What I've learned today

[oddoneout]

Sorry if you found any of my references confusing. When I refer to "10 o'clock" on a volume control I mean the position the rotary control would be in on a clock face - i.e. where the 10 is on a watch or clock. So 12 o'clock in my examples is right at the top, 8 o'clock very low down on the left, etc....
So if the level is already pretty loud at 9 o'clock, you haven't got much leeway!

(Makes you recall Satie on the Debussy La Mer, but lets not overcomplicate things! )

We probably have the film This is Spinal Tap to thank for the concept of peak volume being "11". (Which on a clock face would be 5 o'clock). For BBC Sounds etc to adopt it on the online control is an amusing homage to that, I guess. And why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

https://www.google.com/search?q=Turn...w=1252&bih=706

Not so much your reply being confusing as me doubting myself (as #58); most of the technical stuff goes right over my head, not least because I don't have anything like that myself, so when I think I have got the right idea I'm reluctant to assume it's correct!

[LMcD]

Not so much your reply being confusing as me doubting myself (as #58); most of the technical stuff goes right over my head, not least because I don't have anything like that myself, so when I think I have got the right idea I'm reluctant to assume it's correct!

It goes right over my head, too, which is probably why I can't get my head round it. Most of my listening equipment is pretty LoFi, yet I manage to enjoy and even occasionally understand what I'm listening to.
(Stern note to self: Don't make jokes about things what you don't understand - or anything else for that matter!!!!!).

[Ein Heldenleben]

Sorry if you found any of my references confusing. When I refer to "10 o'clock" on a volume control I mean the position the rotary control would be in on a clock face - i.e. where the 10 is on a watch or clock. So 12 o'clock in my examples is right at the top, 8 o'clock very low down on the left, etc....
So if the level is already pretty loud at 9 o'clock, you haven't got much leeway!

(Makes you recall Satie on the Debussy La Mer, but lets not overcomplicate things! )

We probably have the film This is Spinal Tap to thank for the concept of peak volume being "11". (Which on a clock face would be 5 o'clock). For BBC Sounds etc to adopt it on the online control is an amusing homage to that, I guess. And why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

https://www.google.com/search?q=Turn...w=1252&bih=706

Which got me thinking what do the 1 to 10 notches on a rotary volume control correspond to . On my amp with a reference piece of compressed rock music : Dedicated to the One I love by the mamas and papas

At one metre from speakers

1 - music virtually inaudible 30dba
2 music quiet with peaks of 37 dba
3 music comfortable listening level peaks 45dba
4 music loud (borderline others complaining ) 65 dba
5 music very loud - didn’t go there but I know this is around the 85dba level

All of which makes me wonder what 6 - 10 are for ? In case I want to run a disco ?

Technical note -db is a decimal a measure of sound pressure or loudness . A 10 db increase is the equivalent of a 10 fold increase in loudness
The a in dba refers to an adjustment or weighting given to the measuring device to allow for the fact that we hear mid range frequencies better than low or high ones. This gives a truer reflection of loudness as it will appear to the human ear rather than a measuring device.

[Beresford]

Does your comment about sewing machines also apply to Singers of that era?

Strangely, no. (pun attenuation on maximum.) Perhaps their role in expressing the feeling of a piece meant they could not be too metronomic.

It still puzzles me that any score put through an old computer player, so the pitch and duration of the notes is correct, sounds dead or sterile. So "notes inégales" and other dynamic variations seem to be absolutely necessary for us to experience music the way we do. Hardly anyone has a problem with this, but I have never seen an explanation of why it should be so.

[Richard Barrett]

It still puzzles me that any score put through an old computer player, so the pitch and duration of the notes is correct, sounds dead or sterile. So "notes inégales" and other dynamic variations seem to be absolutely necessary for us to experience music the way we do. Hardly anyone has a problem with this, but I have never seen an explanation of why it should be so.

There's actually quite a body of academic work on this subject, although to my knowledge no convincing connections have been made between the type and degree of "microtiming deviation" and a perception of musicality in the rhythm. Indeed, whether something sounds "dead or sterile" on one hand or rhythmically alive on the other is something that varies between individuals, including (but not limited to) variations due to their coming from different backgrounds, cultures and so on.

If I were to stick my neck out I would say that for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years people have been accustomed to the never-quite-precise rhythms of their environment and bodies and of course their music, whereas the precision of machinery has only existed for a few hundred years and the greater precision of digital devices for a much shorter time, which might explain why the latter phenomena feel "unnatural" to many people. When it comes to "notes inégales" I think we're responding (mostly subconsciously) to very subtle relationships between timing, harmonic rhythm, melodic contour and all the other things that go to make up musical expression, sensitivity to which is enhanced of course by more intimate acquaintance with the music in question.

[Quarky]

For me, knowing little about music theory, hearing notes inégales (without knowing quite what was going on) was one of the things that rescued Bach performances, and others, from the sewing machine style delivery that was common in the 1950's and 60's. Another major thing of course was Baroque instruments, with gut strings.

Apologies for breaking in to this erudite discussion, but I strongly felt on more than one occasion that Glenn Gould was guilty of this, his playing resembling a mechanical fairground organ.

But who knows, maybe that's the way JSB actually performed his music?

[Dave2002]

It still puzzles me that any score put through an old computer player, so the pitch and duration of the notes is correct, sounds dead or sterile. So "notes inégales" and other dynamic variations seem to be absolutely necessary for us to experience music the way we do. Hardly anyone has a problem with this, but I have never seen an explanation of why it should be so.

I think it depends on context.
I know of one conductor who refuses to coduct ballet orchestras because he comments that dancers want very steady rhythms which totally kills the music - giving the metronomic effect mentioned here.
Marching bands might have a problem if the band masters decided to vary the pace up and down quite a bit - not sure that rubato works in those contexts.
On the other hand in opera there can be great liberties taken - arguably to good effect.

[Serial_Apologist]

There's actually quite a body of academic work on this subject, although to my knowledge no convincing connections have been made between the type and degree of "microtiming deviation" and a perception of musicality in the rhythm. Indeed, whether something sounds "dead or sterile" on one hand or rhythmically alive on the other is something that varies between individuals, including (but not limited to) variations due to their coming from different backgrounds, cultures and so on.

If I were to stick my neck out I would say that for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years people have been accustomed to the never-quite-precise rhythms of their environment and bodies and of course their music, whereas the precision of machinery has only existed for a few hundred years and the greater precision of digital devices for a much shorter time, which might explain why the latter phenomena feel "unnatural" to many people. When it comes to "notes inégales" I think we're responding (mostly subconsciously) to very subtle relationships between timing, harmonic rhythm, melodic contour and all the other things that go to make up musical expression, sensitivity to which is enhanced of course by more intimate acquaintance with the music in question.

That really sums it all up nicely for me - I had not previously considered our habituation to our own imprecise body rhythms, which would include our mother's heartbeats in the womb. There was once some sort of research into classical pianists' precision vis-à-vis "the beat", and if I remember correctly it was found that none of the personalities in the venture demonstrated precision - each and every one either pre-empting or fractionally delaying. Admittedly I was surprised, remembering the puritanical insistence on the metronome when I was doing my piano exercises as a child, and always assuming off-the-beat playing to be the very essence of "swing" in jazz, but certainly not characteristic of classical performance.