Iv. The point of all music is to express something

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,804
4,735
2,790
Portugal
Although quoting a text or opinion is a dangerous game in WBF, unless you renege your faith on subjective heresy, I hope that the strawman guardians are sleeping during the weekend and I dare to reproduce a very interesting and surely polemic text about the "the subtle expressive nuances" of music, something that I have several times reported to be an indicator of an exceptional system in my preference system, and of particular importance in chamber and classical music.

The quoted piece is taken from a full essay about stereo reproduction and can be read at http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html

"IV. THE POINT OF ALL MUSIC IS TO EXPRESS SOMETHING

The expressive content of sounds is contained in the dynamic variations of the sounds. In fact, it is the dynamic content of the sound. The presentation of the dynamic subtleties is, therefore, the most important problem of sound reproduction.3 Problems of instability in the sound, which can plague the stereo spatial effect relative to the listener's position in the room, do not occur in the dynamic content of the sounds, which remains the same throughout the room. No matter how the balance of frequencies or stereo imaging may be changed, the sounds retain their dynamic-expressive character relative to each other as they flow in time.

Until the advent of stereo, spatial relationships were unimportant, even undesirable in the bulk of the world's music. In most classical music, the introduction of directional effects in the sound-reproduction distracts the listener from the important factors that actually contain the musical experience. The most important aspects of sound, especially those of classical music, have nothing to do with spatial effects and can be reproduced satisfactorily in mono.

A stereo signal introduces extraneous "effects” that distract from the more important dynamic aspects of music. Except for the pickup cartridge, stereo effects have nothing to do with the quality of the system components. The reason is that, in the sonic arts, spatial relationships are a very insignificant component of sound and are particularly insignificant in music. In most classical music, they can be eliminated without at all degrading the quality of the artistic experience.

The reason spatial effects distract from the expressive qualities of music lies in the limitations of human consciousness. Most people can only concentrate on one thing at a time, which, in music, is usually the melodic line. Few can concentrate on two things at a time. Since our consciousnesses are too limited to be simultaneously aware of all the components of music, concentrating on spatial effects distracts from the important aspects of music.

To understand why the stereo-spatial aspects of music-reproduction have been accorded such predominance, to the point of obscuring the truly important aspects of music, one must know that the easiest-to-hear aspects of sound are the directions the sounds are coming from. The most difficult-to-hear aspects are the subtle expressive nuances.4 Many people cannot hear subtle expressive nuances. Few are oriented towards listening for those nuances and practically no one takes pains to be sure they are hearing them correctly. Furthermore, long-playing record-playing equipment has, without exception, not as yet been able to reproduce the finest nuances of records. The record-listening public has not, therefore, experienced nuances as fine as they can be. It is taken for granted that they are hearing the exactly the same nuances as in the original.

In controlled situations, our institute has found that, although they do experience something, many people are incapable of accurately hearing expressive nuances either live or reproduced. They experience either a coarser form of the actual emotion of the performances or a completely different emotion.5 Even those capable of hearing fine nuances cannot hear them the moment they sit down to listen, especially with recordings. It takes quite a while for most people to settle down enough physically to begin to register the subtleties of the music and to experience the emotional content. To understand why, one must realize that what is heard is not the sound vibrations coming from the sound source; what is heard is the vibrations of the hearer's own body when it is caused to vibrate by the sound-waves striking it. Therefore, any nuances finer than the vibrational state of the body itself are not heard. Essentially, unless the body is in a physical state that is as fine as the music being listened to, the music is filtered through, and degraded by, the coarseness in the way the body is vibrating. This point is crucial to understanding why spatial effects figure prominently in most people's considerations of sound reproduction. Besides being easy to hear, spatial effects do not demand a particularly great refinement of body. Being able to notice and make-out spatial dimensions and directional effects impresses listeners who are not hearing the full content of the music, and gives them the impression that they are getting something out of the recording, when they are actually missing the point of the music.

If, from the beginning of a listening session, one would carefully observe what aspects of the music one becomes progressively aware of, one will notice that, besides notes and words, the first things one is able to hear are the simple spatial relationships (right, left, center, etc.). The last thing one is able to hear is the expressive, i.e., the emotional, content. The notes and spatial relationships can be called the “informational" aspects of sound, while the expressive content can be called the “experiential” aspect.6 The point to be made is that, without the experiential aspects, there really is no music, and that a distortion or change in the expressive content of a recorded performance is tantamount to changing the words in a sentence so that they mean something totally different from what the writer expressed. In other words, a complete falsification. On the other hand, it makes no difference to the quality or intensity of the way one experiences the expressive content of the music if the so-called "sound stage" is changed to give one or another impression of height, depth, and width, nor does it matter if the orchestra seems to be spread out in front of the listener (unless the music was specifically written for stereo, or has some of the expressive content contained in the directions of the sounds. The Beatle's album Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has excellent examples of both).

The spreading out of the sound in space is totally unimportant to and contrary to the aims of most music written before stereo became popular. In their orchestration, composers took great pains to create particular sound colorings by blending together the sounds of different instruments. Halls were designed so the sounds would thoroughly blend together before reaching the listener. When a conductor has balanced his orchestra, there is no need for separation of the instruments by spreading them out in differing directions in order to hear the different voices; whatever is supposed to be heard can be differentiated even from so far away that all the sounds of the orchestra essentially come from the same direction. Similarly, if a recording of such a well-balanced performance is correctly equalized to match the original, the balance that the conductor has achieved can be heard in mono, without the supposed help of stereo “separation”. This is an important point for the music-loving public because it means that older recordings of such excellent performances can, to a great degree, be restored since it is mainly their imbalances in the frequencies that obscure their detail and not a lack of stereo effects.

One must assume that composers know what their music should sound like, but, originally, composers were singularly unimpressed by stereo. Virgil Thomson went so far as to call it a “technological pretext” giving the recording companies “another excuse for recording the standard works all over again" (A Virgil Thomson Reader, p. 144). Another composer has mentioned that stereo is an excuse to sell new, more expensive equipment. No composer whom I asked or with whom I listened to music was the slightest bit interested in the depiction of spatial effects."
 
I guess I better take a axe to my system:D
 
The great Aeolian Skinner company had a different view when making their famous recordings, "the king of instruments". I have some of these on tape and they are some of my favorite recordings.


"One of the chief interests of Joseph S. Whiteford was the acoustical properties of churches and concert halls. Correctly observing that a majority of American churches, often because of lack of knowledge on the subject and inept planning by architects, are acoustically hostile to organ and choral music, he set about to design a synthetic reverberation system as a cost-effective remedy to this situation. The result was a system consisting of a specially modified tape recorder in which the tape would pass over one record head, where the live sound would be planted on the tape, and then pass, in turn, over eight playback heads, each sending its sound to its own series of amplifiers and loudspeakers. (A patented randomizing circuit was also used to smooth out the reverberation.) The most remarkable use of such a system was at an outdoor concert, conducted by Thomas Schippers, concluding the 1960 Festival in Spoleto, Italy. (A most fascinating description of this project, written by John Kellner, company recordist [succeeding Mr. Robert Breed], reverberation system builder, and the person who set up and ran the system in Spoleto, appears in Charles Callahan's great 1996 book, Aeolian-Skinner Remembered--A History in Letters [ISBN 0-9652850-0-6, published by Randall M. Egan].) With the possible exception of Volume 21, all of The King of Instruments releases from the Whiteford Era had artificial reverberation added, with Volumes 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (Asylum Hill Church only), 19, 22, and 23 using the Aeolian-Skinner system. For those volumes, the system set up in the company's electronics department, on the fourth floor of its South Boston plant, was used; and it was necessary for John Kellner to add the reverberation in the "wee hours of the morning" in order to avoid noises generated by vehicular traffic, aircraft, office personnel, the pipe shop, and the voicing rooms. Interestingly, nothing on the record jacket notes indicates use of synthetic reverberation."
 
An excellent post, micro, I'm fully in accord with what the author of the piece's intent was. Hearing the structure of the music as an interplay of "subtle expressive nuances" for me is what the game is all about. Hence I'm totally unfussed about whether a recording is mono, it takes nothing away from the experiencing ...

Frank
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how "subtle expressive nuances" are defined but I guess there's a simple test to see if the author is correct - hit the "mono" switch on your preamp and see if the emotional content improves for you.
 
I guess I better take a axe to my system:D

No, no...sell it and buy a Bowflex. You're not actually listening to your system, you're listening to the vibrations of your body, and "unless the body is in a physical state as fine as the music being listened to," your hosed, because "the music is filtered through, and degraded by, the coarseness in the way the body is vibrating." Just get in really good shape and listen to a tabletop radio.

In know we struggle with what is and is not reality sometimes, but can most of us agree that this is nuts?

Tim
 
You're not actually listening to your system, you're listening to the vibrations of your body, and "unless the body is in a physical state as fine as the music being listened to," your hosed, because "the music is filtered through, and degraded by, the coarseness in the way the body is vibrating." Just get in really good shape and listen to a tabletop radio.

In know we struggle with what is and is not reality sometimes, but can most of us agree that this is nuts?

Tim
I agree that this section comes across as being somewhat loopy, but the intent of the piece to emphasise that people literally listen to music or sound in different ways makes sense to me. It was mentioned by Lee that there are at least 2 "camps" of thinking of how music should be reproduced, and I certainly have changed in how I listen to sound now compared to earlier years. Whether it has anything to do with having a "fine physical state" I would certainly vigorously debate, but I am certainly far more aware these days of the subtle interplay of the harmonics when musical sounds are being generated: today I was at a street market, with a number of musical buskers doing their thing, purely acoustic. Two brass instruments and bongo drums were creating a very enticing tonal texture -- the concept of soundstaging was meaningless -- and to me that was the essence of that musical experience.

Frank
 
I agree that this section comes across as being somewhat loopy, but the intent of the piece to emphasise that people literally listen to music or sound in different ways makes sense to me.

You think? Given that subtle nuance in recordings are actually more evident when listening on headphones than they are when your body (and room and all of its resonances) is vibrating, yeah. I think it's pretty loopy. Loopy enough to put the guy's credibility, and everything else he has to say, in serious doubt.

Tim
 
Tim-It can’t be disputed that when music is heard live, it is felt as well as heard-it’s part of the experience. That’s one of the things I find disturbing about headphone listening. It takes away the visceral experience when listening to music. You can say that’s a good thing, but I think you are depriving yourself from part of the stimulus that is there in nature and for me, without it, it makes the listening experience more artificial.
 
No, no...sell it and buy a Bowflex. You're not actually listening to your system, you're listening to the vibrations of your body, and "unless the body is in a physical state as fine as the music being listened to," your hosed, because "the music is filtered through, and degraded by, the coarseness in the way the body is vibrating." Just get in really good shape and listen to a tabletop radio.

In know we struggle with what is and is not reality sometimes, but can most of us agree that this is nuts?

Tim,

My Dad and I have talked about mono vs stereo before. Before stereo people thought mono was great and in fact I like mono. It doesn't surprise me at all that composers at that time would think that stereo was a unnecessary gimmick. I still think that the 3 channel stereo recorded in the 50's and 60's was some of the best recording done. Yes I can feel vibrations when listening and it does add to the experience. I listened to one of Healy Willan work's from the Aeolian Skinner tapes I referenced and the sense of total vibration just added to the glory of the recording. I agree the conclusion against ambience being useful to the listener is just a scientific conclusion and I think is way off base of what I enjoy daily listening to music.
 
I'm not sure how "subtle expressive nuances" are defined but I guess there's a simple test to see if the author is correct - hit the "mono" switch on your preamp and see if the emotional content improves for you.

In my view, this is not an important point of the text - the important message is that the "subtle expressive nuances" are independent of being in stereo or mono, and sometimes can be more difficult to perceive in stereo. IMHO your conclusion is taken too "fast" - no way I could understand that pressing the mono would result in immediate improvement, but that producers that rely in stereo to create their recordings, or listeners who favor space and stereo effect are less prone to find these nuances in the recordings.

For me a master piece of nuance is a CD recording of Shostakovitch Piano Trio no2 played by the Oistrakh Trio, a piece I that moved me strongly the first time I heard it, played life. It is a mono recording placed between stereo tracks of the String Quartets. Although I already owned two other versions, this one caught me as no other ever did, to the point I did not even notice it was mono.
Later I found that many recordings from the 60s and 70s, coming from the vaults of Eastern Europe countries, were sometimes technically poor, but have great "nuance".

It is why I was so interested by this almost 30 years old text , that I found a few days ago.
 
No, no...sell it and buy a Bowflex. You're not actually listening to your system, you're listening to the vibrations of your body, and "unless the body is in a physical state as fine as the music being listened to," your hosed, because "the music is filtered through, and degraded by, the coarseness in the way the body is vibrating." Just get in really good shape and listen to a tabletop radio.

In know we struggle with what is and is not reality sometimes, but can most of us agree that this is nuts?

Tim

Tim,
Please read the whole text. Unless you read I I. THE FLAWED LOGIC, the sentence you refer has no meaning, as it is figurative. It is why I put the link for the whole article.
IMHO most of what it is written there is arguable and open to disagreement, but not nuts.
 
Tim,
Please read the whole text. Unless you read I I. THE FLAWED LOGIC, the sentence you refer has no meaning, as it is figurative. It is why I put the link for the whole article.
IMHO most of what it is written there is arguable and open to disagreement, but not nuts.

Fair enough. I sure didn't read it as figurative, but I'll give it another look.

Tim
 
I don't think it's nuts either, although I have a difficult time somehow in accepting that our bodies need to be physically receptive. If this is in fact so, then I would say the mind plays an even larger part as without being in a proper frame in mind we cannot bring our body into a state of acceptance. Have you not noticed that when you're mind is too active that the pleasure we derive from listening to music is not nearly as satisfying as when we are in a relaxed state.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu