How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learsfool – I believe that you and I are talking about two different kinds of electronic music recordings. In my last post, I was talking about:

(1) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device, performed in a real acoustical space, and recorded with a microphone to a recording medium.

I believe that you are talking about:

(2) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device and recorded DIRECTLY TO THE RECORDING MEDIUM.

In (1), the recording is just like a recording of an acoustical musical event, except that the sounds are produced from electronic “instruments,” rather than acoustical ones.

In (2), there is no performance, no real acoustical space, and no microphone. There is just the device that creates the sound and the recording medium.

I agree with you that recordings as described in (2) are more likely to be ACCURATE representations of the original electronic sounds. You may be right that this is partly attributable to the fact that electronic sounds are less complex than vocal or acoustical ones. But it is also attributable to the fact that MORE THAN HALF THE RECORDING PROCESS HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. The performance has been eliminated. The acoustical space has been eliminated. The microphone has been eliminated. And in some cases, the need for a “field” recording format (distinct from the subsequent “storage” recording format) has been eliminated. It is no wonder, then, that the resulting recording is MORE INHERENTLY ACCURATE, as you suggested.

However, the kind of accuracy just described is not the same as the concept of “truthfulness” I used in my post on 1/18, which was rather: TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. In the case of music recordings as described in (2), there quite literally IS NO PERFORMANCE. Therefore, the question of the recording’s truthfulness, in the sense in which I’ve been using the term, does not apply.

But all of this seems like a peripheral matter, since the real goal of my post on 1/18 was not to highlight the difference between acoustical and electronic recordings, but rather to highlight the difference between recordings of REAL events and recordings of VIRTUAL events. I only brought up electronically produced sounds as one example of what, in my view, contributes to making a recording “virtual.” Among the other things that make a recording virtual: Multiple microphones with different perspectives, music editing, and the liberal use of creative mixing techniques.

Perhaps the simplest illustration of what makes a musical event virtual is music editing, that is, editing together segments from multiple takes to create the illusion of a single, continuous “performance.” This is done all the time in popular music, and when it is, the performance that is on the recording is, at least partially, VIRTUAL, in the sense that IT NEVER EXISTED IN REALITY. To use an analogy…

Consider a painting of a landscape that never existed, but is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the memory of the painter. In other words, it is a virtual landscape, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, the painting cannot be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, simply because there is no real landscape for the painting to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the painting does not apply. Hence the attitude of Objectivism about the painting is unwarranted.

As I see it, the case is almost exactly the same with music recordings. Consider a “performance” edited together from many segments of multiple takes recorded over different days. In other words, it is a virtual performance, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, it is difficult or perhaps impossible to evaluate the recording in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, because there is no real performance for the recording to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the recording does not apply. Or more precisely, it applies less and less as recordings are more and more edited (since I understand the distinction between real and virtual events as being on a continuum). Hence the more virtual the event a recording represents, the less the attitude of Objectivism is warranted.

Hi Bryon - to reply to the first part of your post first, I could certainly quibble with you about that distinction. Especially the "performance" part - one could argue that even a device going straight to a recording medium is still a performance. Frank Zappa certainly thought so, for one. As soon as anyone else listens to it, it does technically become a performance. Also, in your 1) it is still much easier for recording engineers to record an electronic music performance than an acoustic one, for the reasons I have already stated. The difference between 1) and 2) is not as great as you seem to believe, though it is of course there, and I do understand the distinction - certainly the acoustic of the room is eliminated in 2), as is the mike. However, this elimination of variables arguably makes the objectivist perspective even more apropos, not less.

Going back to the real vs. virtual distinction you are making, I must point out that nowadays, and really for quite some time now, just about all recordings made would be virtual by your definition (multiple mikes with different perspectives, music editing, creative mixing techniques). Even a "live" orchestral broadcast on the radio is not usually. The broadcast is very rarely actually live (though that still sometimes does happen) - it is almost always a presentation of the best bits of the weekend. The first movement of the symphony may be from Saturday while the rest is from Sunday, for instance.

In fact, unless a concert is truly being broadcast live over the radio as it is actually being played, there really isn't any such thing as a "real" recording anymore, now that digital recording techniques have completely taken over. There are always many different mikes used, and all kinds of mixing and editing techniques are applied routinely. I know of no orchestra nowadays that releases any commercial recordings without any editing whatsoever, and there is usually a ton of it. Georg Solti was the last conductor I know of who insisted on "one-take" recording (with some funny results sometimes, I might add). It of course goes without saying that all digital recordings have heavy mixing applied to them, which one could argue is a form of editing as well.

And any recording of any pop or jazz singer is done with a digital mike that alters their voice - most of the time this is even done at live performances. The bigger the star, the bigger the mixing board that her/his voice is being put through before it even gets to the speakers. There is far more mixing of rock and pop and country done than with classical or jazz or even folk. There is almost never any such thing as a recording that would not be virtual by your definition anymore, no matter what type of music is involved, and this has been the case for at least two decades now (to use the most conservative estimate, three would probably be more accurate). And as you say, this makes an objectivist viewpoint less and less warranted. This is indeed what I was arguing back when this whole thread first started.

Learsfool - I am aware of the extent to which recording, editing, and mixing techniques are employed in music recording, particularly popular music recording. I am also aware of the fact that many of these techniques are standard practice in classical and jazz recordings. But I do not see that these realities eliminate the possibility of evaluating a recording's truthfulness, i.e., its transparency to a real musical event, so long as transparency is understood as being an APPROXIMATION. The transparency of a recording is an approximation TO THE EXTENT THAT:

(1) The recording is incomplete or imperfect.
(2) The event is not real.

RE: (1). Of course, all recordings are incomplete and imperfect, but they are not all EQUALLY incomplete or imperfect. Some are much more incomplete or imperfect than others. Recordings delivered on low resolution formats like MP3, for example, are much more incomplete than recordings delivered on high resolution formats like SACD. Recordings that inadvertently encode gross distortions (e.g., overmodulation distortion, jitter, phase errors) into the signal during the recording process, for example, are much more imperfect than those that do not.

RE: (2). As you point out, very few (or perhaps no) recordings are FULLY real, since nearly all recordings involve at least some editing and mixing techniques. So nearly all (or possibly all) recordings are, to some extent, virtual. But they are not all EQUALLY virtual. Some are much more virtual than others. Recordings that make liberal use of recording, editing, and mixing techniques are more virtual than recordings that use those techniques sparingly. This is a common difference between popular music and some audiophile classical recordings, for example. I freely admit that even audiophile classical recordings are, to some extent, virtual. But they seem to me to be, on average, considerably less virtual than most popular music.

The point I am making is that, even if we agree that ALL recordings are to some extent virtual, it does not follow, and it is not true, that all recordings are EQUALLY virtual. In other words, some recordings are more real than others, even if no recording is COMPLETELY real. I made this point in a slightly different way in my post on 1/18:

Music recordings can be thought of on a continuum according to how REAL or VIRTUAL the event is that the recording represents...At one end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY REAL...At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL...In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies...

By locating recordings on a CONTINUUM between the (admittedly idealized) extremes of representing fully real and fully virtual musical events, I tried to highlight the fact that important differences exist in the degree to which a recording can be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, that is, its transparency to a real musical event. And if that is true, I believe, then the attitude of Objectivism is more warranted the more a recording represents a REAL-ISH event, while the attitude of Subjectivism is more warranted the more a recording represents a VIRTUAL-ISH event.

As soon as anyone else listens to it, it does technically become a performance.

Actually, technically, that's a playback of a performance unless the listening is in real time. In that case you have to make the distinction between recording the sound coming out of a speaker (a live event) and recording the data produced by the device (a virtual event). For an electronic device sending a signal directly to the recording medium, the Objectivist viewpoint is impossible because there is nothing to compare the playback to. There was never a "sound" that was recorded. It would be like running a random section of a computer's hard drive through a DAC and asking how it compared to the live event. What live event?

As for the rest of your post, I'll let Bryon respond, but he's talking about a continuum that runs from live and acoustic to virtual and electronic, not about placing every recording into one of two categories. As you move across that continuum the Objectivist approach is either more or less valid, not simply valid or invalid.

Cbw and Bryon - you both seem to be assuming that a "performance" must be a live event. Musicians consider all recordings to be performances. The difference between a live and a recorded performance is that the recorded performance is permanent, and a live performance is not. Even a recording made straight to a recording device would therefore be considered a performance, as I mentioned before, with Zappa as one of the more famous examples.

I also understand perfectly that you are speaking of a continuum. I still maintain that you have it backwards, however, IF you are speaking of truthfulness. Let me try a different take, with a live event as an example this time. The more virtual a recording is, by Bryon's definition, the more control the engineer has over the result. I don't think you are disputing this. What I am saying is that this makes it easier, not more difficult, to hear whether or not the engineer has been truthful to the live event. Therefore, applying an objectivist perspective is more warranted, not less, the more virtual the recording.

This brings me to "truthfulness" vs. "transparency." Bryon, you seem to equate these two things, and this is where the confusion lies. I think your continuum IS correct IF you are speaking of transparency, not truthfulness. In my view, a recording can be very transparent yet not truthful (in fact, this is exactly how many musicians describe digital recording in general). This difference in perspective has come up earlier in this thread, when Kijanki brought up sitars, I believe it was, and asked you how you could tell whether the recording was true to it (I am paraphrasing, I did not go back and search the thread for an exact quote). Your response was basically "because I have heard one." To me, this is a subjective, not an objective judgement. Another example - I know you know what a French horn sounds like. However, you have absolutely no idea what MY horn sounds like. If I mailed you two different recordings made of the exact same live performance of mine, you could judge which one was more transparent, but you could not judge which one was more truthful without being familiar with my specific sound (and the same of course goes for the performance space). Only if one has familiarity with the performers and the venue can one accurately judge the truthfulness of a recording. I have much experience with this distinction, having the good fortune to be a professional performer, and to be familiar with a great many different performers and venues through personal experience, both performing and as an audience member. I also regularly listen to all of the archival recordings made by various engineers of my orchestra's classical subscription concerts (I am in fact on the committee which decides what goes over the radio broadcast). Every engineer's recordings sound different, as they place mikes differently, and mix them differently, and edit differently (in fact, each recording each engineer makes sounds different). I can assure you that the more mikes used, and the more mixing done (in other words the more virtual the recording), the easier it is to hear where the recording falls short of the live event as far as truthfulness is concerned. I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately (as you put it when you were speaking of transparency). Therefore you would really be applying a subjectivist, not an objectivist perspective, because you don't really know what the live event sounded like. You would have to use your own personal reference point for how you think it is supposed to sound. You can, however, judge a recording's transparency in the way you suggest, and this application of an objectivist perspective would work how you described.

I know I do not express myself particularly well with words, but I hope this clears up some confusion.