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