On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is rare. Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate sound, bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would otherwise be possible. What amplification did for singers (the artistry of Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible without amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of Miles Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive than a harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it possible to bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental combinations that would not be possible to balance acoustically. Amplification is what makes it possible to have a rewarding listening experience in spaces that were not designed with acoustics in mind -- for example, every jazz club ever.
Yes, I forgot harmon muted trumpet in a solo role in front of a rhythm section. No Mic - no chance.
But I have played in many jazz clubs where the theory that squeezing the sound of the band through microphones into wires and amplifiers in order to "bring the sound closer" didn't do what it was supposed to do. And it is ludicrous to think that a Steinway or a tenor saxophone is unable to reach from the bandstand at the Village Vanguard to the last guy standing at the bar. (All that mics do there is encourage the customers to talk louder.) I didn't use an amp or mic in that club when playing there with Bill Evans, nor in the Concertgebau in Amsterdam (something like 3000 seats) , or at Carnegie Hall with Benny Goodman. This is a choice made from my own esthetic experience. Others may choose otherwise, but it inevitably has a less powerful emotional effect on me.
Case in point: I write for the Metropole Orchestra so that the woodwinds and strings are balanced in the room. That is different from the way almost all the other arrangers do it. Then we play in reasonable sized halls without microphones (except for the recording mics), and I get the balance and effect that I want. Fine - until the 8 measure solo I purposefully wrote for the lead trumpet player (at a comfortable mf), knowing he is at the back of the band, and that it will sound slightly distant, is changed by the sound engineer (in the recording) into an exaggerated, oversized, up-front, 2 dimensional experience. I don't suppose it makes any never mind to most listeners, but I wanted the depth and the balance I conceived. Bringing it "closer" to the listener did not bring the experience I tried to design closer, it prevented it from happening.
People who like amplified sound are free to choose it, and there is a lot of political and economic pressure in that direction. (There are big investments in equipment and people making a living turning knobs.) But, given the choice, I go for acoustic sound and balance almost every time.
Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
