So, a reviewer just said something I need to talk about.
I will not mention the reviewer, nor the specific equipment being reviewed, but this statement was made, talking about sax and strings: "the strings had real body, and it sounded like real strings being played". The tonality of the instruments was what he/she was talking about. I get this. The tone, the spatiality of the instruments, the stage that was presented. All well and good. What about the engagement between the listener and the musician. I have stated so many times here, ad nauseam, that the most important aspect of music listening, for me (and not enough with other listeners) is the "playing of the instruments". The artistry of the musician behind those strings. I just don’t get it. When I listen to Jeff Beck (RIP), using him as an example, what I am attracted to, FIRST & FOREMOST, is his PLAYING. Reviewers talk about "sound". Most people here talk about "sound". I spend more time now on other sites, that speak about the music playing and, the compositions. For whatever reasons, I seem to be realizing, that A’gon members, as so many reviewers, talk about sound. They very rarely mention MY most important aspect of listening. The musicianship and the compositions. Another rant from me. What are your thoughts on this? How do you listen? What do you listen for/to? What does your system convey to you? I know I am out of line again, but........My best to everyone. Always, MrD.
@painter24 @mahler123 @hilde45 +1
Other than the equipment reviewer describing why he/she chose particular tracks to evaluate the equipment I have no idea why there would be an expectation of a further deep discussion of the composition and the musicianship in the article. Music reviews cover those. Also, some of the comments are digressing to why one owns equipment versus the Op's concern about equipment reviews not focusing on musicianship and music composition
|
I very much judge a system by how well you get a sense of the performer as a three-dimensional person, as well as how realistically the actual recording is conveyed. Whether it's Horowitz in Carnegie Hall, Coleman Hawkins standing at a ribbon mic in 1958 or Charles Munch coaxing a response from the Boston Symphony, I'm certainly more interested in hearing the character of the performers and the sense of their physical presense. What's the point otherwise? I mean, what's a stereo for if not to take you to places and hear people you otherwise never could? And I welcome any reviewer of musical reproduction equipment who takes the same POV. If a reviewer says something like, "With speaker X you get a clear sense of Horowitz's nervousness after ten years away from the concert platform," I'm interested! ;-) |
