Re: technology and the average listener

["John P. Hill" <jphill@frank.mtsu.edu>]

On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Mary Jo Watts wrote:

> I'm just simply saying that
> sometimes, *often* even, that ecstatic experience has little to do with
> the actual apparatus of reproduction.  I maintain that _The Solitude
> Trilogy_ is meant to be listened to on a car radio.

No argument from me on that one.  A friend of mine from McGill worked on
the SYNCHRONICITY album by The Police and (at the time) I was amazed to
find out that after utilizing *millions* of dollars worth of technology in
the studio, the final mixes were always referenced on....a boom box.  This
makes sense, of course, because the boom box is where the lion's share of
folks will have that ecstatic experience to which you refer and this comes
down to commerce and selling lots of units of records (which record
companies love to do!).

If you have a great song (or performance of a Bach prelude), it will come
through a terrible recording.  Does that mean we should settle for making
poor recordings or sculpt everything for the lowest common demoninator of
playback systems?  No (IMHO).

> Secondly, what in terms of aural experience, will the DVD offer that CDs
> couldn't?

It's mainly a question of having a much bigger parking lot for whatever
data will go on there.  But, yes, there are many new possibilities from
music only formats that will incorporate much higher sample frequencies
and word widths to a "smorgasboard" approach of integrating still picture,
digital video, higher quality audio and surround environments within the
listening space.  Will it be more expensive?  Uh-huh.  Will it preclude
you from deriving enjoyment from your CDs?  Nope.  Will it mean you have
to throw out your vinyl LPs?  Nope, unless you buy into the marketing
hype that will be overwhelming and pervasive.

> > I can only answer that by saying that if you've never tasted a really good
> > Pasta Carbonara, you might be excused for thinking that Kraft Dinner is
> > really "the bomb".  Of course, they both have their place (and their price
> > point).
> 
> Now that's not entirely fair, John.  There are many really amazing
> experiences and tastes that people have to be trained to appreciate. 

True.  You can enjoy a Bach fugue without knowing a *thing* about music
theory or analysis.  But your enjoyment of fugue can be
heightened substantially by learning about counterpoint and harmony.
Taking the next step and sitting down behind a keyboard to tackle an
Invention gives you yet another dimension.  I don't see anything *unfair*
about my original statement; it's not meant as an attack.

> I'm asking if these technologically advanced reproductions are one of
> them.  What will be the obvious benefits to the untrained ear?

That's a bit difficult to predict, seeing as we have no standardized
measurement about what constitutes an "untrained ear" or what that person
may or may not perceive.  Who could say?

> I'm
> especially interested because Sony has sold the CD to the world as the
> end-all of formats.

Yep.  Remember that ad hype about "perfect sound now and forever"?
What a pile of crap!  The technology, in and of itself, will never create
something beautiful.  And 16-bit, 44.1k digital audio was *never* perfect
in *any* sense of the word.

> There are many times in one's life when Pasta Carbonara is
> appropriate and there are perhaps many more occasions that call for
> Kraft Mac 'N' Cheese.

And I think I pointed that out (see above).  I like both of 'em!

> There are times for headphones and car stereos
> and there are times for...well who has access to the sound systems
> you're talking about?  For an average listener-- one who is not a
> specialist or rich audiophile (there I said it!)-- this technology can
> be not only intimidating and cost prohibitive but it can also loom over
> the experience because of its social significance.

Well, if you're tagging me as a "rich audiophile", I really don't qualify,
but I can probably point you in the right direction to find a few.  I'm a
bit perplexed by your last sentence.  How does the "social significance"
of new technology impede upon one's ability to appreciate the beauty of a
GG performance?  We've already established that it comes through pretty
well on a boom box, so if you have one of those, you're in business.

> "Classical" music is not only something that has
> become (in the US) an acquired taste, it also has all kinds of class
> baggage associated with it.  I might also add that the same applies for
> the contemporary concert hall experience. 

I agree, but that has more to do with commerce and the way
that folks coming up nowadays are conditioned to experience what Frank
Zappa often refered to as "Music as Wallpaper".  Combine that with short
attention spans, quick video editing, lack of access to classical music
and education for most of the general public and you see where that's
going.

> I'm not an aural Luddite, I'm just trying to expand the concerns of the
> conversation a bit to perhaps look beyond GG's idealized "charity of the
> machine."

I'm with you.  Let's hear from some others, so I can go back to lurking for a
bit (I'm on vacation, after all!).

jh