[geoff]

On 3/07/2019 8:04 AM, wrote:
On 2 Jul 2019 19:22:03 GMT, John Williamson wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:50:01 -0400, joe wrote:
I consider myself a purist, but I want to hear the pure music of the
instrument, the sound caused by the vibrating string, or the air
bibration coming out of a pipe, just as it is written on the musical
score. I don't want to hear the noise of an organ blower, or the bearing
noise of the motor running it, or the clicks of a guitar pick, or the
squeking chair as the performer moves. If it isn't on the musical score,
it's noise.

Read the score and imagine it, or program it using MIDI and a decemt set
of samples?

The recordings I prefer are the ones that are great, but still show they
were performed by humans, possibly in front of an audience. I also dislike
the current fad for close mic'ing the orchestra sections, if not the
performers, and recording in a dead room. That's okay for pop, but no good
for classical, where the room is part of the performance.

Hence my thinking of buying a decent room....

I agree you can't get a perfect recording, but I want to hear as closely as possible what
the compser heard in his mind when he wrote it down. I don't think he was hearing blowers
and guitar squeaks and such as part of his work, any more than the pops and clicks of a scratchy
old LP record.

Room acoustics are a reality and have to be seriously addressed, especially for a live performance.
I don't know if close-miking or careful placements of several mics gives a performance or recording
closer to what the composer envisioned, but I'm in favor of whichever does.


In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

geoff