Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site olivej.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!ios!oliveb!olivej!greg
From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: AES Workshop
Message-ID: <237@olivej.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 14:05:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivej.237
Posted: Wed Oct 17 14:05:08 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 06:17:07 EDT
References: <939@houxm.UUCP>
Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 62

I, for one, am grateful for Craig Dory's article.  There are a few
points of contention I'd like to raise.

As to audiophile publications not understanding the complexities
involved in classical recordings;  this may or may not be the
case but is irrelevant.  It isn't the critic's job to support
the industry but rather to report to the consumer, in as
honest and straightforward a manner as he can, his perceptions
of the product at hand, i.e., the finished recording.  Therefore,
whatever complexities and problems are involved in making the
recording might be points of curiosity, but are ultimately not
his concern.  His job is to describe what the actual recording,
in the form which is being distributed to the public, sounds
like and, if he finds that sound defective, to say so.

The point about audiophile publications being concerned with
recorded sound quality rather than the actual music corresponds
with what I've found myself.  I would never select a recording
for its musical content or performance quality based on a 
review in "Absolute Sound".  Nonetheless, I find that their
comments on the recorded sound match my own findings on my
equipment far more often than any other publication's reviews.

I would contend that the obsession with "note perfect" 
performances tends to be the preoccupation of recording 
producers rather than performers.  I base this on personal
acquaintance with a fairly large number of performers of
various rank who have been involved in major recording
projects.  Almost universally, the musicians themselves are
bored and annoyed with the interruptions, retakes, and
intercutting that destroy the cohesiveness and continuity
of their performances.  For this reason, many musicians
prefer it when a record company elects to record a live
performance, with all of its faults.

The point about multi-miking should merely reinforce
what anyone who takes a serious interest in the art of
recording should already know.  Two or three-mike setups,
given the ideal circumstances of auditorium sound
characteristics and performing forces, can produce
extraordinarily natural and honestly balanced recordings.
These circumstances are, however, extremely rare and
without the proper combination can lead to disaster.
Multi-miking is a far "safer" and less time-consuming
technique and allows for recordings which are at least
satisfactory by performers and orchestras which don't
have, within any reasonable proximity, a useable hall
with the type of acoustics necessary for the simplified
miking.

One point that really raised my eyebrows was grouping
"Cleveland" with "smaller symphonies".  The quality 
may have dropped with Dohnanyi's assumption of leadership
(I don't know that it has, but haven't heard), but
last I heard it was still one of the "big 5" in the
U.S., along with the Chicago Symphony, Boston Symphony,
Philadelphia Orchestra, and New York Philharmonic.


	- Greg Paley