Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[John Dyson]

27 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

No it does not.  Plus for the record (accidental pun), I have listened to plenty of live music, both acoustic and otherwise amplified.

 

So, I am never bothered by treble energy in live music, but I am on occasion bothered by overly bright recordings.  I am pretty sure I am not unique in this regard either.  Plus I guess treble energy in a live performance could be annoying if it was purposely designed to be so.  maybe I could start a band, the fingernails on a blackboard trio, or something?  But no, I cannot ever recall being bothered by treble in a live performance.

 

As for if it is the linear distortions in my rig or whatever, we will never know.  Obviously systems can be optimised in this regard, but this fact does not logically mean that it can never a recording issue.  What I can say is that when I do find a recording that sounds too bright, it tends to sound too bright in my car, on my headphone rig, my main system etc., whereas recordings I do not find bright tend to sound OK on everything, in this regard at least.  Using the power of logic, it would appear most likely that the irritating thing is in the recording itself.

 

In terms of the track I posted earlier, one person found it bright, another found it too bright, and I found it too bright.  There really is nothing controversial here.

Yeah -- about live music...  It is really hard to describe the intensity of a live instrument in person, instead of even GOOD recordings.   Most complaints about 'too bright' (unless the material really is too bright) come from people who haven't been in person or heard raw/live audio through headphones (which can be a close second to real life.)  By the time all of the dispersal in most all normal speaker systems, some of the liveness is lost.  I am NOT claiming that a good speaker system cannot come close -- but normal speakers and normal power levels -- hard to get that real, live intensity.  It is even difficult to capture the liveness on a recording, but some people specialize in that.

 

My own headphones have an upper midrange peakiness, and I do not like the intensity of material that has lost its time coherence -- it can indeed sound ugly.  That 'time coherence' and stealth modulation distortion are important drivers for the DHNRDS decoder project....  It is really important, and very difficult stuff.  I cannot say that I have achieved perfection, but is a lot better than the alternative.

 

John

 

[Confused]

8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Okay, if the subject changed to the 'Locomotive' thing, when listening, I heard the woody midrange that is my now strongest indicator of FeralA.  I just did a quick online/realtime deocde, and it shure sounds FeralA.   Below is  a 30 second snippet of a decoded copy.  BTW, the basic compression used before FeralA DOES sound like artists intent.  The stats coming out of the decoder do tell me that there ARE dynamics in the sound.  My guess is that there is compression before mixing, and some careful mixing going on.  I don't think that the material is 'loudness wars' compression of the whole thing.

Outr-demo.flac 2.87 MB · 4 downloads

Thanks for posting this John, interesting.  
 

So, as an open question, how does anyone find this version versus the one posted by myself or @sandyk in post #205?

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Why I mentioned SR, is because I see the same issues at play, at a far more obvious level - the people who set them up can't "hear" that their equipment is doing a bad job of translating the microphone pickup into louder sound; if pointed out, they would just shrug their shoulders and say, that's as good as it gets ...

Fine, Frank. But it’s still irrelevant...

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, in your world you have access to lots of recordings which sound bad ... to you - if that was the only world that existed I would have given away audio a long, long time ago. But it's not too difficult to find a number of people, especially these days, who have progressed beyond that ... the arguments will still happen as to whether a particular recording is "bad" or not - I just happened to have worked at this sort of thing longer, and have learnt what's possible ... rather than cling to a set of beliefs which I have had for forever, 😉.

Bad sounding recordings are pretty non-ambivalent. There’s not a lot of room for argument on that front. A recording either sounds good or it doesn’t.
 

Now, I realize that we are talking about two different kinds of recordings here. You are mostly talking about “pop” music, and that’s a subject about which I never consider. Frankly, I don’t care what pop music recordings sound like because I NEVER listen to them. To me, modern pop music genres are just noise, all of them! The idea of well recorded noise is one that simply never crosses my mind. Since I listen only to acoustical instruments being recorded in a real space, the idea of bad recordings probably has a totally different meaning to me than it does to others who listen, almost exclusively, to studio-bound pop music using mostly electrical instruments and acoustical instruments that have been captured using contact microphones (or “Frapped” as they say in the industry). In my world, a recording either sounds like real, acoustic instruments playing in a real space, or it doesn’t. The pop world has a lot of room to innovate the sound through studio manipulation, and that’s a part of the performance. To the extent that these manipulations are successful is part of the recording quality question. In acoustic recordings, these types of debates are nonexistent because they are irrelevant. 
 

 

[John Dyson]

8 minutes ago, Confused said:

Thanks for posting this John, interesting.  
 

So, as an open question, how does anyone find this version versus the one posted by myself or @sandyk in post #205?

I listened to each one, remember that I took exactly the opus version of what you posted, converted to flac and decoded it as if it was FeralA, which it is.

 

The differences are, just listening, no prejudice (my opinion):  The original has compression, stronger midrange, slightly brighter all the way across, but is missing the clarity of the vocalization approx 10seconds.

 

The original has a slightly smeary 's', in 'thats right', exactly as expected from EQed DolbyA compression.   Doesn't sound bad.

 

Alex's version does sound different, almost like a 1/2 way FA decode...  Doesn't sound bad.

 

The decoded version has stronger dynamics, the vocalization sounds fairly natural (as natural as the recording is)...  You can hear down to the ambient background (almost). Doesn't sound bad.

 

I tend to prefer the stronger dynamics, but many people are accomodated to the ubiquitous compression (even if audiophile,)  I can not nor will judge which 'sounds better', but which one is closer to what was mixed down?  probably the decoded version.  Probably not a perfect rendition of the original mix, because there are variables, including I don't know the target sound, so I guessed with default decoding parameters.

 

John

 

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

You are mostly talking about “pop” music, and that’s a subject about which I never consider. Frankly, I don’t care what pop music recordings sound like because I NEVER listen to them. To me, modern pop music genres are just noise, all of them! The idea of well recorded noise is one that simply never crosses my mind.

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

 

Since you NEVER listen to them, your generalized hyperbole about pop music recordings would appear to be nothing more than ignorance based opinion formed primarily from your well known extreme distaste for the sound of electric guitars. As with every genre, there are recordings that sound good and others that do not. Having said that, I would certainly agree that the incidence of poor and/or overly compressed recordings from the major pop music labels is more prevalent than for either classical or jazz recordings.

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Since you NEVER listen to them, your generalized hyperbole about pop music recordings would appear to be nothing more than ignorance based opinion formed primarily from your well known extreme distaste for the sound of electric guitars. As with every genre, there are recordings that sound good and others that do not. Having said that, I would certainly agree that the incidence of poor and/or overly compressed recordings from the major pop music labels is more prevalent than for either classical or jazz recordings.

I'd rather not judge anyones music taste.  I just decoded some Oasis, and it sure sounds dissonant to me, but it is music to others.

I understand the frustration about a genre that I enjoy being looked down upon, but I'd rather think that is is a matter of individual taste and interest, not a value judgement.

I have heard SUPER-WELL-RECORDED hellacious Classical, but not all classical sounds bad to me -- again, it amounts to personal taste, and NOT relative value or values at all.

I do believe that we should respect each others enjoyment.  On the other hand, if someone imposes dissonant, chalk-scraping noise against my hearing, I WILL complain :-).

 

John

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Alex's version does sound different, almost like a 1/2 way FA decode...  Doesn't sound bad.

 Hi John

 The only difference with  my version is that it was directly sourced from the YouTube .mkv container as a 529kbps .aac file ,which most of their videos now appear to have, although in recent days I have seen some .mp4 videos where 529kbps audio can also be demultiplexed from using Video S/W.

It would appear that if people want the higher quality audio inside YouTube Videos that they may have to pay for it.

Thanks for you input.

 Kind Regards

Alexf

[John Dyson]

Just now, sandyk said:

 Hi John

 The only difference with  my version is that it was directly sourced from the YouTube .mkv container as a 529kbps .aac file ,which most of their videos now appear to have, although in recent days I have seen some .mp4 videos where 529kbps audio can also be demultiplexed from using Video S/W.

It would appear that if people want the higher quality audio inside YouTube Videos that they may have to pay for it.

Thanks for you input.

 Kind Regards

Alexf

And decode it, if they want the original dynamics.  Once in a while, I have found material that isn't FA.  This makes me wonder if the 'fake DolbyA' compressors being sold today are intended to sythesize the ubquitious FeralA sound character instead of for vocal enhancement alone.   That is, is there a market for the sound qualities that were originally deemed (the ugly digital sound) back in the middle 1980s'?

 

John

 

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

And decode it, if they want the original dynamics.  Once in a while, I have found material that isn't FA.  This makes me wonder if the 'fake DolbyA' compressors being sold today are intended to sythesize the ubquitious FeralA sound character instead of for vocal enhancement alone.   That is, is there a market for the sound qualities that were originally deemed (the ugly digital sound) back in the middle 1980s'?

 

John

 

 John

 Originally you were finding numerous examples of  tracks from different albums used in their compilation albums where it appears that with an occasional track they may not have had access to the original master, so used an internal Dolby-A copy.

However, it now apears that there are numerous recordings that must have been deliberately encoded this way, not just due to negligence, perhaps to make them sound more acceptable on AM radio as well as perhaps FM stations that used auto programming using .mp3 carts.

 

Alex

 

 P.S. 

 Has anybody tried my suggestion of using the freeware 4K Video Downloader (Windows) ,  saving the .mkv version and seeing if their existing gear can play them directly ? JRiver 26 is able to do this.

4K Video Downloader is also capable of downloading a complete play list in a fraction of the time that it takes to play them.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Confused said:

 

So, I am never bothered by treble energy in live music, but I am on occasion bothered by overly bright recordings.  I am pretty sure I am not unique in this regard either.  Plus I guess treble energy in a live performance could be annoying if it was purposely designed to be so.  maybe I could start a band, the fingernails on a blackboard trio, or something?  But no, I cannot ever recall being bothered by treble in a live performance.

 

Okay, this is where I'm going to say the problem is with the playback chain, then ... I find it offensive too, when a rig shrieks at me, or makes me aware, in a bad way, of the high frequencies. But that problem disappears, for that specific recording, if the distortions, the non-linear ones, have been got under control - I have experienced this subjective behaviour for decades; so I feel I've got a pretty good handle on what's going on.

 

The high treble energy in a recording creates an 'intensity' in the sound - it should never come across as being disturbing, irritating, unpleasant. This is why I have an ongoing disagreement with John, about "feralA" - competent playback never sounds distorted, unless intentionally part of the mastering - but it may be fatiguing, because a lack of dynamic range, over compression, removes all the light and shade in the music; we humans are not designed to be constantly pummelled by sound, 🙁.

 

Quote

 

As for if it is the linear distortions in my rig or whatever, we will never know.  Obviously systems can be optimised in this regard, but this fact does not logically mean that it can never a recording issue.  What I can say is that when I do find a recording that sounds too bright, it tends to sound too bright in my car, on my headphone rig, my main system etc., whereas recordings I do not find bright tend to sound OK on everything, in this regard at least.  Using the power of logic, it would appear most likely that the irritating thing is in the recording itself.

 

In terms of the track I posted earlier, one person found it bright, another found it too bright, and I found it too bright.  There really is nothing controversial here.

 

Fact: some recordings are "difficult" - I have a pile of them here, ready to throw at any system that I'm working on; or that I may go and have a listen to. These allow me to immediately identify the signature distortions of a setup; once I'm aware of what it's "doing wrong", then I can hear the same damage being done to everything put on, even though this will be far more subtle with "good" recordings.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Now, I realize that we are talking about two different kinds of recordings here. You are mostly talking about “pop” music, and that’s a subject about which I never consider. Frankly, I don’t care what pop music recordings sound like because I NEVER listen to them. To me, modern pop music genres are just noise, all of them! The idea of well recorded noise is one that simply never crosses my mind. Since I listen only to acoustical instruments being recorded in a real space, the idea of bad recordings probably has a totally different meaning to me than it does to others who listen, almost exclusively, to studio-bound pop music using mostly electrical instruments and acoustical instruments that have been captured using contact microphones (or “Frapped” as they say in the industry). In my world, a recording either sounds like real, acoustic instruments playing in a real space, or it doesn’t. The pop world has a lot of room to innovate the sound through studio manipulation, and that’s a part of the performance. To the extent that these manipulations are successful is part of the recording quality question. In acoustic recordings, these types of debates are nonexistent because they are irrelevant. 
 

 

 

How do you find historical recordings of classical pieces? I have a test track here, of a BBC Proms radio recording, from 1942 - the NAD and Sharp combo could bring this to life; and my current, new active speakers have just got to the point of doing a reasonable job on it. Below par playback of this produces kitchen radio sound - tiny, murky, like background music from a very old cartoon.

 

So, reproduction of this, to me, can either sound irritatingly silly - or, like "real, acoustic instruments playing in a real space" ... the recording's always the same; the only variable is the competence of the playback ...

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 John

 Originally you were finding numerous examples of  tracks from different albums used in their compilation albums where it appears that with an occasional track they may not have had access to the original master, so used an internal Dolby-A copy.

 

 

I've got a beauty here in that regard - a compilation CD of Australian pop hits, which includes John Farnham's "One is the Loneliest Number" - technically, this track is absolutely appalling - just think of the worst needle drop you have ever heard, where a cartridge that is falling to pieces is being used  ... 🙄.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 John

 Originally you were finding numerous examples of  tracks from different albums used in their compilation albums where it appears that with an occasional track they may not have had access to the original master, so used an internal Dolby-A copy.

However, it now apears that there are numerous recordings that must have been deliberately encoded this way, not just due to negligence, perhaps to make them sound more acceptable on AM radio as well as perhaps FM stations that used auto programming using .mp3 carts.

 

Alex

 

 P.S. 

 Has anybody tried my suggestion of using the freeware 4K Video Downloader (Windows) ,  saving the .mkv version and seeing if their existing gear can play them directly ? JRiver 26 is able to do this.

4K Video Downloader is also capable of downloading a complete play list in a fraction of the time that it takes to play them.

 

Actually, they almost always have access to the original masters, or something similar (unless destroyed by fire), but don't know the calibration for the tapes, or other EQ that was lost.

There is still another issue about old material, burnt up in fires, and recovering a high quality copy from FA.

 

There is ZERO benefit for doing DA with EQ encoding for loudness, it is a ham handed method, and frankly, the processors used in AM/FM stations since the middle '70s are FAR more sophisticated than what DA can do.

 

(My intense language is not intended to insult anyone, but to be vehement and strong in my statements)

 

If anything, there is a negative benefit, because DA doesn't really do what is needed to increase loudness AT ALL.  DA only increases the density a little bit, and creates an ugly (woody) sound.  IT DOES LITTLE FOR AVERAGE MODULATION.  Also, AM and FM need significantly different optimizations -- DA is a break-even for broadcasting.  Broadcasting isn't just a poor reason to use FA, it is a STUPID reason.

 

Reason for FA:

 

However, I think that it has become clear that the major reason for FeralA is actually more insidious than I originally thought, because I couldn't believe it.  That is, the owners of the recordings DO NOT want people to have access to the full quality family jewels, so the FA process is a convenient way to 'encrypt' or 'distort' the signal such that the original quality is not available.  But, this distorted signal is still plausible to listen to.

DA sucks as a GP compressor, DA doesn't significantly increase average modulation, DA doesn't make the signal much louder (except in limited cases) -- mostly DA is intended to be reversable, and was originally designed for that reason.  Broadcast processors need not be reversable.  A reversable compressor has a lot more limitations than a non-reversable WRT loudness.

 

Read this, and read it again:
The only SANE reason for the form of FA that I have seen -- that is to keep the ultimate quality away from the unwashed masses, so that the owners can maintain original versions in digital form as proprietary.  The way that FA is encoded DOES NOT come directly from normal DolbyA usage -- FA is in M+S form, and DA is generally used in L+R form.

Keeping full quality away from the consumer is probably the reason why I started getting political pushback, that is, when the FA decoder started working SUPER WELL.

 

Isn't it interesting that 'full quality' is  easy to come up with, why hasn't it?

 

John

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

How do you find historical recordings of classical pieces? I have a test track here, of a BBC Proms radio recording, from 1942 - the NAD and Sharp combo could bring this to life; and my current, new active speakers have just got to the point of doing a reasonable job on it. Below par playback of this produces kitchen radio sound - tiny, murky, like background music from a very old cartoon.

It has to do with expectations. I don’t expect a 1940 recording to be high-res, stereo, or even to sound good. So, I’m not disappointed if the recording sounds bad. At least such old recordings are not “overproduced”! The main problem with pre-war recordings was the almost universal use of ribbon microphones. They were  bi-directional and had not much response above about 10-13 KHz.  So even broadcast quality transcriptions, while they were quiet, and sounded OK, they still had little treble.

 

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

So, reproduction of this, to me, can either sound irritatingly silly - or, like "real, acoustic instruments playing in a real space" ... the recording's always the same; the only variable is the competence of the playback ...

You keep saying that, and it simply is NOT so!

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Since you NEVER listen to them, your generalized hyperbole about pop music recordings would appear to be nothing more than ignorance based opinion formed primarily from your well known extreme distaste for the sound of electric guitars. As with every genre, there are recordings that sound good and others that do not. Having said that, I would certainly agree that the incidence of poor and/or overly compressed recordings from the major pop music labels is more prevalent than for either classical or jazz recordings.

I’m going by what Frank says about the recordings he listens to. He characterizes them, not me. All I’m saying is that his examples of pop recordings that his system “methodology“ can make sound “good”, has nothing whatsoever to do with my experience with poor sounding recordings. Sure I’m generalizing. I have no experience with those recordings, or indeed, that kind of music. So if Frank says that his system can “fix” the sound of poorly recorded pop, then my point stands that acoustic music recordings are not so easily fixed by the playback system.
But I’m not attacking anyone’s taste in music, other than to say that I don’t listen to it, because I don’t like it. As usual, YMMV.

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

It has to do with expectations. I don’t expect a 1940 recording to be high-res, stereo, or even to sound good. So, I’m not disappointed if the recording sounds bad. At least such old recordings are not “overproduced”! The main problem with pre-war recordings was the almost universal use of ribbon microphones. They were  bi-directional and had not much response above about 10-13 KHz.  So even broadcast quality transcriptions, while they were quiet, and sounded OK, they still had little treble.

 

You keep saying that, and it simply is NOT so!

 

Yes, it's clear that the 40's recording is of a very different standard from other tracks on the same CD, which are only from a decade or so back. However, what I'm concerned with is whether I can connect, emotionally, with the playing of the piece - do I sense that the instruments are being played by real people, putting their heart and soul into it; or does it merely come across as a quaint, historical artifact. The latter I don't want - but from experience if the playback chain is working to a high enough level then a bit o' magic does happen - the dividing line in SQ is where I focus my efforts ... and therefore using tracks like these allows me to assess where a system is at ...

[Confused]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, this is where I'm going to say the problem is with the playback chain, then ... I find it offensive too, when a rig shrieks at me, or makes me aware, in a bad way, of the high frequencies. But that problem disappears, for that specific recording, if the distortions, the non-linear ones, have been got under control - I have experienced this subjective behaviour for decades; so I feel I've got a pretty good handle on what's going on.

 

The high treble energy in a recording creates an 'intensity' in the sound - it should never come across as being disturbing, irritating, unpleasant. This is why I have an ongoing disagreement with John, about "feralA" - competent playback never sounds distorted, unless intentionally part of the mastering - but it may be fatiguing, because a lack of dynamic range, over compression, removes all the light and shade in the music; we humans are not designed to be constantly pummelled by sound, 🙁.

 

 

Fact: some recordings are "difficult" - I have a pile of them here, ready to throw at any system that I'm working on; or that I may go and have a listen to. These allow me to immediately identify the signature distortions of a setup; once I'm aware of what it's "doing wrong", then I can hear the same damage being done to everything put on, even though this will be far more subtle with "good" recordings.

 

In terms of identifying the specific problem, your response here has given me an idea regarding a rather obvious and very simple test to try.  TBC …..  (probably at the weekend)

[wwc]

On 5/15/2020 at 8:19 PM, gmgraves said:

That is a very narrow-minded and egotistical comment. You know nothing about me. I have a very eclectic musical taste. I like everything from grand opera to Sinatra, and from “Bird” Parker and Stan Getz to Beethoven and Shostakovich. I also like Roy Orbison and The Beach Boys. I am also a fan of film scores from Max Steiner and Wolfgang Korngold to Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams with my absolute favorite being Miklos Rozsa. And I love Celtic folk music, and America folk Music from the likes of Joan Baez, and Ian & Sylvia. So don’t presume to tell me that I lead a limited life. 
 

By the way, do you like the sound of bagpipes? Do you see where I’m going here?

 Comparing a bagpipe to electric guitar.... that's a reach.   The electric guitar is as varied and fascinating as any musical instrument I can think of.   

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, it's clear that the 40's recording is of a very different standard from other tracks on the same CD, which are only from a decade or so back. However, what I'm concerned with is whether I can connect, emotionally, with the playing of the piece - do I sense that the instruments are being played by real people, putting their heart and soul into it; or does it merely come across as a quaint, historical artifact. The latter I don't want - but from experience if the playback chain is working to a high enough level then a bit o' magic does happen - the dividing line in SQ is where I focus my efforts ... and therefore using tracks like these allows me to assess where a system is at ...

In the case of vintage recordings, I concentrate on the performance. For instance, I have a number of LPs made from 1940’s transcriptions of the radio broadcasts of Arturo Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra. Except for a rather dull top end, these transcriptions actually sound remarkable. They were cut directly from a live broadcast to vinylite. I was very impressed by how quiet the transfers were. These transcriptions were made to allow for the time difference between the east coast and the west coast. When the live concert took place at 8:00 PM in Studio 8H of The Rockefeller Center, NYC, it’s only 5.00 PM in San Francisco. So, when it’s 8:00 in SF, it’s 11:00 PM in New York. It would be I nconvenient to repeat performance, so the west coast always got to listen to these transcriptions, rather than the live performance. When RCA Victor transferred these transcriptions to LP in the 50’s, they did a stellar job. I have no problem listening to them. It’s a funny thing. These recordings sound nothing like the 78s of the era. They don’t have that classic midrange peak, or the gritty noise of the 78’s shellac. Except for the dull top  end, these transfers sound a lot like modern recordings (these are the days of AM radio. Even so-called “clear-channel” stations had no treble above 10 KHz).

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

In the case of vintage recordings, I concentrate on the performance. For instance, I have a number of LPs made from 1940’s transcriptions of the radio broadcasts of Arturo Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra. Except for a rather dull top end, these transcriptions actually sound remarkable. They were cut directly from a live broadcast to vinylite. I was very impressed by how quiet the transfers were. These transcriptions were made to allow for the time difference between the east coast and the west coast. When the live concert took place at 8:00 PM in Studio 8H of The Rockefeller Center, NYC, it’s only 5.00 PM in San Francisco. So, when it’s 8:00 in SF, it’s 11:00 PM in New York. It would be I nconvenient to repeat performance, so the west coast always got to listen to these transcriptions, rather than the live performance. When RCA Victor transferred these transcriptions to LP in the 50’s, they did a stellar job. I have no problem listening to them. It’s a funny thing. These recordings sound nothing like the 78s of the era. They don’t have that classic midrange peak, or the gritty noise of the 78’s shellac. Except for the dull top  end, these transfers sound a lot like modern recordings (these are the days of AM radio. Even so-called “clear-channel” stations had no treble above 10 KHz).

 

I have the laser disc version of Arturo Toscanini's 1948 broadcast of Bethoven's 9th symphany. Not sure what the source would have been as it contains video and audio. The sound is decent for a 1948 recording.  The point for me is watching Toscanini.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, wwc said:

 Comparing a bagpipe to electric guitar.... that's a reach.   The electric guitar is as varied and fascinating as any musical instrument I can think of.   

I’m not “comparing“ the sound of bagpipes to electric guitars. I used the example of bagpipes to explain how someone could dislike the sound of a particular musical instruments. I don’t like the sound of electric guitars, the person to whom I was responding seemed to be unable to accept that anyone could dislike electric guitars, so I asked him how he felt about bagpipes, knowing that most people don’t like ‘em. In other words, I was just using bagpipes as an example of how someone could dislike the sound of a particular instrument.

 

“The electric guitar is as varied and fascinating as any musical instrument I can think of.”

 

See, that’s YOUR opinion. The electric guitar, to me is one of the most offensive sounds on earth. *I* can’t see how anyone could stand to listen to one, but I certainly realize that others Love it.

Now a classical or Spanish acoustic guitar is another thing entirely. That I understand. Listen to John Williams (the other one) or Angel Romero playing Requeros De Alhambra by Joaquin Rodrigo. Every time I hear it, I think to myself that it is so beautiful, and I find myself wondering how one guitar played by one guitarist could make sounds like that!

 

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I have the laser disc version of Arturo Toscanini's 1948 broadcast of Bethoven's 9th symphany. Not sure what the source would have been as it contains video and audio. The sound is decent for a 1948 recording.  The point for me is watching Toscanini.

I have that performance on LaserDisc. Both the video and the audio are primitive, but like you said, I was watching Toscanini. I also found it fascinating how poor early TV was. The way bright objects such as light colored clothes, smear when the camera moved off of them, leaving streaks on the screen. Iconoscopes were really poor as camera “tubes”.

[wwc]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I’m not “comparing“ the sound of bagpipes to electric guitars. I used the example of bagpipes to explain how someone could dislike the sound of a particular musical instruments. I don’t like the sound of electric guitars, the person to whom I was responding seemed to be unable to accept that anyone could dislike electric guitars, so I asked him how he felt about bagpipes, knowing that most people don’t like ‘em. In other words, I was just using bagpipes as an example of how someone could dislike the sound of a particular instrument.

 

“The electric guitar is as varied and fascinating as any musical instrument I can think of.”

 

See, that’s YOUR opinion. The electric guitar, to me is one of the most offensive sounds on earth. *I* can’t see how anyone could stand to listen to one, but I certainly realize that others Love it.

Now a classical or Spanish acoustic guitar is another thing entirely. That I understand. Listen to John Williams (the other one) or Angel Romero playing Requeros De Alhambra by Joaquin Rodrigo. Every time I hear it, I think to myself that it is so beautiful, and I find myself wondering how one guitar played by one guitarist could make sounds like that!

 

 

You say electric guitar to you "is one of the most offensive sounds on earth" as if there is one sound from the instrument. The sounds from electric guitars are as varied as the many different guitars and musicians who have dedicated their lives to mastering them.  As someone who purports to have a deep background in music appreciation this seems to illustrate some major self-imposed blind spots.  But who knows, maybe I have some too-- I don't care for the sound of electric pianos.  Even so, Chick Corea and Joe Zawinul managed to make them sing. 

[gmgraves]

35 minutes ago, wwc said:

 

You say electric guitar to you "is one of the most offensive sounds on earth" as if there is one sound from the instrument. The sounds from electric guitars are as varied as the many different guitars and musicians who have dedicated their lives to mastering them.  As someone who purports to have a deep background in music appreciation this seems to illustrate some major self-imposed blind spots.  But who knows, maybe I have some too-- I don't care for the sound of electric pianos.  Even so, Chick Corea and Joe Zawinul managed to make them sing. 

Alright, lemme rephrase that so there is no misunderstanding here. If there is a way to play a solid-body electric guitar so that it doesn’t strike me as noise, I’ve never heard it. And, frankly, since I didn’t grow-up listening to rock in general but, (and as I have indicated before) there are exceptions. But I’m not sufficiently motivated to try to find an electric guitar sound that I don’t mind listening to.
 

Why do you care what my taste in music is anyway?  The worlds of classical music and jazz are, in and of themselves, a lifetime journey and I’ve enjoyed every moment of that journey. I don’t need to “learn” to like electric guitars, because my thousands of records and CDs and Tidal favorites constitute enough music to last any music lover several lifetimes.

[wwc]

You're right, of course, I don't care what you listen to-- just a reaction.   I would probably expect a reaction if I said something  provocative like "all Opera is trash."   I like opera btw!

 

Also, electric guitar is not confined to Rock music.   

 

A great example of solid body electric bass guitar is Steve Swallow with Carla Bley on the album Andando de Tiempo.

 

Any album by electric guitarist Bill Frissel who uses different Fender solid bodies would be hard to find offensive.