[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [F_minor] Re: Zenph 55 G'bergs released! (Brad Lehman)



Hello Bill and all others,

A microphone can't capture all that the human ear can.
The new Zenph version will most probably not reproduce the same sound as in the original. For starters, they don't use the same instrument, not even a Steinway. That makes a big difference. Also, Gould's instrument was regulated in a very special way. I wonder if this is even possible to reconstruct. All other complexities mentioned by Bill will come into play as well.


I don't think we should think of this a strickt copy -- what's the use of that when we hve the recording. Instead it's an interesting experiment on hearing this well-known recording in a completely new setting. I'm not sure the G'berg '55 is the best recording to improve sound on though; the new "Birth of a Legend" sounded rather good I think. There are other recordings -- historical one's before Gould's time -- that would benefit more from this process (for example the Cortot recording and the upcoming Tatum disk).

But it is a fascinating and demanding test of a new technology. They do have plans to recreate the very performing manners of a specific artist. Then we could hear Gould "play" things he never did. This would not be Gould of course, but it's the closest we've ever come hearing Gould in works like "Les Adieux" and BWV 944. I for one would gladly welcome such experiments if they would come close enough. Whatever that means must be up to every single listener.

Regards,
Jorgen

Bill Larson wrote:

paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu> wrote: I think you're overestimating how exact the technical specs have to be to reproduce sound. Remember, Gould was in love with technology and depended on it, even expected it to save music from live performers. How come he wasn't worried about these issues? I'm sure even Gould himself couldn't have reproduced exactly the performance he had recorded.

There are so many factors which affect tone, and which are limited by the reproducing eqiupment. As a pianist, my reservations would be that the technology may not be able to successfully resolve the following (for example):

--pedal shadings vs. overlapped notes (and the differences in instrumental resonance that ensue)-- this would be my main reservation, and I'm afraid that tape hiss, room noise, and noise from the performer himself may obscure some delicate shading to the equipment doing the analysis, and confuse it into making a slightly wrong judgement;

--subtleties in hammer velocity derived from arm weight usage, which can create a more room-filling sound rather than simply a louder sound;

--melodic voicing, which may be determined by perhaps a weak or an overly-bright characteristic to the piano being recorded upon, or even determined by individual notes on said piano which were not up to spec-- in other words, poorly voiced hammers may cause a pianist to play a melody line slightly louder than usual, to make the sound penetrate more; the analysis equipment would only perceive the volume of the initial hammer attack, not recognizing the performer's deliberate overcompensation; the pianist may not play the melody as loud on a better-voiced instrument, but we get to hear an artificially-and-erroneouly-emphasized melody line on a reproduction instrument with perhaps better voicing;

--playing in a manner which complements the recording space, but doesn't work as well with the reproducing space;

--specific to the 1955 Goldbergs: the fact that the recording qulity was light in the bass region, and the reproducing software would have to have a reverse bass-emphasis curve to complement the roll-off on the original tape machines.

--for recordings using improperly-calibrated noise reduction: a faster-than-intended decay of the notes may trick the reproducing software into thinking that the key was released slightly to squelch the sound, or that the note was released earlier than it was;

--the general hammer force being the same as the original recording. For example, if Gould plays in a piano-to forte dynamic range, and the reproducing piano plays the same material in a mezzo-forte to fortissimo range, there will be some brightness and force to the rendition which were not present in the original;

--how can the piano tell exactly when the soft pedal is being applied? My feedback from a given instrument may cause me to sometimes depress it the whoule way, or just partway. There's even so much more garadation to the use of the sustain pedal, which as I said before, can be mistaken for finger-overlapping of tones.

--bad original edits, which can cause errors is volume, sudden shifts in voicing, etc.

None of this may matter (or be detectable) to 99% of listeners, but it matters to me, and to many of you. We can say, "oh, that sounds so much like the original", but if we hear the original first, lack of subtlety can be apparent. Unfortunately, some people will hear only the reproductions, and never know exactly what the pianist was really capable of.

I could go on and on about this, and in fact I want to; I'm being expected uptown in ten minutes to have a beer, so goodbye for now.


_______________________________________________ F_minor mailing list F_minor@email.rutgers.edu https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor







--
Jörgen Lundmark
Stavangerg. 20
164 38 KISTA
Tel.: 08-751 50 00
Mobil: 073-701 71 17


_______________________________________________ F_minor mailing list F_minor@email.rutgers.edu https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor