Re: technology and the average listener

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

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Mary Jo Watts wrote:

> Now what in the world would GG have thought about taking all this
> trouble to simulate the concert hall?!!! AB-so-LUTE-ly Ab-SURD.

Well, GG didn't care for concert halls too much (or at least, their role
in live performance), but he *was* very interested in new technology.
His conception of the "interactive listener" foreshadowed what we're doing
now on this list by about 30 yrs. or so.  You *know* that he'd be doing a
DVD in 7.1 (or whatever flavor Sony has going today) if he were still
recording.

> I'm all for excellent sound systems but how much are they really a part
> of the musical experience? I suppose for the expert listener or the
> really enthusiastic (and wealthy) amateur, these aural experiences would
> be amazing intellectual experiences but what about me?  Er, I mean what
> about people who don't really know much about the inner workings of the
> composition but want to have a roll as an active listener?  It seems to
> me that technology such as this would simply reify the hierarchy that GG
> talks about of composer->score->performer->listener.  How much of the
> ecstasy of musical art in private spaces really has to do with sound
> technology?

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).

jh