Re: technology and the average listener

[Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>]

John P. Hill wrote:
> 
> 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.

The little Devil's advocate in me meant "technology such as the
holographic home concert hall."  There are uses of much recent
technology of course that GG would have found appealing, I agree.  And
perhaps he *would* be doing a DVD. (Or conducting an orchestra on DVD by
now.) But there are very real considerations in the extensions of
technology that GG never considered and was perhaps naive about. (In his
kit concept of splicing together two performances by two different
orchestras did he ever take into account the copyright nightmare that
would be?? Wasn't there some question if the Stokowski recording could
come off due to contractual obligations?  Would he have cared about the
amazing expense of his catalogue on CD?) I'm not saying we shouldn't
dream about the possibilities of technology or that we shouldn't strive
for the best possible aural experiences-- 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.

Secondly, what in terms of aural experience, will the DVD offer that CDs
couldn't?  Is it a matter of home surround sound?  I know they offer
superior storage than CDs (and will thus be preferable to the
traditional CD-ROM) but what will they mean for the music industry?  I
haven't read anything on this subject. Would a re-issue of GG's
catalogue on DVD be worth the price?

> 
> > 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).
> 

Now that's not entirely fair, John.  There are many really amazing
experiences and tastes that people have to be trained to appreciate. 
I'm asking if these technologically advanced reproductions are one of
them.  What will be the obvious benefits to the untrained ear? I'm
especially interested because Sony has sold the CD to the world as the
end-all of formats-- the drawbacks of all other reproductive
technologies were immediately evident to the end-user but not so with
the CD. 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.  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. Reproductive
technology has been placed in that hierarchy:
composer->score->performer->technology->listener rather than being an
invisible conduit to ecstasy that GG might have hoped for.  In extension
of this brainstorming-- "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'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."

-Mary Jo