Do you audition classical recordings blind?

I often listen "blind" on the radio, since I don't have prior information of who's performing. (I'll tune in after the performance started.) I'm often surprised by what I thought I heard and what's announced after the performance. (Great performances by "no name" orchestras/performers, mediocre performances by "well-known" orchestras/performers.) And if I ran the test stated in the article, I think I'd score no better than average.

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 17, 2014 at 09:00:44

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

I also come across performances on YouTube that are far better than expected.... I'll never forget the first time I watched a clip with the NHK Symphony, for example.... (Ayako Uehara/Charles Dutoit doing the Tchaikovsky Concerto One.) At the time, I never imagined Japan having a top 25 orchestra, let alone (to my ears) the very best....

"This Is *Not* a Joke"

That doesn't surprise me. , posted on November 17, 2014 at 09:34:04

rbolaw

Technical standards in classical music performance are sky high today in many parts of the world. Japan, (South) Korea, Finland and Estonia, for example, are right up there with the US and Western Europe. I don't think China will be far behind.

But looking back, I don't think you can hold impoverished, war-torn post W.W. II Europe, with many of its greatest musicians still living in exile, to quite the same standard. Alfred Brendel told a funny story about how as an unknown young pianist in Vienna, he was hired to record the Prokofiev 5th piano concerto, a piece neither he nor the orchestra knew. Well, he got through it well enough to help his budding career, and you can still buy it and listen to it, but ...

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 17, 2014 at 10:13:24

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26480
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

I'm not sure the percentage difference in the study is all THAT significant, but it's worthwhile recalling why blind auditions started in the first place: it was to level the playing field between what had until then been an "old boys' club" in the symphony orchestra and the number of equally or more qualified women and/or minorities. And there's no doubt that this practice has succeeded brilliantly over the decades - just look at the make-up of most orchestras now (VPO excepted!) vs. the way it was in the past. That's something I think we can be proud of as a society.

I don't deny the contention of your linked article that there IS a visual element to performing (otherwise, why are so many listeners offended by Bang Bang?), but, by and large, I agree with another post I saw somewhere, which stated: if you can't tell the difference with blindfolds on, then STFU!

BTW, as a side note on the subject of screened auditions for orchestras, I remember my piano teacher, who was a friend of Josef Krips, telling me how displeased the old-school Krips was when the SF Symphony instituted the screened audition process and so many of the audition winners turned out to be women! ;-)

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 17, 2014 at 10:31:18

krisjan
Reviewer

Posts: 929
Joined: May 6, 2001

Like Todd K. said below, I listen to classical radio in the car a lot (mainly XM satellite radio which lists the work but not the performers). I often form an opinion about a performance (either good or bad) and then hope that I don't reach my destination before the performers are announced so I can attach the performers to the performance.

Years ago, I was listening to a performance of Pictures at an Exhibition (Ravel's orchestral version) on WMFT radio in Chicago. I had always been a Karajan detractor - I just didn't like the stuff I'd heard from him and developed this internal compass about his conducting. Anyway, while listening to Pictures I was revolted by what I heard and thought to myself "this has got to be Karajan". Sure enough, the performance ended and the announcer said Pictures as performed by (some orchestra - don't remember) conducted by Herbert Von Karajan. Nailed it!

Dunno Todd...., posted on November 17, 2014 at 13:42:25
kuma Audiophile Posts: 10273 Location: IN Joined: July 8, 2001	NHK don't do anything for me. But they have been working for a long time to get a some sort of credibility. I am not sure if we ever get it. I am inclined to think that it's not in our blood.

6 second snippets?, posted on November 17, 2014 at 14:25:38
Kal Rubinson Reviewer Posts: 12436 Location: New York Joined: June 5, 2002	Who picked which snippet and how?

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 17, 2014 at 21:29:56

learsfool
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Joined: August 4, 2008

I should interject one very important correction into this conversation - almost never are the finals of an orchestral audition "blind." Only the preliminary and semifinal rounds are. Once the finalists are chosen, the screen comes down, and the committee also receives the candidate's resumes at that point as well. Particularly if the audition is for a key principal position, but often also for section positions, there are often trial weeks for the finalists.

There are currently only two orchestras in the US that have a screened audition all the way through even the final round - the MET opera orchestra, and the Kansas City Symphony.

It would be more accurate to state that the main reason competitive screened auditions got started in the first place was to give the musicians in the orchestra more of a say in the hiring process, in addition to making the process more fair. Before the modern audition system started, a music director would merely appoint someone he knew, or at best listen to a few private auditions alone, with no input from anyone else. Now there is always a committee of musicians from the orchestra that gets one vote per person, and then the conductor gets as many votes as there are other committee members. So screened auditions got started for more fairness to all, not just the women and minorities, though that of course, as Chris said, has been a beneficial side effect. Even back when they first started, however, the final round was not usually screened, just the earlier ones.

I think I will go ahead and stop this post here, as explaining more about how orchestral auditions work should really be a different thread, and I don't want to hijack this one.

RE: Dunno Todd...., posted on November 17, 2014 at 23:52:08

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

Should have mentioned it... The vast majority of YouTube videos of the NHK Symphony were of performances that took place prior to 1995.... But I believe this orchestra only got really good after the year 2000. (You might still not care for it. No problem.)

I thought Cleveland had the best orchestra in the world prior to 1990, then Montreal between 1990 and 2000, then NHK since 2000.

http://www.nicozon.net/player.html?video_id=sm6525569&k=1416

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 18, 2014 at 10:25:57
middleground	What a nerve you will hit with subjective audiophiles with a topic like this. Real 'philes are never, repeat. never influenced by looks or name plates.

Ah, middleground, you ARE full of mirth! [nt] ;-), posted on November 18, 2014 at 11:11:46
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26480 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

Just replaced my previous post with this one, posted on November 18, 2014 at 11:42:38

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26480
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

I was thinking further about your post relative to my Krips story below, and there are two possibilities. One is that Krips was dismayed because so many of the finalists (rather than winners) were women. The other is that, at that time (late 60's), the screened audition process was being rolled out for the first time and they could have used screens all the way through the process, later refining the process to what you've described as the rule in the vast majority of orchestras.

In any case, thanks for the good and interesting information!

In my own experience, I've accompanied two of these types of auditions: one for the SF Symphony and one for the SF Opera Orchestra, both in the early 80's. I accompanied a person in a double-bass audition for the symphony - the part I played for (which could have been a preliminary round - I don't remember) was conducted behind a screen in Herbst Theater. (My guy, Steve Tramontozzi, ended up winning the audition and is still in the orchestra!) I also accompanied a flute audition for the opera orchestra, which, strangely enough, was held in a small rehearsal room at Davies Hall (still behind a screen). This was a cattle call preliminary round, with over 500 applicants! (I don't know how many of these actually got to play.) The person I accompanied, although she was an excellent player, did not get past this screening round.

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 18, 2014 at 12:02:20

rbolaw

Interesting to hear that the Met Opera Orchestra has fully blind auditions. Principal clarinetist Anthony McGill, an amazing virtuoso, is African American. Yes, I remember the Obama inauguration "scandal", when they mimed to a recording due to the cold weather, but I've heard him play up close and in person. Principal flutist Denis Bouriakov is also an amazing virtuoso, in fact from a purely technical standpoint he may be the greatest flutist in the world right now. But visually, he is often very expressionless and motionless when he plays, so as a soloist he isn't great in the on-stage charisma department.
Maybe the blindness of their auditions helped take some irrelevant prejudices out of the picture.

RE: LMAO! (nt, posted on November 18, 2014 at 19:33:56
Eldragon	not

The Met guys I know tone down their charisma during hands. Poker faces are preferred. nt , posted on November 19, 2014 at 11:48:17
Rick W	nt

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 19, 2014 at 20:04:24
learsfool Audiophile Posts: 1001 Joined: August 4, 2008	Hi rbolaw - the Met orchestra is one of the very best in the country. People still talk about the classic "Big Five" orchestras as being still the best, however almost no one in the orchestral world would still agree. The Met orchestra certainly is in actuality a top five orchestra not just in this country, but in the world.

RE: Just replaced my previous post with this one, posted on November 19, 2014 at 20:09:41

learsfool
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Joined: August 4, 2008

Hi Chris - nice stories. However, I would tend to doubt that those were preliminary round auditions, as those are almost never accompanied. Probably the ones you played for were semifinal rounds, since you say they were screened. I do know that the SFSO has used piano accompaniment as early as their semifinal rounds, but I've never heard of it being done there in prelims - even doing it for a semifinal round is very unusual. I was acquainted with Tramontozzi when I used to sub with SFSO, he was a very nice guy. He probably wouldn't remember me, though.

RE: Ah, middleground, you ARE full of mirth! [nt] ;-), posted on November 20, 2014 at 05:09:49
Old SteveA Audiophile Posts: 648 Joined: March 27, 2011	I guess that's the end of all the "Violin Babes" babes talk here,huh ? (or "Piano Babes" for that matter; Do you think there's a "Snowball's chance in Hell" that the Music Label execs will revise what they choose for the "Cover Art" for new releases ?)

I believe middleground was referring to EQUIPMENT looks and nameplates [nt], posted on November 20, 2014 at 10:34:06
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26480 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 20, 2014 at 11:21:06
genungo	Lovers of music are influenced by the looks of the sound source? What's new? We learn to deal with it.

Agreed., posted on November 20, 2014 at 15:47:59
rbolaw	Of course, being the highest paid orchestra in the US and working with James Levine for many years didn't hurt. ;-)

Only the Joyce Hatto ones ( n/t), posted on November 21, 2014 at 00:26:43
PAR	nt

Are you seriosuly suggesting that most of us are biassed by watching DVDs of orchestras, posted on November 21, 2014 at 00:51:49

Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002

or by the fact that the audio only recordings we buy are by performers or groups / orchestras known to us? well gee, bugger me!!!

When I buy a CD it is because I have heard it on the radio (I listen to our national Classical FM broadcaster most of the time) or been told about it by a friend who knows my taste and whom I trust.

Most of the time I notice something AFTER it has begun and then go look at the 'music listings on line' to find our who's playing/conducting and what they are playing!

This report isn't science as I would describe it. Muddled thinking combined with a desire to appear scientific, while demonstrating a complete lack of grip of what that might involve.

Six seconds!!!!!!!!

Spare me.

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

RE: Are you seriosuly suggesting that most of us are biassed by watching DVDs of orchestras, posted on November 21, 2014 at 16:47:16
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	It absolutely was scientific. The study was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If 6 seconds is such a bad choice then do tell, based on science what is wrong with it and, based on science, what is the minimum amount of time needed?

First of all most published science is riddled with error, posted on November 21, 2014 at 19:24:02

Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002

where they are hypothesis tests, beta is often a lot higher than alpha and very often over 50%. This means the reported tests are likely bullshit.

The proponent of the report seems to believe that most people who are into classical music get most of their music listening - and our recording buying, and concert attending tastes / biases, and our assessment of performance standards - at live sighted events and AV sources.

I believe most such people get their musical judgements from listening to lots and lots of audio-only recordings. Further that their biases reflect cultural norms through reading.

So, I think that the conclusions could be irrelevant to most people. And, even if the tests had a beta below 0.5 - which I very much doubt - the conclusions have a very small applicability.

I own at most 5 music DVDs which a I bought after _listening_ to the orchestra / et al - on the radio.

It usually takes me at least a minute to realise that I like the playing, but I often take the whole piece before I decide I liked the performance. 6 seconds is not long enough to make a choice.

A good example of cultural biases was a thread here in which someone propounded the view that Bns PC no. 5 needed a big powerful magisterial sound because it's the 'Emperor'. This is a name applied to the work much later than Bn's life. This kind of thing lasts and lasts, even when it is baseless.

Science and me? I'm a management scientist and was a change-agent in health informatics until I burned out. I believe in measuring medicine, but carefully and accurately.

I am pro not anti-science I am just not blind to what science can and can't tell us, even how wrong it can get.

Statistics is the science of what we can know. I spent a good deal of my career generating and analysing statistics, even causing national collections to change - in fundamental ways. I have a Distinction average across my 2 years of Stats. You?

If you want to get a window into the way I think, type 'Ackoff' and 'objectivity' with me as poster - into the AA search facility - then, read the article on 'objectivity' by Russell Ackoff and then get back to me.

Another example? You probably read the thread about critics - begun by Tinear - who stated that there just 'must be' some objective standards of music performance for critics to use.

The problem is that - objectivity - as construed by Tinear and most people I know and discuss it with, just does not and cannot exist. It's a chimera.

Science is a cultural, human, activity. It's not there to be worshipped.

LBNLeast! I happen to be a big fan of the Australian Haydn Ensemble (a new small HIP ensemble) the core members, bar one male, are gorgeous women, if not as young as Chris here needs them to be. I have recorded them several times.

My wife is also a big fan and assures me that my musical judgement of them is not distorted by my quite apparent enjoyment of them as babes when we meet. OTOH it probably did affect my decision to record them every time I could ;-)!

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

"objectivity. . . just does not and cannot exist", posted on November 21, 2014 at 22:46:36
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26480 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	Yeah. . . I was very disappointed when I realized this. When I was very young, I was naively hoping to learn how to PROVE Beethoven's (and the Pantheon's other composers') superiority once I got enough smarts in college. Didn't work out that way.

Hi Chris, ;-) and thanks., posted on November 22, 2014 at 00:12:18
Timbo in Oz Audiophile Posts: 23221 Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia Joined: January 30, 2002	Silliness abounds it seems. I just KNEW that Beethoven was THE guy, and then I found WAM, and then JHaydn. Warmest Tim Bailey Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

RE: First of all most published science is riddled with error, posted on November 22, 2014 at 01:58:22

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

This is pretty classic stuff.

So now "most science" isn't "scientific?"

You attack a legitimate scientific study and let me guess, you haven't even read it?

Your arguments against it are purely speculative and anecdotal.

And you back that nonsense up with an argument of authority.

Am I supposed to really take you seriously?

I've seen better arguments from republicans arguing against the science of climate change.

Have you heard of Thalidomide? , posted on November 22, 2014 at 03:13:22

Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002

I'm not a repugnikken nor am I a climate-change denier.

That you think I might fit one or both types, demonstrates an attachment to an unreal, idealised and ignorant view of science. Very telling.

Waving the word science at me is going to cut it, mate. I'll decide for myself what is scientific or not. I know how to do that and you, don't.

Do you actually know what I am talking about with alpha and beta, in the context of hypothesis testing? Mostly known as 'testing', of which this stuff is a report.

Have _you_ found out what the values of alpha and beta were for these reported results? I'll bet they weren't reported.

Have you read the article by Ackoff, posted here several times by me and easy to find? which is in part about alpha and beta.

Have you read Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn? Have you taught them to students? I have. You?

If not, pull your head in and go do the reading and learning.

--------------------------------------------------------
Does the majority of your listening to music consist in going to live sighted concerts - or - like the vast majority of us, to many audio-only recordings? Which is true for you?!

And, I bet you haven't ever tried to limit any of your listening to 6 second samples.

---------------------------------------------------------
For a very long period people believed that large numbers of students in a class - the 'class size' issue - did not seriously affect learning outcomes. Because almost all studies didn't show any problem.

Much later in the 1990s meta-analysis was used to show that large class sizes did negatively affect outcomes. And that class sizes need to be reduced / that more teachers were needed.

Meta analysis had the effect of vastly increasing n - the number of trials - for one huge multi-generational study cum hypothesis test with very low values for alpha and beta.

And showed that what any halfwit could figure out was likely to be the case :- a flat out busy and stressed teacher isn't going to do a very good job :- actually was the case.

Yet, according to your standards all those hundreds, perhaps thousands of reported results - before the meta analyses were reported - were 'science'?

Because they were published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Spare me.

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

RE: Have you heard of Thalidomide? , posted on November 22, 2014 at 09:31:21

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I think you need to catch a clue if you can't even understand that it was the quality and logic your *argument* that I was comparing to the *arguments* of climate change deniers. If you thought that I was calling you a climate change denier you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I mean if you are going to argue that you are the smart guy and so we should take you at your word you really need to do better on the reading comprehension.

Here's the bottom line.
On the one hand we have a peer reviewed scientific study that was conducted by an already published researcher. That is what we call legitimate science.

OTOH we have you, attacking the results without actually reading the paper and trying to counter the results with personal anecdotes. You then try to justify it by claiming authority on science which is a classical logical fallacy while asserting that most science is bullshit.

So it's really an easy choice here. I'm going with the legitimate science over the guy who doesn't even read the paper he is attacking with his anecdotal evidence and rants against science as a self proclaimed authority of science.

For someone who is such a self proclaimed champion of science you seem far to willing to throw out the scientific method as soon as you see results you don't like. Seriously dude, at least read the damned paper before condemning it. That kills your credibility right there. Kills it.

All you are doing at this point is making a fool of yourself with these moronic rants.

"Since much of music is experienced live," well it isn't., posted on November 22, 2014 at 12:37:38

Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002

Most consumers of classical music do so most of the time through audio only recordings whether chosen deliberately and knowingly, or through FM radio or some streaming service, where we may not have made any such decision, making for a blind audition.

You started out with "Do you audition classical recordings blind?" Which isn't at all the same activity as being at a concert, which the science purports to be about. OR a competition concert.

Even IF we know what orchestra or performer it is, on the recording that does not mean we have ever seen them live.

And that is what I was pointing out.

And, given that most such recordings are still audio only, I wondered out loud here how relevant the reported study was to choosing recordings we might pay for.

I had already read both reports in 'The Strad' and the referenced abstract and the attached article listing similar studies. I was mildly disappointed to not find the values of Alpha and Beta for any of them, but I have come to expect that.

This is within the discipline of Psychology, yes? Go to Wikipedia's page on Psychology and scroll down to the Criticism section, and read it.

Further, I doubt the efficacy of these tiny slices of 'music' being very good at helping us listen, but I am certain that they are very very good at focussing humans on visuals.

What the report does suggest is that some concert goers might:

i) prefer attending for known rated performers who are established recording artists

ii) prefer physically expressive competitors, perhaps even good looking ones.

It also suggests that music performance competitions are a busted flush. But I knew that already. And most people I know who are into this music also know that.

Gee, what a surprise?!!!!

Australia's national classical FM broadcaster regularly broadcasts the whole of the Sydney Piano Competition. The radio audience - those that bother and get highly involved - rarely comes to the same conclusions as the judges OR the audiences in the venue/s.

This report wasn't about how we choose recordings but about i) how musician judges judge at those repetitive concerts called competitions and ii) how audiences judge in concerts.

Nowhere does it show that I am more likely to buy a recording - based on such influences than not, because the report isn't about that process. And, because I know that just isn't how I arrive at such decisions.

But, that is what you came here to suggest does happen, and I don't think it does. Yes I was from the beginning having a go at you, for how you think about science. :-)

I am a skeptic. You'd just like to think you are.

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

Don't know if this will help, but. . . , posted on November 22, 2014 at 13:52:04

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26480
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

. . . as I see it, there are two types of scientific "knowledge". One is absolute - such as a mathematical proof. The other is provisional, based more on experiments and observations (the kind Scott linked to in his OP). Provisional knowledge is subject to change if new experiments and observations undermine it and lead to modifications of our understanding. I think that's where we run into trouble with, for instance, evolution deniers who always make the point that "well, evolution is just a theory!". It's just a theory only in the sense that knowledge can be provisional. We've been operating on the provisional knowledge we acquired from Darwin for over a hundred years now.

Not really., posted on November 22, 2014 at 14:32:02

rbolaw

All knowledge is "provisional" in the sense you used that word. Pure mathematics is not knowledge, it's theory. Nor is it self-proving. Mathematics is based upon unprovable postulates (assumptions) as much as on theorems (proofs), which are ironclad, but only once one accepts the postulates.

The study cited by Scott means little to me, assuming it was described accurately in the article. People can differentiate orchestras more reliably by sight than by sound. Big surprise. It takes some training and experience to appreciate the difference between the sound of a top orchestra and a lesser one. And these days, many so-called "regional" orchestras are very close indeed to the so-called "first tier" ones. Same for university orchestras, especially at universities like Indiana, Northwestern, Rice, and other schools that have top notch music programs.

Blindfold me and let me listen in person to the Berlin Philharmonic and some random university orchestra for a reasonable length of time, I could tell the difference. A few seconds listening to a sh#tty digital audio clip, probably not.

Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 22, 2014 at 23:30:56
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26480 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	To quote Woody Allen (Love and Death, I believe): All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. (therefore) All men are Socrates. QED! ;-)

You really don't know when to put a lid on it do you?, posted on November 23, 2014 at 05:33:00

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

>> Most consumers of classical music do so most of the time through audio only recordings whether chosen deliberately and knowingly, or through FM radio or some streaming service, where we may not have made any such decision, making for a blind audition.>>

Wow, Mr science leads off with an unsupported conclusion based on what he wants the conclusion to be. Pretty embarrassing for a guy who continues to argue that his word is good enough since he is an authority on science

>> You started out with "Do you audition classical recordings blind?" Which isn't at all the same activity as being at a concert, which the science purports to be about. OR a competition concert.>>

Is this a deliberate straw man or is your reading comprehension so bad as to not see a simple question at face value? Yes, I asked the simple single question to the members of this forum. Do you audition classical recordings blind. Any rational person would answer that question with a yes or a no or a sometimes and maybe go into some detail as to why or why not. You attack a peer reviewed scientific study because you did not like the results and you did so without even reading the paper.

>> Even IF we know what orchestra or performer it is, on the recording that does not mean we have ever seen them live.>>

What kind of a lame red herring is this? Please quote me claiming that if we know what orchestra or performer it is on a recording that means we have seen them live. Not only is this a lame red herring but it is an utterly nonsensical one at that.

>> And that is what I was pointing out.>>

Bullshit. You attacked a peer reviewed scientific study and called it unscientific because you didn't like the results and you did so using anecdotal evidence and without even reading the paper you were attacking. That is what you did and that is what I called you on.

>> And, given that most such recordings are still audio only, I wondered out loud here how relevant the reported study was to choosing recordings we might pay for.>>

Go back and read your first post, that is if you didn't already go back and change it. You attacked the study and proclaimed it to be unscientific.

I had already read both reports in 'The Strad' and the referenced abstract and the attached article listing similar studies. I was mildly disappointed to not find the values of Alpha and Beta for any of them, but I have come to expect that.

This is within the discipline of Psychology, yes? Go to Wikipedia's page on Psychology and scroll down to the Criticism section, and read it.

>> Further, I doubt the efficacy of these tiny slices of 'music' being very good at helping us listen, but I am certain that they are very very good at focussing humans on visuals.>>

Great. Now offer something that is verifiable that would support the assertion that the 6 second samples are inadequate to perform the test in question. Your opinion alone does not cut it in science. Of course it would probably help if had actually read the paper and you might see whether or not it already addressed the issue. I love the fact that you would assume that both the researcher and the peer review group would overlook something as basic as this.

>> This report wasn't about how we choose recordings but about i) how musician judges judge at those repetitive concerts called competitions and ii) how audiences judge in concerts.>>

Who said it was?

>> Nowhere does it show that I am more likely to buy a recording - based on such influences than not, because the report isn't about that process. And, because I know that just isn't how I arrive at such decisions.>>

Who said it did show that? Dude, again with the reading comprehension issues.

>> But, that is what you came here to suggest does happen, and I don't think it does. Yes I was from the beginning having a go at you, for how you think about science. :-)>>

Bullshit, that is your baggage dude. I asked a simple question and you lacked the basic reading comprehension to see for what it was, a simple question.

>>I am a skeptic. You'd just like to think you are.>>

Actually you are obviously a pretentious idiot. You don't know jack about me.

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 23, 2014 at 06:58:24
rbolaw	Unfortunately that's by far the best post of this dubious thread.

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 23, 2014 at 11:10:01
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	there is nothing dubious about the thread. That such a simple question could ruffle so many feathers may tell us a thing or two about some folks participating in the thread. But that hardly makes the idea of doing blind auditions of classical recordings dubious.

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 23, 2014 at 15:08:52

rbolaw

I have no problem with blind auditions of classical records. In fact, back in the day WQXR in New York had a program where a panel of critics listened to classical records blind and gave their critiques, and it was a fun show. Also back in that golden age of classical radio, I'd tune in and sometimes hear something that especially interested me, so I'd listen to the end to find out who and what it was. That was how I found most of my favorite music AND performers. So blind listening has served me well.

What is of dubious use is the study you cite to in your opening post.

RE: Do you audition classical recordings blind? , posted on November 23, 2014 at 17:27:47
goldenthal Audiophile Posts: 1001 Location: Ontario Joined: March 28, 2003	Still trying to work out how to do it deaf. Jeremy

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 23, 2014 at 18:41:05
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	it was merely one of many studies about the effects of sighted bias in our perceptions of music and sound. What makes the study or my citation of it dubious?

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 06:50:57

rbolaw

The conclusion of the study you cite, according to the article you link to: "Participants were more likely to identify the world-class orchestra correctly when shown video-only footage than when played [six second] audio clips".

My response is, "No sh#t, Sherlock". For at least two reasons: These days, many regional and even some university orchestras are very close in caliber to those so-called "world class" orchestras. In fact, many of the top players from those world-class orchestras came directly from those regional orchestras. Take a look at their bios. (Please do not ask me to do it for you.)

Second, though I think most careful listeners at full concerts could detect a difference between two orchestras (not that the so-called "world class" orchestra would necessarily always sound better), a six-second audio clip would most likely establish nothing.

In short, the fame of the Berlin Philharmonic does not mean it is so dramatically better than a good regional orchestra that the difference is obvious in a few seconds. In fact, the regional orchestra may sound just as good or even better at times.

Also, (and this part is just my opinion, but based on a lot of listening to world-class and regional orchestras, in rehearsal as well as performance), the main reason world-class orchestras often do sound better than regional orchestras is that they have longer seasons and perform and rehearse together more often. And that is because there is more money behind them.

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 09:25:00

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

So you find the study dubious because you think the results were too obvious? And you also take issue with the clips being 6 seconds long? Personally I would have to read the study and see the explanation behind the choice of 6 seconds before condemning the choice. It doesn't make sense to me though to call a study dubious for getting results that one perceives to be obvious.

By the way, as a subscriber to both the L.A. Phil and the Pacific Symphony as well as a frequent visitor to the San Francisco Phil I am very well aware of the bios of those orchestras as well as many others. Why you would presume I don't know about such things is beyond me. Oh and guess what? You can't judge a musician by his or her bio. Some of the best musicians on the L.A. Phil IMO have some of the least impressive bios.

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 11:50:18

rbolaw

That's fine, I was just answering your question. If it doesn't make sense to you, so be it. And I wasn't presuming anything about what you do or don't know. But it does look like you're the one with the ruffled feathers. No matter.

Edit: OK, I've read the study itself, and imho it is bullshit. Here is why: In the experiments, "the top three finalists in each of 10 prestigious international classical music competitions were presented to participants." The participants more accurately predicted the winners by viewing video clips than sound clips. From this, the authors rather pompously conclude:

Professional training may hone musicians’ technical prowess
and cultivate their expressive range, but in this last bastion of the
realm of sound, it does little to shift our natural and automatic
overweighting of visual cues. After all, sound can be neglected
while trained “ears” focus on the more salient visual cues. It is
unsettling to find—and for musicians not to know—that they
themselves relegate the sound of music to the role of noise.

However, the authors seem not to consider the possibility that sound may still be far more important than visual clues despite their results. For example, all three finalists may sound almost equally good with only very subtle or minute differences, especially in a brief audio clip, but some performers may very obviously look vastly better than others, even in a brief video clip. That's not surprising, because those finalists no doubt got there far more because of their sounds than their looks. But when forced in the end to pick among equally good-sounding candidates, visual clues are the most easily available tiebreakers, and maybe the only ones, if the judges know nothing about the finalists' backgrounds.

Of course, if you spent many hours listening to each of those finalists, the sound differences between them might gradually become more clear. But that wasn't how these experiments were designed. In the real world, it's sometimes the competitors who finish second or third or even lower in those big competitions who end up having the major careers. So visual cues may matter less when people have more time to listen.

That make enough sense for you, Scott?

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 13:39:39
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	No presumptions? Just an arbitrary suggestion that I look up bios of orchestra members? Yeah...OK....

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 14:03:31
rbolaw	Well, if you take that study you cited seriously, then I would have to cast aspersions on your knowledge, not of music necessarily, but of experimental design. I took the trouble to read the underlying study results, see my edited post above.

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 14:27:43
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	Your argument fails. If you weren't so damned smarmy I'd go through the trouble to explain why. Does that make enough sense for you?

RE: Hey - don't cast aspersions on my knowledge, posted on November 24, 2014 at 15:05:12
rbolaw	It sure does, Scott. I understand you completely.

Music Lane

Do you audition classical recordings blind?

76.219.188.187