Mark,
Obviously, the nature of the amplification depends on the nature of
the music. For some music, subtle amplification is just meant to
bring you closer to the instruments -- like Reich's "Music for 18
Instruments", in which everyone is amplified. The sweeping, dramatic
crescendos and diminuendos are only possible with amplification.
Here, the ideal amplification is very subtle and doesn't change the
fundamental character of the instruments at all. Instead, it creates
an acoustically impossible space, so that it sounds as if your ear is
just a few inches away from *all* of the instruments. It's the audio
equivalent of close-up photography.
I just had a show at Roulette featuring violin(/ehru), cello, koto,
two percussionists, two multi-reed players (I went with oboe and bass
clarinet) and laptop. Obviously, we needed amplification -- a fair
bit for the violin and cello (especially in pizz. passages), a little
less for the koto, just a touch for the winds, and none at all for
the percussion. (The laptop player chose to use his own amp instead
of the house PA.) But the sound people at Roulette actually know what
they are doing, soundwise, so the amplification was virtually
undetectable by the audience. They just heard a balanced sound, most
of it acoustic, with just a touch of subtle reinforcement for the
instruments that needed it in order to create a balanced sound. You
wouldn't have know the PA was even on unless you went and put your
ear right against it -- or if you knew how hard it was to balance
that combination of instruments without amplification.
In other circumstances, you may want a different type of
amplification, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to deliberately
seek to alter the sound of an acoustic instrument. The hamon muted
trumpet is a great and uncontroversial example of that kind of
technique -- without amplification, a trumpet played with harmon mute
sounds *nothing* like the expressive, intimate sound we associate
with Milles Davis recordings. Acoustically, the harmon is thin and
tinny, totally inexpressive and barely audible. But if you stick a
microphone right in the bell of the harmon mute, suddenly it's
possible to hear the expressive mellow center of the sound, and the
bright metallic buzz becomes just color around the edges, instead of
being the only sound you hear. Miles was so successful using this
technique that it's become totally standard and unobjectionable --
but amplification opens up many such possibilities, for many
different instruments. Why be bound to the acoustic sound if that's
not what you want? Amplification is not somehow immoral or impure
(like, didn't Dylan settle this question back in 1965?), and playing
purely acoustically shouldn't be an end in itself. If the sound you
are looking for can only be achieved without amplification, by all
means, put the PA away. But there's no reason to assume that acoustic
music is prima facie aesthetically superior to music that requires
some form of amplification to get its point across.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 08 May 2007, at 1:37 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
