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.
I come out of the opera world, which is populated by anti- amplification fundamentalists. (I should clarify: the die-hard opera FANS are anti-amplification fundamentalists. The performers, on the whole, are not nearly so rigid.)
I thoroughly agree with you that there is good amplification and bad amplification. To me -- and maybe to you, too? -- the measure of good amplification is how unnoticeable it is. For me, it's an aesthetic thing. I just like the sound of live instruments. I don't like amplified sound, and I hate poorly amplified sound. The more it sounds like amplified, the less I like it. If they manage to amplify in a way that I almost can't tell the difference, that's pretty good.
Funny thing about the opera snobs -- as much as they rail against any amplification of the voice, they adore all their perfectly mastered CD recordings. Not me. I don't much care for recorded music either. It doesn't satisfy me like live instruments do. I'd rather go hear a crummy community orchestra live than listen to the finest recording in my living room (and that in spite of the fact that I'm hermit type who generally prefers staying home to going out).
The nearer to the instruments the better. I don't much miss attending symphony concerts. I do miss being in the room when the orchestra rehearses.
I don't like electric guitars either. Bleah. Probably my least favorite instrument.
mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
