04-28-08: Mrtennis said:
"hi dave:
as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.
breath is not music.
yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them."
You say that with such certainty. As with religion, when I hear someone speak with such absolute certainty I can't help but question their judgement. (BTW, I AM religious, just not absolutely certain about anything). It's one thing to say you'd prefer not to hear this or that, but to say that "breath is not music" is to impune those of us that hear it as inevitable part of a performance.
Do you attend operas? If so, can you hear when a performer switches between head and chest voice? Do you sometimes hear the resonance that a truly great artist can create by virtue of their incredible breath support, stress free throat and projection into the head? If not, you're missing something that opera virtuousos work decades to perfect. IMHO, it what takes them from being mere "singers" to being truly great artists, that and their interpretation.
BTW, my favorite perspective is as conductor. I didn't focus on that path, so I don't get to do it much at all, but it's incredible when working with a good band or orchestra. There ARE some recordings that give you this perspective, particularly the stuff Sheffield put out in the '70s and '80s. The first trumpet on the LA Phil/Wagner stuff will part your hair. Duck...
Your position in valid, but you're way of arguing it is flawed, IMHO. Some people, no doubt including you, prefer the sound from the back of the hall and want their 2-channel systems to mimic that. You just seem to be saying that the opposite is not right and the things that others of us listen for (somnetimes) are not part of the music. Instead, I'd say, anything that adds to the emotional impact of the music is part of it and for me, that includes Diana Krall smacking her lips and resonating her chest to get that husky sound.
Dave
"hi dave:
as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.
breath is not music.
yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them."
You say that with such certainty. As with religion, when I hear someone speak with such absolute certainty I can't help but question their judgement. (BTW, I AM religious, just not absolutely certain about anything). It's one thing to say you'd prefer not to hear this or that, but to say that "breath is not music" is to impune those of us that hear it as inevitable part of a performance.
Do you attend operas? If so, can you hear when a performer switches between head and chest voice? Do you sometimes hear the resonance that a truly great artist can create by virtue of their incredible breath support, stress free throat and projection into the head? If not, you're missing something that opera virtuousos work decades to perfect. IMHO, it what takes them from being mere "singers" to being truly great artists, that and their interpretation.
BTW, my favorite perspective is as conductor. I didn't focus on that path, so I don't get to do it much at all, but it's incredible when working with a good band or orchestra. There ARE some recordings that give you this perspective, particularly the stuff Sheffield put out in the '70s and '80s. The first trumpet on the LA Phil/Wagner stuff will part your hair. Duck...
Your position in valid, but you're way of arguing it is flawed, IMHO. Some people, no doubt including you, prefer the sound from the back of the hall and want their 2-channel systems to mimic that. You just seem to be saying that the opposite is not right and the things that others of us listen for (somnetimes) are not part of the music. Instead, I'd say, anything that adds to the emotional impact of the music is part of it and for me, that includes Diana Krall smacking her lips and resonating her chest to get that husky sound.
Dave
