[Bill[_20_]]

In message , gray_wolf
writes
On 7/4/2019 8:49 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

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.
A really really good discussion of this is in Phillips' _Performing
Music
In the Age of recording_ which has some digressions but is well worth
reading for anyone interested in western art music.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.
Not half enough, if you ask me.
--scott

I was listening to some Benny Goodman big band stuff. Those guys
played!!
How could you record that in a studio?

I (used to) love bluegrass music.

In my opinion, some of the best ever recordings were those issued on
Starday of Jim Eanes and his band.
It is well documented, and was confirmed when I was involved in
recording an interview with Jim, that they used 2 mics. One figure of 8
for the band facing each other, plus one for the upright bass.
These were done in a room above a radio station next to a tyre fitting
depot. They recorded in the lunch break of the banjo player, who at the
time was a tyre fitter there.
The recordings have dynamics, perspective, drive and a great sense of
"air". Probably the band brought meaning to the statement "play hungry".

Much current bluegrass that I have heard features banjos and the rest
playing so fast and incessantly that the banjo and over all sound
becomes a flat drone. Everything sounds close mic'ed and merges into a
flat seamless machine-like dullness. It's all very clever and
technically brilliant, but imo pointless.

I should perhaps say that I listen to the old stuff on disk, but hear
the newer stuff via internet radio. I don't think the difference is the
fault of Optimod, though (if that is used on the internet feed), as the
older recordings still sound good on that internet feed.
--
Bill