Subject: TROMBONE-L Digest - 5 Feb 2003 to 6 Feb 2003 (#2003-37) Date: Friday, February 7, 2003 12:00 AM From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: "Trombones and related issues forum." To: Recipients of TROMBONE-L digests There are 22 messages totalling 1184 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Van Haney Bass Trombone Competition 2. live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway (15) 3. ETW march 20-22 (2) 4. Wednesday Humor - Gilbert & Sullivan (2) 5. Mouthpieces for Sale! 6. Berlioz, Medicine and Writing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:06:56 -0800 From: Joshua Brown Subject: Van Haney Bass Trombone Competition Hi all, Due to an insufficient number of applications for the 2003 Van Haney Philharmonic Prize Bass Trombone Competition, the Competitions Advisory Committee has decided to recommend a deadline extension until March 15, 2003. For more information, please visit the ITA website: http://www.trombone.net/competitions/ Joshua Brown ITA Webmaster http://www.trombone.net/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:50:31 -0500 From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Subject: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Quoting: It just seems like your trying to hard to find the negative here. We agree...don't we? It doesn't have to be so difficult. Sometimes you see a dissappointing show. So what?! How many bad cd's have you bought? Probably more than the number of bad shows you've seen. That's just a guess. David Gibson End Quote I'll answer that for the OP because his point is a direct extension of my post. He pointed out that there are a number of factors that contribute to either the experience of listening to live or recorded music beyond just the actual sound quality, which itself can often be compromised badly in a live setting. Even those of us who consider ourselves musicians don't always choose live over recorded. This may be heretical but probably on most occasions the perceived superiority of live is due to our internal state, not to what actually happens. It is caused by a combination of our expectations, our greatly increased concentration and attention, our purposeful choice to be there, the cognitive dissonance of spending a lot of cash on tickets, the snob factor of knowing we appreciate the right stuff , etc. All part of our complex internal psychological state - and all reproducable just as well with a CD in a comfortable recliner at home, with a little effort. But we don't, you say? I think some do, and some teach themselves to. Maybe that's something I need to work on. What that analysis leaves out is the interaction between performer and audience, and I believe that is a very real factor that CAN'T be reproduced at home. But it's also not a given, and on any particular night live it may be a very minor factor or absent entirely. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:18:25 -0500 From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Subject: ETW march 20-22 I went to the ETW web site yesterday to check the dates. I try to play the St Patrick's Day parade in Alexandria, VA with the Notre Dame Alumni band each year, but sometimes it conflicts with ETW. I found out ETW is 20 - 22 March, later than the parade, so no problem. Then I checked the schedule of events. Hmh, Mark Lawrence, Jim Pugh, looking good, and - hey! here's our own Sam Burtis doing a presentation on J&K. That's one I'll be careful not to miss. Maybe I'll see some of you there. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:06:01 -0500 From: RICHARD ONOFREY JR Subject: Re: Wednesday Humor - Gilbert & Sullivan Chris's humor reminded me of an oldie, but a goodie: There were once two brothers, Sam and John Fran. John lived a saintly existence, and, on his death processed directly through the pearly gates. Sam, on the other hand, never did anyone a good turn, was never successful at anything, and, on his death, went straight to Hell. Well, after a few millennia, Sam got a little bored. So, he approached Satan with an idea. "Satan, it's a little slow down here, so I thought to liven the place up a bit, that I would open up a club, and we'd have drinks, and music and dancing." Well, Satan gave Sam the go ahead, and his club was a huge success. After some time, Sam got word to his brother John about his endeavor, and John asked St. Peter if he could go to Hell to check out his brothers club. St. Peter told him that it was ok, as long as he was back by midnight, since that was the time that they locked the Pearly Gates, and if he did not return he would be banned from heaven forever. Well, John had a great time at his brother's club. But, upon the stroke of midnight, he teleported himself back to heaven and strode through the pearly gates just as they were being locked. St. Peter was there to greet him, and asked how his time in Hell was. John replied that he had had a great time, and that his brother's club was a huge success. At that point, St. Peter noticed that John was missing his harp, so he asked John about it. To which John replied, "Oh no, I Left My Harp in Sam Fran's Disco!" Rick Onofrey Westfield, MA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:23:53 -0400 From: sabutin Subject: Re: ETW march 20-22 Richard wrote: >I went to the ETW web site yesterday to check the dates. I try to play the >St Patrick's Day parade in Alexandria, VA with the Notre Dame Alumni band >each year, but sometimes it conflicts with ETW. I found out ETW is 20 - 22 >March, later than the parade, so no problem. > >Then I checked the schedule of events. Hmh, Mark Lawrence, Jim Pugh, >looking good, and - hey! here's our own Sam Burtis doing a presentation on >J&K. That's one I'll be careful not to miss. Maybe I'll see some of you >there. =========== Actually it's not a presentation, it's a concert w/Noah Bless, a wonderful player from NYC (wait until you hear THIS guy!!!) and the Army Blues rhythm section. Pieces from J.J. + Kai's two trombones + rhythm section records plus, if I have the time, a couple of things I have written. See you there... Sam -- (Sam Burtis, author of "The American Trombone" and proud proprietor of The Trombone Store in NYC, featuring only the finest new and used lower brass instruments and accessories. Visit us on the web at [still under construction], email us at , or call us at [718] 796-4413. By appointment only.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:24:00 -0500 From: DSlide13@AOL.COM Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway In a message dated 2/6/2003 7:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL writes: > This may be heretical but probably on most > occasions the perceived superiority of live is due to our internal state, > not to what actually happens. Right, and that internal state is why people choose either to play or to listen to music in the first place. People aren't drawn to performing because they're intrigued by the way a player uses the flatted fifth. Somewhere along the way, they heard someone play live, (in elementary school, at the library, etc...) and they experienced that "internal state". I believe the same goes for audiences. We're really putting the cart before the horse with all of our technical preferences, concerns and such. I believe the "internal state" you mentioned is more important than anything else. And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what are we discussing this for? Recordings, in my opinion, tend to remind us of what it felt to be at a live show. It's the energy, but in a much diluted form. I remember when I was a freshman in college, I had very little experience seeing live music. I went to see Clark Terry, and I was floored. I was in tears most of the set. It was overwhelming. I had been eating TV dinners for years, and suddenly I had a gourmet meal prepared by one of the finest chefs in the world. (that's a metaphor, folks) > What that analysis leaves out is the interaction between performer and > audience, and I believe that is a very real factor that CAN'T be reproduced > at home. But it's also not a given, and on any particular > night live it may > be a very minor factor or absent entirely. I refer to my earlier post and say, "Sometimes you see a dissappointing show. So what?! How many bad cd's have you bought? Probably more than the number of bad shows you've seen. That's just a guess." Good talk, Rusty. David Gibson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:18:40 -0600 From: "D.J. Kennedy" Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway the people the smell /the action sneezing the hairdos the mood ofthe moment the hot chick in the third row the greaseball in the bathroom parking -squeeky seat ---smoking outside --- bustle backstage the eye contact the eye contact the eye contact a greater appreciation for humanity and humility of our own selves lost for a few moments ----------------------- listening to old lps and poets in quietude that is good too ------------------------ but sitting next to ferlinghetti on the floor while ginsberg chants .............................. --------- i have done lots of sketches ///////drawings at live scenes ========= recordings can be perfected ----but live is being and nothingness the kiss of the moment when debbie reynolds came down and put her hand on my shoulder richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL wrote: > Quoting: > It just seems like your trying to hard to find the negative here. We > agree...don't we? It doesn't have to be so difficult. Sometimes you see a > dissappointing show. So what?! How many bad cd's have you bought? > Probably more than the number of bad shows you've seen. That's just a > guess. > > David Gibson > End Quote > > I'll answer that for the OP because his point is a direct extension of my > post. He pointed out that there are a number of factors that contribute to > either the experience of listening to live or recorded music beyond just the > actual sound quality, which itself can often be compromised badly in a live > setting. Even those of us who consider ourselves musicians don't always > choose live over recorded. This may be heretical but probably on most > occasions the perceived superiority of live is due to our internal state, > not to what actually happens. It is caused by a combination of our > expectations, our greatly increased concentration and attention, our > purposeful choice to be there, the cognitive dissonance of spending a lot of > cash on tickets, the snob factor of knowing we appreciate the right stuff > , etc. All part of our complex internal psychological state - and all > reproducable just as well with a CD in a comfortable recliner at home, with > a little effort. But we don't, you say? I think some do, and some teach > themselves to. Maybe that's something I need to work on. > > What that analysis leaves out is the interaction between performer and > audience, and I believe that is a very real factor that CAN'T be reproduced > at home. But it's also not a given, and on any particular night live it may > be a very minor factor or absent entirely. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:47:45 -0500 From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Quoting, "And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what are we discussing this for?" End quote. I agree that it is uncommon to reproduce this on recordings but don't agree it is impossible. We don't often do direct listening. Neither the live performance nor a recording forces our reaction - ultimately we choose how we are going to react. If I throw on a CD when I get home tonight, with the kids doing homework in front of the blaring TV, my wife banging dishes in the kitchen, the ducks Diamond and Brighteyes quacking, the guinea pig Peanuts squealing, and I do my taxes with the St Matthews Passion in the background, the chances of reproducing it are small. (all real examples except the homework - I mostly won't allow TV until after homework, and homework is never done in front of the TV) I think if we actually sat down determined to LISTEN to some music the difference between live and recorded would shrink to vanishingly small. But we don't. And it's hard, hard even live, much harder at home because we don't try. Much of the population has never had the experience either live or recorded, their attention is so diluted with constant background noise/music. That's why it can be hard to sell live music. But it survives because the percentage of people who will pay attention to live music is larger than the percentage who can learn to pay attention to recordings. When music is background in nature, and it usually is, then the advantages of live probably disappear, and the live music experience is positive only because of the fortuitous confluence of other factors. If you can't tell, since I've argued both sides of this, I am pro live music! But also trying to be pro active listening at least some of the time. -----Original Message----- From: DSlide13@aol.com [mailto:DSlide13@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:24 AM To: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL; TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: Re: [TBN-L] live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway In a message dated 2/6/2003 7:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL writes: > This may be heretical but probably on most > occasions the perceived superiority of live is due to our internal state, > not to what actually happens. Right, and that internal state is why people choose either to play or to listen to music in the first place. People aren't drawn to performing because they're intrigued by the way a player uses the flatted fifth. Somewhere along the way, they heard someone play live, (in elementary school, at the library, etc...) and they experienced that "internal state". I believe the same goes for audiences. We're really putting the cart before the horse with all of our technical preferences, concerns and such. I believe the "internal state" you mentioned is more important than anything else. And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what are we discussing this for? Recordings, in my opinion, tend to remind us of what it felt to be at a live show. It's the energy, but in a much diluted form. I remember when I was a freshman in college, I had very little experience seeing live music. I went to see Clark Terry, and I was floored. I was in tears most of the set. It was overwhelming. I had been eating TV dinners for years, and suddenly I had a gourmet meal prepared by one of the finest chefs in the world. (that's a metaphor, folks) > What that analysis leaves out is the interaction between performer and > audience, and I believe that is a very real factor that CAN'T be reproduced > at home. But it's also not a given, and on any particular > night live it may > be a very minor factor or absent entirely. I refer to my earlier post and say, "Sometimes you see a dissappointing show. So what?! How many bad cd's have you bought? Probably more than the number of bad shows you've seen. That's just a guess." Good talk, Rusty. David Gibson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:58:34 -0500 From: DSlide13@AOL.COM Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway In a message dated 2/6/2003 11:47:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL writes: > Quoting, "And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what > are we discussing this for?" End quote. > > I agree that it is uncommon to reproduce this on recordings but don't agree > it is impossible. We don't often do direct listening. Neither the live > performance nor a recording forces our reaction - ultimately we choose how > we are going to react. If I throw on a CD when I get home tonight, with the > kids doing homework in front of the blaring TV, my wife banging dishes in > the kitchen, the ducks Diamond and Brighteyes quacking, the guinea pig > Peanuts squealing, and I do my taxes with the St Matthews Passion in the > background, the chances of reproducing it are small. (all real examples > except the homework - I mostly won't allow TV until after homework, and > homework is never done in front of the TV) > > I think if we actually sat down determined to LISTEN to some music the > difference between live and recorded would shrink to vanishingly small. But > we don't. And it's hard, hard even live, much harder at home because we > don't try. > > Much of the population has never had the experience either live or recorded, > their attention is so diluted with constant background noise/music. That's > why it can be hard to sell live music. But it survives because the > percentage of people who will pay attention to live music is larger than the > percentage who can learn to pay attention to recordings. When music is > background in nature, and it usually is, then the advantages of live > probably disappear, and the live music experience is positive only because > of the fortuitous confluence of other factors. > > If you can't tell, since I've argued both sides of this, I am pro live > music! But also trying to be pro active listening at least > some of the > time. Whether or not you focus and listen directly to the music has to do with you and not with a recording or live band. Technology cannot make you participate any more than a performer can make you listen. The rub is that when you're listening in both situations, you miss the energy of live performance on the CD, whether you know it or not. DG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:15:28 -0500 From: "Avery, Ray (232)" Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway "Much of the population has never had the experience either live or recorded, their attention is so diluted with constant background noise/music." Mind if I jump in here? This statement may be at the root of our problem. Turn on the TV, how often is there NOT music in the background, whether it be a game show a drama or a comedy? In modern day businesses employees often have on a radio or a tape or Cd. Are they listening to talk radio? No, they are listening to music - as background to cover the humdrumness of their boring jobs or the clickyty clack of machinery. I have a CD player in my office and a collection of CD's including Mozart, Copland, Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, Bach, Wagner and others. If I'm playing one of them, usually in the afternoon, and someone walks in, invariably they call it elevator music. Not because it is "canned" but because of the style. They associate it with muzak - mere background music. Even in churches, we are guilty of using music for background. Music is used to cover up the dead space during when the offering is collected or when the choir leaves the choir stall. Music is used as white noise to cover up other extraneous noises or silence. Have you ever noticed how it seems when there is no background noise, like late at night in a small town or out in the country. No horns blaring, no trains, no cars/trucks, etc. Some people find that quietude strange or odd. Turn on the radio to provide interest. Why do people take radios to the beach when they could listen to the surf or the seagulls instead? In our society music is used so extensively as background that we have become inured to it. Ray Avery Director, Human Resources Harvard Custom Manufacturing, Inc. 607-687-7669 -----Original Message----- From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL [mailto:richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:48 AM To: TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: Re: [TBN-L] live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Quoting, "And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what are we discussing this for?" End quote. I agree that it is uncommon to reproduce this on recordings but don't agree it is impossible. We don't often do direct listening. Neither the live performance nor a recording forces our reaction - ultimately we choose how we are going to react. If I throw on a CD when I get home tonight, with the kids doing homework in front of the blaring TV, my wife banging dishes in the kitchen, the ducks Diamond and Brighteyes quacking, the guinea pig Peanuts squealing, and I do my taxes with the St Matthews Passion in the background, the chances of reproducing it are small. (all real examples except the homework - I mostly won't allow TV until after homework, and homework is never done in front of the TV) I think if we actually sat down determined to LISTEN to some music the difference between live and recorded would shrink to vanishingly small. But we don't. And it's hard, hard even live, much harder at home because we don't try. Much of the population has never had the experience either live or recorded, their attention is so diluted with constant background noise/music. That's why it can be hard to sell live music. But it survives because the percentage of people who will pay attention to live music is larger than the percentage who can learn to pay attention to recordings. When music is background in nature, and it usually is, then the advantages of live probably disappear, and the live music experience is positive only because of the fortuitous confluence of other factors. If you can't tell, since I've argued both sides of this, I am pro live music! But also trying to be pro active listening at least some of the time. -----Original Message----- From: DSlide13@aol.com [mailto:DSlide13@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:24 AM To: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL; TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: Re: [TBN-L] live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway In a message dated 2/6/2003 7:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL writes: > This may be heretical but probably on most > occasions the perceived superiority of live is due to our internal state, > not to what actually happens. Right, and that internal state is why people choose either to play or to listen to music in the first place. People aren't drawn to performing because they're intrigued by the way a player uses the flatted fifth. Somewhere along the way, they heard someone play live, (in elementary school, at the library, etc...) and they experienced that "internal state". I believe the same goes for audiences. We're really putting the cart before the horse with all of our technical preferences, concerns and such. I believe the "internal state" you mentioned is more important than anything else. And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what are we discussing this for? Recordings, in my opinion, tend to remind us of what it felt to be at a live show. It's the energy, but in a much diluted form. I remember when I was a freshman in college, I had very little experience seeing live music. I went to see Clark Terry, and I was floored. I was in tears most of the set. It was overwhelming. I had been eating TV dinners for years, and suddenly I had a gourmet meal prepared by one of the finest chefs in the world. (that's a metaphor, folks) > What that analysis leaves out is the interaction between performer and > audience, and I believe that is a very real factor that CAN'T be reproduced > at home. But it's also not a given, and on any particular > night live it may > be a very minor factor or absent entirely. I refer to my earlier post and say, "Sometimes you see a dissappointing show. So what?! How many bad cd's have you bought? Probably more than the number of bad shows you've seen. That's just a guess." Good talk, Rusty. David Gibson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:33:18 +0000 From: Walter Barrett Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but Avery, Ray (232) > > In our society music is used so extensively as background that we have > become inured to it. Ray- I thought you might like this quote from Zappa... Walter Barrett "The manner in which Americans ¸consume· music has a lot to do with leaving it on their coffee tables, or using it as wallpaper for their lifestyles, like the score of a movieÜit¶s consumed that way without any regard for how and why it¶s made." - Frank Zappa Yamaha Artist/Clinician Tenor, Alto, Bass Trombones Euphonium Bass Trumpet Tuba ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:46:29 -0500 From: "Avery, Ray (232)" Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Ah, yes. We "consume" music. We don't listen to it. Ray Avery Director, Human Resources Harvard Custom Manufacturing, Inc. 607-687-7669 -----Original Message----- From: Walter Barrett [mailto:wbarrett@bestweb.net] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:33 AM To: Avery, Ray (232); TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: Re: [TBN-L] live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but Avery, Ray (232) > > In our society music is used so extensively as background that we have > become inured to it. Ray- I thought you might like this quote from Zappa... Walter Barrett "The manner in which Americans ¸consume· music has a lot to do with leaving it on their coffee tables, or using it as wallpaper for their lifestyles, like the score of a movie Yamaha Artist/Clinician Tenor, Alto, Bass Trombones Euphonium Bass Trumpet Tuba ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:48:01 -0800 From: Gabriel Langfur Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway I think a lot of people are missing a big part of Sam's point, which was that the ACTUAL SOUND of an acoustic instrument or voice - in front of you - simply cannot be reproduced mechanically. Its impact is never the same, and I'll bet any recording engineer would agree, and admit that they are simply trying the best they know how to give as much of the live sound as they can. I have to agree with him here, even though I own and enjoy a lot of recordings. Listening to recorded music and listening to live music are inherently different experiences, and the best musicians and recording engineers realize this and treat their recordings as such - and they have any number of different attitudes and processes for them. At its best, recording is an art form all its own, and I think a truly great recording engineer is just as skilled as a great instrumentalist. The most convincing argument I've heard for analog over digital is that analog technology never completely divorces the sound waves from their inherent quality as physical waves - in every step of the process the sound is still read and produced by physical means. Digital technology converts the sound wave to something else, and then it has to be converted back. Whatever. I no longer own a phonograph either, and the CD player in my car is about 800% better than a cassette deck. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:48:20 +0000 From: Walter Barrett Subject: Re: Wednesday Humor - Gilbert & Sullivan Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but RICHARD ONOFREY JR > At that point, St. Peter noticed that John was missing his harp, so he > asked John about it. To which John replied, "Oh no, I Left My Harp in > Sam Fran's Disco!" > > > Rick Onofrey > Westfield, MA Rick- You probably know this one, so I'll just give the punchline... ...and Dale Evans says, "Pardon me Roy, is that the cat who ate your new shoes?" ;-) (That's almost as bad as when I introduced "When Sunny Gets Blue" as being the favorite song of Klaus von Bulow...) I'll stop now... Walter Barrett "Music is a beautiful opiate, if you don¶t take it too seriously." -Henry Miller Yamaha Artist/Clinician Tenor, Alto, Bass Trombones Euphonium Bass Trumpet Tuba ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:14:03 EST From: SteveInside@AOL.COM Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway In a message dated 06/02/03 18:51:30 GMT Standard Time, glangfur@YAHOO.COM writes: > I think a lot of people are missing a big part of Sam's > point, which was that the ACTUAL SOUND of an acoustic > instrument or voice > > I have to agree with him here, even though I own and enjoy > a lot of recordings. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And isn't that the point? I have a use for a CD player, but I have a love of music - no? Best, Steve C England ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:01:25 -0500 From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway I know it's belaboring the obvious - -but- that's what I said. -----Original Message----- From: D.J. Kennedy [mailto:djpens@midwest.net] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:19 PM To: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Cc: TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: Re: [TBN-L] live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway the people the smell /the action sneezing the hairdos the mood ofthe moment the hot chick in the third row the greaseball in the bathroom parking -squeeky seat ---smoking outside --- bustle backstage the eye contact the eye contact the eye contact a greater appreciation for humanity and humility of our own selves lost for a few moments ----------------------- listening to old lps and poets in quietude that is good too ------------------------ but sitting next to ferlinghetti on the floor while ginsberg chants .............................. --------- i have done lots of sketches ///////drawings at live scenes ========= recordings can be perfected ----but live is being and nothingness the kiss of the moment when debbie reynolds came down and put her hand on my shoulder richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL wrote: > Quoting: > It just seems like your trying to hard to find the negative here. We > agree...don't we? It doesn't have to be so difficult. Sometimes you see a > dissappointing show. So what?! How many bad cd's have you bought? > Probably more than the number of bad shows you've seen. That's just a > guess. > > David Gibson > End Quote > > I'll answer that for the OP because his point is a direct extension of my > post. He pointed out that there are a number of factors that contribute to > either the experience of listening to live or recorded music beyond just the > actual sound quality, which itself can often be compromised badly in a live > setting. Even those of us who consider ourselves musicians don't always > choose live over recorded. This may be heretical but probably on most > occasions the perceived superiority of live is due to our internal state, > not to what actually happens. It is caused by a combination of our > expectations, our greatly increased concentration and attention, our > purposeful choice to be there, the cognitive dissonance of spending a lot of > cash on tickets, the snob factor of knowing we appreciate the right stuff > , etc. All part of our complex internal psychological state - and all > reproducable just as well with a CD in a comfortable recliner at home, with > a little effort. But we don't, you say? I think some do, and some teach > themselves to. Maybe that's something I need to work on. > > What that analysis leaves out is the interaction between performer and > audience, and I believe that is a very real factor that CAN'T be reproduced > at home. But it's also not a given, and on any particular night live it may > be a very minor factor or absent entirely. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:29:53 -0500 From: David Buckley Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway One thing which has interested me in this discussion has been the stress by jazz oriented players of the experience of live jazz. In my experience jazz is much more enjoyable listening to a CD. On a CD there is a very good chance that the instruments are balanced and you can hear all the parts. You can adjust the volume to your own taste instead of having to suffer through the often insufferable amplification of live jazz. The only thing you miss is the visual and the visceral effect on your body of distorting amplification. Sounds likea good tradeoff to me. Having said that, a week ago I was at a concert by the Hamilton All Star Jazz Band, a group of young people who have been through the junior and senior all stars in high school and now are in the top group. This program, a part for many years of the Hamilton School System under the direction of Russ Weill, provides an outstanding experience for many young people. The All Stars have been invited back this year to Montreux because they do such a good job. Their conductor, Russ Weill, often controls the sound board himself or has someone he has trained. He is sensitive to the demands of the audience and the music and provides a most enjoyable jazz listening experience, whicg is more than I can say for most groups. Mics when necessary but not neccessarily mics, to paraphrase McKenzie King. Look up the historical reference. Dave Buckley. Gabriel Langfur wrote: > I think a lot of people are missing a big part of Sam's > point, which was that the ACTUAL SOUND of an acoustic > instrument or voice - in front of you - simply cannot be > reproduced mechanically. Its impact is never the same, and > I'll bet any recording engineer would agree, and admit that > they are simply trying the best they know how to give as > much of the live sound as they can. > > I have to agree with him here, even though I own and enjoy > a lot of recordings. Listening to recorded music and > listening to live music are inherently different > experiences, and the best musicians and recording engineers > realize this and treat their recordings as such - and they > have any number of different attitudes and processes for > them. At its best, recording is an art form all its own, > and I think a truly great recording engineer is just as > skilled as a great instrumentalist. > > The most convincing argument I've heard for analog over > digital is that analog technology never completely divorces > the sound waves from their inherent quality as physical > waves - in every step of the process the sound is still > read and produced by physical means. Digital technology > converts the sound wave to something else, and then it has > to be converted back. > > Whatever. I no longer own a phonograph either, and the CD > player in my car is about 800% better than a cassette deck. > > ===== > Gabe Langfur > Boston, MA > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:31:02 EST From: ALFORDMB@AOL.COM Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway In a message dated 2/6/2003 12:01:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL writes: > "And if it admittedly can't be reproduced on recordings, then what > are we discussing this for?" Seems to me everyone is saying some basic truths here but we haven't established common grounds for two things: A. what it is that is recorded, and B. the type of "live performance. Example: a recording of a classical symphony (either live in a concert hall, or otherwise in a "studio" style recording - i.e. no audience.) Difference between the two recordings is small and the difference between either recording and "live" might become very small for the person who concentrates and gets into the recording. I can do this with head phones better than with loudspeakers. Jazz on the other hand can involve a far greater degree of spontaneity resulting from audience/performer interaction. I have seen audiences pump jazz performers up and get a better show. That doesn't happen in the studio, although occasionally the ensemble can react to something a member does and get themselves pumped up. Most jazz perfromances I have been to there has been a direct relationship between performance and audience response, with both elements capable of influencing the other. It's the nature of jazz I guess. Whatever the explanation, I've never heard a jazz recording that was as "good" as a live in person performance, but I recognize that this is often only a conceptual thing on my part, even if the "facts" I just stated are valid. On the other hand, I have numerous classical recordings that vie equally with the best live performances I've heard for quality of both rendering and auudio technical, and I believe I am hearing some inspired performances on these recordings. However, I am still thrilled to hear an orchestra in person, much more so than even the best recording. What does it all mean? I think simply, I buy recordings to possess the music. I go to live performances to have a musical experience. I don't want to give up either one. They are two ways to enjoy music. The third way to enjoy it is the best of all - - perform it ourselves. Cheers, MIke Alford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:20:31 -0500 From: Roger Hecht Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway Gabriel Langfur wrote: >I think a lot of people are missing a big part of Sam's >point, which was that the ACTUAL SOUND of an acoustic >instrument or voice - in front of you - simply cannot be >reproduced mechanically. Its impact is never the same, and >I'll bet any recording engineer would agree, and admit that >they are simply trying the best they know how to give as >much of the live sound as they can. True of every engineer I knew or read about. >At its best, recording is an art form all its own, >and I think a truly great recording engineer is just as >skilled as a great instrumentalist. Absolutely correct. >The most convincing argument I've heard for analog over >digital is that analog technology never completely divorces >the sound waves from their inherent quality as physical >waves - in every step of the process the sound is still >read and produced by physical means. Digital technology >converts the sound wave to something else, and then it has >to be converted back. Digital recording samples. If "guesses" to fill in gaps. Its high frequency cutoffs are mathematically predictable--22.1k presently, which is drawn from a now industry-admitted inadequate 44.2 k. It also samples less in the high frequencies, one reason there were early problems with upper register reproduction. It's said that this cutoff is above the human hearing threshhold, but there are questions about missing ambience that I'm not sure have been answered. Analog has its problems here, too, principally the low frequency RIAA cutoff and subsequent compensation. But your point about the wave always being part of the process is correct and key. Because of this, it's always possible to make analog reproduction better better equipment. That real problem with analog is that you need a great "front end" to reap its benefits to the fullest. That said, there is some good, moderately priced equipment available these days that's good enough to bring records alive. >Whatever. I no longer own a phonograph either, and the CD >player in my car is about 800% better than a cassette deck. Ironically, the CD was first developed as a mid-fi item with its main competition thought to be the cassette (which was the biggest selling software at the time). One reason I like the fact that I review discs only every other month: the alternate months, I get to listen to vinyl--still the best medium I've ever heard for home music reproduction. Roger Hecht ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:55:43 -0500 From: Brian French Subject: Mouthpieces for Sale! Hi List, I'm cleaning out the mouthpiece closet again! All mouthpieces are in superb condition, some having never been used, some only used sparingly, and all deserve a good home. Greg Black JA1M Ü $90 Parke-Friedman Ü $90 Schilke 52 Ü $35 Schilke 52D Ü $35 And for medium- or small-bore horns: Bach 7C Ü $15 Getzen 6-1/2 Ü $15 Glassl 6-1/2 Ü $15 I'll cover the shipping within the US! Looking for a new mouthpiece for yourself or a student? Want to keep a fellow trombonist from freezing/starving this winter? Buy one of my mouthpieces! Contact me off-list. Thanks! --Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:10:10 -0700 From: Delbert Pakiser Subject: Re: live vs perfectly reproduced, was boradway This is an interesting discussion on live music vs. recorded music. Many of us Trombonists will identify the sound of a tenor trombone and the bass trombone and even an alto trombone all playing the same note. With some carefully developed skills we can hear the differences. How many of us really recognize the sound of a Conn trombone or an Edwards trombone when both horns are the same bore and other details all being the same? In the recording process, the sound wave going into the mic is picked up with an analog electronic current. The end of the system is also an electronic analog amplifier and the speakers are analog. Yes, there are digital speakers. They accept a digital signal and convert it to analog before going into the amplifier electronics. Editing controls are bests handled in the digital domain. The important element is the converter. AD Analog to Digital DA Digital to Analog. Very few of us have the trained ears to hear the differences in these converters. Some details seem to be lost every time the signal is converted. Almost all digital devices have built in converters so it is easy to change back and many times without knowing that the signal is converted. All the changes of conversion AD DA reduce the original quality. I am both a trombonist and a recording engineer. When I am a trombonist, I choose my equipment and don't want to be told what to use. The same is true as an recording engineer. Please don't tell me what equipment to use. HOWEVER - when the recorded sound is inaccurate, we need to ask strong questions. When the trombone is played and a sound system gives sound reinforcement, very seldom does the trombone sound normal or correct. That's my $.02 worth, any comments? Del Pakiser Walter Barrett wrote: > Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but Avery, Ray (232) > > >>In our society music is used so extensively as background that we have >>become inured to it. > > > Ray- > > I thought you might like this quote from Zappa... > > Walter Barrett > > "The manner in which Americans ¸consume· music has a lot to do with leaving > it on their coffee tables, or using it as wallpaper for their lifestyles, > like the score of a movieÜit¶s consumed that way without any regard for how > and why it¶s made." > - Frank Zappa > > > Yamaha Artist/Clinician > Tenor, Alto, Bass Trombones > Euphonium > Bass Trumpet > Tuba > > . > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:20:05 -0600 From: "Marple, Richard L COL BAMC-Ft Sam Houston" Subject: Berlioz, Medicine and Writing One of my birth brothers who thankfuly took a different road than I, had a great way with words as well as music. Thought I would share this with all of my friends on Trombone-L. If you would like to read more of this type, check out the URL below. Rick Marple San Antonio TX On December 11, 1803, Louis-Hector Berlioz was born in La Cote-Saint-Andre, France. As a child Berlioz was educated mainly by his physician father, who urged him to go to medical school, despite his son's love for music (he was a gifted flute player). He incurred his father's wrath when he abandoned his medical studies to study composition at the Paris Conservatory (they reconciled after Berlioz achieved fame). Berlioz became one of the great composers of his time, best known for the "Symphonie fantastique" (1830), the choral symphony "Romeo et Juliette" (1839), and "La Damnation de Faust" (1846). Noted for bringing great dramatic expression to his works, Berlioz was also a gifted writer, producing a highly readable autobiography and a number of books on criticism, composition, and orchestration. In his memoirs he wrote chiastically: "The luck of having talent is not enough; one must also have a talent for luck." "Love cannot express the idea of music, while music may give an idea of love." He also had a great sense of humor, once saying: "At least I have the modesty to admit that lack of modesty is one of my failings." http://www.chiasmus.com/archive/msg00153.html ------------------------------ End of TROMBONE-L Digest - 5 Feb 2003 to 6 Feb 2003 (#2003-37) **************************************************************