kind).

[MrGongGong]

but I cannot think of one good musical reason why it should be any other way for audio,

I can think of lots, why inflict your lack of imagination on other people?

Unless, as I have stated many times before, unless an effect is wanted, such as Holst wanting a distant choir in Neptune.

I might be wrong here but I don't think you've written much music?

It's ALL an effect

Here are a few i've used recently (i'm sure Mr Hinton and others could also supply you with an endless list)

A transformation from a chromatic cluster via wholetone brass chord to high strings playing material using Messiaen's "Mode 5".
A major key melody that's joined by a funky bassline played by a bass clarinet then added to by a semiquaver pulsing viola
A random small bells played by members of the choir at the end of each verse.
A recording of an oyster fisherman combined with synthesised low frequency sine waves.

and so on and so on etc etc

MUSIC is ALL composed of "effects".

[NatBalance]

It's ALL an effect

OK, unless you don't want something to be front stage.

[Bryn]

OK, unless you don't want something to be front stage.

No, even musique d'ameublement is all about effect.

[MrGongGong]

OK, unless you don't want something to be front stage.

That's "an effect" as well.

You seem to have the idea that there is some kind of "normal" which is only deviated from in unusual situations.
Even if one was writing a string quartet for the Wigmore Hall I doubt many composers would think about it in that way.

[doversoul1]

I'm assuming that the it's like... in the second quote from Natbalance implies a conditional - model railways (as opposed to toy railways) aren't like this, but if they were, this is what you'd see.

(Can't you provide a proper reference to the post you're quoting?)

#498
I am refering to ratios not quality. It's like looking at a model railway where every item on it is at a different scale, a car is at a bigger scale than a locomotive, making the car the same size as the locomotive (analogous to making a string quartet same volume as an orchestra).

#528
The problem is that radio broadcasting replicate all the different audio items at different 'scales'. A model railway keeps everything the same scale, a toy railway is not that bothered about accurate scales.
(my emphasis)


I should have put the quotes the other way round.

[jean]

You seem to have the idea that there is some kind of "normal" which is only deviated from in unusual situations.

It's clear to me that there are particular effects which are different from what you would hear from a group of musicians on a stage in front of you.

Even if one was writing a string quartet for the Wigmore Hall I doubt many composers would think about it in that way.

No. But perhaps they have an idea of how they'd like the audience to hear their music, and are rather dismayed to learn that instead of the Wigmore Hall it's going to be played in Westminster Abbey?

And if it's going to be broadcast from there, they might want to have a serious discussion with the sound engineers beforehand.

[MrGongGong]

It's clear to me that there are particular effects which are different from what you would hear from a group of musicians on a stage in front of you.

Of course, but (Gabrielli knew this stuff more than me) it's hardly "new" or "unusual".

No. But perhaps they have an idea of how they'd like the audience to hear their music, and are rather dismayed to learn that instead of the Wigmore Hall it's going to be played in Westminster Abbey?

If you don't want your music to be heard in that acoustic then don't let it happen. It really is that simple

And if it's going to be broadcast from there, they might want to have a serious discussion with the sound engineers beforehand.

And ask them to make Westminster Abbey sound like your front room?
WHY on earth would you want (or think that it is worth doing) to do that?

Context innit

and anyway why are we (and my hand is up) indulging Natty in his quest in this discussion anyway? There was one about this before that faded away......?

Tilt Shift lenses are the work of Satan?

[jean]

I should have put the quotes the other way round.

Thank you. That certainly didn't help.

You have also missed out much of the intervening discussion, and now that I've traced it, I can see that I was right to surmise

I'm assuming that the 'it's like...' in the second quote from Natbalance implies a conditional - model railways (as opposed to toy railways) aren't like this, but if they were, this is what you'd see.

Here is the first appearance of the model railway:

It's like looking at a model railway where every item on it is at a different scale, a car is at a bigger scale than a locomotive, making the car the same size as the locomotive (analogous to making a string quartet same volume as an orchestra).

Note the absence of a comma after railway. It is crucial. If it were present, as in It's like looking at a model railway, where every item on it is at a different scale we would have a defining relative clause - that's what model railways are like. But without it, difference of scale is only a characteristic of this less than adequate example of the genre. See here.

You picked up the reference as though there'd been a comma:

Your model railway analogy is actually quite good. Why do you think the engine and the car, or maybe a level crossing, a few cows and sheep along the railway are reduced in size in the ‘wrong’ ratio? Are the people who made them too stupid to understand the concept of ratio? No, they are made that way so that they serve the purpose: children (or adults for that matter) can play with them. They are not for studying railway engines.

NatBalance realised the mistake, but (crucially!) didn't fully explain what had gone wrong:

No, I think you are describing a toy train set. A model railway tries to replicate the real world as accurately as possible.

The discussion continued:

I have deleted the model railway bit, as I’ve found out more about model railways. I have reposted on the matter #525 (or somewhere about).

Whether it is a toy or a model, it works in the same principle. As I said before, music played on the radio is meant to be listened to on the radio, in the same way as a toy railway is to be played with and a model to be looked at.

You say on the same principle but then go on to make clear that you believe there are two different principles at work, in the case of the model and toy railways, at any rate.