On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:32:58 -0800, Keith wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> Jenn wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "Arny Krueger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
>>>> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>>>>
>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>
> <snip>
>
>> I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified
>> instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I
>> referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion
>> "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling
>> at concerts.
>
> Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a
> "distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be
> disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such
> minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context
> of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such
> seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally
> incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting.

Yet they too are "normal" background noises in LP listening. To be fair,
there is a difference. Coughs and program rustling as well as chair squeeks
and other extraneous noises heard in a live concert are truly random and
unanticipated. OTOH, once a loud tick or pop is heard on a favorite LP, it
becomes anticipated with each successive playing and while that IS harder to
ignore or "listen around", it's not impossible to do so.

> An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation
> with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking,
> traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your
> conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and
> "expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder'
> who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite
> hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me)
> totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound
> levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It
> is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the
> normal "park sound".


Good point.

Audio Empire

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)
> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> "Arny Krueger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >> The rock concert example was used because the
> >> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> >> acoustic concerts.
> >
> >
> > Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> > performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
> > knows better on other occasions.
>
> You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that
> one Arny. I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, as
> simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't
> be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be
> :-). Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not*
> acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's another
> story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or
> amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say,
> a symphony performance. Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not really
> an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations.
>
> Keith Hughes

Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
rock public performance. Have you?

On Dec 19, 2:08=A0pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <7p4o3hFf4...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0Keith <khug...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > >news:(E-Mail Removed)
> > >> In article <7p2pquFo5...@mid.individual.net>,
> > >> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> =A0The rock concert example was used because the
> > >> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> > >> =A0acoustic concerts.
>
> > > Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't b=
e
> > > performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown th=
at she
> > > knows better on other occasions.
>
> > You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that
> > one Arny. =A0I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, =
as
> > simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't
> > be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be
> > :-). =A0Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not*
> > acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's anothe=
r
> > story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or
> > amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say=
,
> > a symphony performance. =A0Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not real=
ly
> > an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations=
..
>
> > Keith Hughes
>
> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =A0I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> rock public performance. =A0Have you?- Hide quoted text -
>

I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the
exception not the norm.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jenn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> rock public performance. Have you?

Austin's "Unplugged at the Grove" concert series is 'purely acoustic'
only by mistaken inference and is controversial as neighbors complain
when sound levels exceed the 70 dB statutory limit. A band observing
that limit would be in danger of being drowned out by the typically
noisy crowd in attendance. Austin has great music, lousy PAs and
thoughtless concert-goers.

That said, the Asylum Street Spankers, while arguable not rock, are more
unplugged than most:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYulEKYcCgo

Stephen

Jenn wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

<snip>
>
> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> rock public performance. Have you?
>

Yes, but then again it depends to an extent on your definition of
"rock". I'm not talking about heavy metal going acoustic, but there
have been some great concerts from the likes of 10,000 Maniacs,
Renaissance (in days long past unfortunately), California Guitar trio,
and in smaller venues a number of singer/songwriter type folks, e.g.
Karla Bonoff, Tori Amos, Loreena McKinnit, etc. And a number of
performances where the vocals are the only amplified "instrument", as
well. As I said, not at all the norm, but often exceptional
performances when they do happen.

But the premise, even then, tends to hold true IME. The behavioral
expectations for a symphony performance or a chamber music performance
are just different than those for most rock / pop type performances, and
thus the audience tends to be more raucous.

Keith

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:05:11 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Audio Empire <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> A Martin solid-body electric guitar,
>
> Whoa! THERE'S a rare beast! ;-)

Is it? I wouldn't know. I know of only two brands of electric guitars, Fender
and Martin I used Martin ONLY because I mention Fender-Rhodes in the next
sentence, and figured that I'd use another brand name for "journalistic
balance". If there is no such thing as a Martin solid-body, put it down to my
admitted ignorance of most things rock-related, and accept my humblest
apology.
>
>> I suspect
>> that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's
>> speakers, either.
>
> True.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Arny Krueger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> "Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >> message news:(E-Mail Removed)
> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
> >>> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
> >>>
> >>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >>>> "Arny Krueger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)
> >>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >>>>>> Audio Empire <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
> >>>>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops
> >>>>>>> as they would coughs and sneezes and program
> >>>>>>> rustling at a concert.
> >>
> >>>>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
> >>>>> listening to music under technically degraded
> >>>>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't
> >>>>> mean that its being heard in its most perfected
> >>>>> state. In fact it is
> >>>>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music
> >>>>> heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best.
> >>
> >>>> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though
> >>>> you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd
> >>>> like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected
> >>>> state". I can imagine that if I attended rock
> >>>> concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way
> >>>> about that music.
>
> When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their
> comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time
> to pay much attention to such things.

Arny, it appears that you are trying to win a debate here, rather than
discuss a topic. So I'll wrap up my contribution to you with this post,
before the moderators kill the thread. All I did in my paragraph above
was state that for ME, the live musical event is the "most perfected".
Since the noise (what we were discussing before the distractions) is
known to be much greater at the average rock concert than it is in the
concerts (and other live music) that I hear, and yet I don't attend rock
concerts, I said that I "can imagine" that I wouldn't consider the live
rock concert to be the "most perfected state" of that music.

>
> >> The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far
> >> more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly
> >> a potentially large number of performances of a given
> >> composition have been reduced to just one performance.
>
> > Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement.
>
> It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of
> unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism.

lol Yes, I'm sure that you see solipsism when I use terms such as "for
me" with great regularity. That's your problem, not mine.

> >> Given that there are many musical performances that
> >> never ever
> >> exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has
> >> been artificially excluded from the discussion.
>
> > You've totally lost me.
>
> I can't help that.

Obviously.
>
> > Every performance is a live performance.
>
> How do you define live performance?
>
> I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all
> together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day
> and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves
> recordings.
>
> In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it
> is quite a stretch to call this a live performance.

I define performance as music that is played or sung live. A
performance does not need to be a public event. This seems to be part
of the problem.

>
> In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the
> audience are all together in one place. They are often connected
> electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is
> *not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical
> performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience.

All we're doing is nitpicking what "performance" means. In the context
of the discussion, I believe that it's quite clear that for the
performances that **I** attend, the performers are all in the room with
an audience or without an audience.

<snip of "debate" that goes nowhere>

>
> The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the
> phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago.

By you.

> It's quoted above.
> How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied
> by people responding to posts?

Your point seemed to be that just because the music is heard live, that
doesn't mean that it's necessarily being heard in it "most perfected
state". For the music that **I** usually listen to, "live", i.e. the
original performance of the music (with or without an audience) is the
"most perfected".


>
>
> >>> Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the
> >>> PA system, there would be no concert performance) You
> >>> simply cannot compare the two.
>
> This is a very ignorant statement.

Take it up with he who wrote it. But...

>It is quite possible to play rock music
> on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are
> required.

True, of course. I've not heard a purely acoustic rock concert. Have
you, or have you ever heard of one? It's uncommon, to say the least.


> I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through
> to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very
> many listeners.

Who has denied that, Arny? Please do let us know.

>In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based
> on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops,
> given the choice.

All else being equal, so would I, of course.

> > The rock concert example was used because the
> > "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> > acoustic concerts.
>
>
> Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
> knows better on other occasions.

Again, how many purely acoustic rock concerts have you ever heard of?

>
> It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often
> completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on
> electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right?

Yes. So?


[ Let's end the metadiscussion, please. Back to
audio-related topics, or just drop the thread. -- dsr ]

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> > rock public performance. Have you?
> >
>
> Yes, but then again it depends to an extent on your definition of
> "rock". I'm not talking about heavy metal going acoustic, but there
> have been some great concerts from the likes of 10,000 Maniacs,
> Renaissance (in days long past unfortunately), California Guitar trio,
> and in smaller venues a number of singer/songwriter type folks, e.g.
> Karla Bonoff, Tori Amos, Loreena McKinnit, etc. And a number of
> performances where the vocals are the only amplified "instrument", as
> well. As I said, not at all the norm, but often exceptional
> performances when they do happen.

Really truly purely acoustic? No mics? No pickups in the acoustic
guitars? Must be a VERY small room! ;-)

The California Guitar Trio...OMG! They are SO good! A great bunch of
guys, too.

"Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Dec 19, 2:08=A0pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

>> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =A0I've never heard of a purely acoustic
>> rock public performance. =A0Have you?
>>
>
> I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the
> exception not the norm.

And they aren't rock....they come from the New Orleans Brass Band
tradition...a form of jazz/fusion

Audio Empire <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

She wasn't talking about studio performances
: (from what I gather from her posts)of largely electronic instruments which do
: not exist outside of the studio (and in a concert environment are the result
: of the ensemble carrying the "studio" with them. The difference being instead
: of the output of the studio equipment being some recording device, it's a
: bunch of PA speakers).

: A live performance is any time musicians play in the presence of an audience
: - no matter how big or small that audience might be. But the kind of live
: performance being discussed here is, I believe, live, unamplified music,
: played in a real space. If one isn't listening to the instruments themselves
: (and when sound reinforcement is present, one is listening to the PA system's
: reconstruction of those instruments, not the instruments themselves), one is
: not HEARING the instruments. One is hearing and seeing the musicians playing
: their instruments, but one is not listening TO those instruments.

I think youk and others expressing much the same idea that there's a big
divide beten (a) acoustic instruments performed live and (b) amplified
instruments that aresomething else, really need to work through what an
instrument actually is.

The instrument, in the case of an electric guitar, is the guitar, plus the
electronics used to pump out the sound. This includes the connector
to the tube or SS amp, the amp itself, and the pickups on the body of the
guitae that interface between the plucked strings and the downsteam parts.
That's the instrument. And that's what you're listening to.

In the case of an acoustic guitar, the instrument is the guitar, plus,
say, picks and a slide, if the player is using those. A bowed instrument
(violin, viola, bass, etc.) consists of the strings, the body they are
strung across, and the bow. That's what you're listening to.

I just don't see that there's some rigid difference according
to which one is pure and unamplified, the other is not. *ALL* instruments
(other than the human voice) involve an initial sound generator (strings,
diaphram of a drum, and so forth), and SOME way of making that sound
louder and different from the initially generated sound. (And if you know
anything about physiology, that's exactly how the human voice works as
well).

As Arny pointed out, all string instruments amplify, modify, and distort
the sound of the string (and the same holds true for wind instruments,
whose bodies amplify, distort, and modify the sound of the reed, etc.).
You'e making an artificial and silly split between aspects of
amplification that involve electrons, and those that do not.

Just think of what an acoustic guitar string sounds like, if it's just
strung in space between two points with no resonating cavity nearby.
THAT, I guess, is an unamplified, purely acoustic "instrument". Good
luck getting people to listen to that on a regular basis!

-- Andy Barss