|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.34.158.106
In Reply to: RE: Should reviewers have a Perfect, or at least Relative pitch? posted by Eldragon on December 10, 2014 at 08:17:25
I think that audio reviewers should be judged by the usefulness of their writing. Period.
Does Writer X's writing help you choose equipment more wisely? Does he or she introduce you to worthwhile new music? Does he or she increase your understanding and appreciation of music you already are familiar with? Or are you stuck reading the prose equivalent of "The Six Tenors" warming up in their dressing room: "Me me me me me me me!"
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I know musicians who can hear the difference between A 440 and A 442. However, I doubt that they could write the kind of loudspeaker review that audiophiles are used to reading, because as far as I can tell (with one exception, that being Hyperion Knight) most musicians listen to stereos just to hear how the performance takes shape, but they have very low expectations for (or even ignorance of) the epiphenomena (or as JA says, second-order effects) that audiophiles crave, such as imaging and a soundstage.
This question strikes me as a variant of the hearing-test canard.
I think that an audio reviewer has to have ethics and a certain amount of humility, be capable of turning in good prose on time, and have a greater-than average awareness of the history of audio (both technology and its place in society) and understanding of basic audio engineering.
However, I do not think that it is necessary that an audio reviewer have a greater than average educated layperson's grasp of music theory or even music history. The right writer and the right audience will find each other--or not.
Anyway, the notion of "perfect pitch" is chimerical. What most people mean is piano pitch, which is 100% imperfect (within the octave--octave unisons are perfect, at least in the middle of the piano, but at the top they easily go off because of string enharmonicity). There's a lot of music, not all of it antique, that requires pure non-tempered intervals. As I understand it, the number of people who have perfect pitch both for piano intervals and justly-tempered intervals is rather small.
Ciao,
John
Follow Ups:
John Marks said, "I think that audio reviewers should be judged by the usefulness of their writing. Period.
I'm finding John Marks response rather provactive and not in a good way.
Many of us realize that this is the age of the Communicator. A charismatic writer or speaker who can put an audience in a trance just listing to them or reading their writings. An observer asks, "what is he writing about?" and the reader says, "Shhhh, I just like the way he writes." Even if he not saying one bloomin' thing. He's just writing.
I see Marks response as a potentially poor response. Marks should know as well as anybody that some-to-many reviewers became reviewers solely because the editor had a need and thought they had a gift for writing and not for their discernment or their well-trained ears. And if a magazine hires such a one and develops a following, who cares if he really knows what he's hearing or talking about?
I suppose if one considers all aspects of this industry merely as forms of entertainment only, Mark's philosophy might suffice. However, many of us know that the magazines treat this industry as a business first and foremost. However, we also know there are many mfg'ers and consumers dollars at stake for this to be for entertainment only.
Now I'm not saying that Marks is implying this, but his philosophy and response would be an excellent one if a magazine's purpose were to keep enthusiasts dumbed down, i.e. keep the reader less informed and less educated than the reviewer as this would make for greater number of followers and hence easier sales.
However, in the 21st century many businessmen have taken the philosophy that the end justifies the means. Hence, without hesitaiton I would go so far as to suggest that the philosophy of judging a reviewer's usefulness solely by their writings could potentially be an ongoing strategy by industry leaders. Either knowingly or unknowingly.
For example, many of us know at least one fellow enthusiast who couldn't punch their way out of a musical bag if their life depended on it. I know several and I also know some reviewers who are no better. In the forums I think I've encountered many. There are also many who have completely abandoned their "untrustworthy" ears in favor of measurements to define SOTA-level playback systems today. Thus abandoning the absolute sound as the Holy Grail and instead have made measurements the new Holy Grail. Which I suppose is a great strategy if one wanted to be a paper tiger in the forums but does nothing for their playback system's level of musicality.
In other words, in this very thread, I don't recall anybody yet mentioning that a reviewer should as a minimum requirement, possess some basic ability to audibly discern what he is hearing.
I'm not surprisd but it is sad.
Did you read this?????
START
Does Writer X's writing help you choose equipment more wisely? Does he or she introduce you to worthwhile new music? Does he or she increase your understanding and appreciation of music you already are familiar with? Or are you stuck reading the prose equivalent of "The Six Tenors" warming up in their dressing room: "Me me me me me me me!"
END
THAT is my definition and negative example of the "USEFULNESS" of audio writing.
HOW can a writer help you choose equipment "more wisely" EXCEPT by listening?
It was so obvious to me I did not think it needed mentioning.
And it seems to me that most people who read that took it the same way.
I might as well have had to assure people I listened to things I wrote about.
Oops, my bad, perhaps that not is always the case with audio writers?
JM
JM said, "Oops, my bad, perhaps that not is always the case with audio writers?"
I agree with that point.
On the other hand, your previous comment about reviewers being judged by the "usefulness" of their writings alone, you were speaking generically for all reviewers and for all readers, not just yourself and your followers.
So yes, when it comes to "high-end" audio, I think it only makes sense to know one's perspective audience and qualify one's statements to ensure your message is clear. Especially when enthusiasts and "experts" are potentially all over the map. As you should know.
And, thanks for helping with a description of what it is I have come to dislike about modern grand pianos!
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Usefulness yes and it includes a lot of things not mentioned anywhere (yet, it may change) in this thread. Of course "we" want to know primarily about the performance of a piece of gear and how it stacks up to the competition both in and out of its price range. At least I want that.
As to reviewing music I feel it is so personal I never read music reviews. Let me rephrase that, I don't seek out music reviews, if it is front of my face I might read it. Even if I found a reviewer that seems to like a lot of what I like I would not seek out his or her writing today where the net will provide the tune or at least a snippet for me to evaluate. I've often said music is far too personal like choosing a mate, a meal or a bottle of wine. I don't think anything near perfect pitch is required to review music, but gear I think does require a very good ear at a minimum. Rather than a music review I'd rather see or hear a list of new releases so I know what's out there.
I'm going to dissect this next section:
""I think that an audio reviewer has to have ethics and a certain amount of humility, be capable of turning in good prose on time, and have a greater-than average awareness of the history of audio (both technology and its place in society) and understanding of basic audio engineering.""
1) "I think that an audio reviewer has to have ethics and a certain amount of humility" - yep, that's very good
2) " be capable of turning in good prose on time" -I don't read for writing prowess I read for information. Too often a review(er) gets lost in writing technique and loses grip of the real reason it was written: to inform us about something. Just my opinion, prose is defined as ORDINARY speech or writing. I almost never see that.
3) "and have a greater-than average awareness of the history of audio (both technology and its place in society) and understanding of basic audio engineering." - Sure, that will help too.
Those are very good criteria John.
So I'm not picking on John at all, just citing some differences in the way I see it. Most reviews of both gear and music have a gasbag factor to me where they are "dressed up", overwritten or too wordy. (perhaps like my post)They have given us terms and phrases that are often very easy to draw laughter. We've had threads on that very subject.
E
T
Hi-
Beau Brummel was supposed to have coined the phrase, "If you notice a man's clothes, he is not well-dressed."
My idea of great prose style is that the prose does not seem to have a "style." I try to write in order to inform. And if I can get that done, not much else matters (assuming that my observations are worth learning about).
I felt good the other day when a company whose product I recommended asked JA for permission to quote from my write-up; to my surprise they made it the first thing you see on their home page:
"This totally charming, petite, retro timekeeper, only 6.75" wide by 3" high by 2" deep and weighing just 13oz, is the perfect gift for the tube lover in your life—or for anyone who delights in the mid-century design style exemplified by the Eames molded-fiberglass chair and the Nelson Ball Clock."
# # #
While there is a personal opinion of mine in there, it is my opinion about how other people (potential gift recipients) would react and not a statement about my personal emotions. I think that readers can figure out for themselves that I approve of the product and its value proposition by the mere fact of its inclusion on the list.
But purging earlier drafts of fluff, jargon, and self-referential asides is work. I agree that many audio writers seem to think that they have to speak in a code.
As far as music reviews go, we will have to agree to disagree. "Personal reactions" are great, but I think that there is a little bit of Romantic-Era "Noble Savage" behind the idea that one should just approach a work of art with no information that might form preconceived notions. Over the past several decades I have relied upon the educational aspect of reading classical reviews by great classical reviewers such as Harris Goldsmith (RIP).
For example, if it has never been pointed out to you that Debussy was gently making fun of Wagner's pretentiousness in Debussy's "Children's Corner Suite," but you catch that anyway, my hat is off to you, because I needed that to be pointed out to me--even though it is painfully obvious once you know what to listen for!
The essence of "Cultural Literacy" is to be aware of the source materials (like "Tristan") that "content creators" (like Debussy) not only use, but for the most part assume that their audiences will recognize.
In my view, for classical music, recording reviews are a huge trove of that kind of information. Assuming a very high level of professionalism, of course, and not just a recital of "How this recording made ME 'feel'. " There's an objective world out there, and too much audio writing makes subjectivity the only virtue. (While also usually proclaiming that all subjective reactions are equally valid. But that's another can of worms.)
ATB,
JM
Classical music is a different animal and I should have pointed that out. It is because it is not a category I use much at all. When you have tens to perhaps hundreds of different renditions and interpretations of the same piece of music over time, there is value in detailed discussions of these performances more so than most other genres. Thanks for pointing that out. Another good thread for me to learn something. Sometimes it is so hard to strep back and look through a more general eye than my own filtered view.
E
T
Merry Christmas, John.
"I think that audio reviewers should be judged by the usefulness of their writing. Period....I think that an audio reviewer has to have ethics and a certain amount of humility, be capable of turning in good prose on time, and have a greater-than average awareness of the history of audio (both technology and its place in society) and understanding of basic audio engineering."
Amen. And I think it's greatly appreciated by his editor (not to mention manufacturers) if said writer adheres to a style commensurate with that of a great salesman. In other words, write something so delicious in style and substance that the reader feels compelled to get off his butt and go hear the product. Make the reader **want** the product.
Cute, too cute by half.
> the notion of "perfect pitch" is chimerical. What most people mean is
> piano pitch, which is 100% imperfect.My friend Ivor Humphreys, who plays the flute and was my deputy at Hi-Fi
News and was then for many years technical editor at Gramophone magazine,
has true perfect pitch. He finds it very difficult to enjoy piano music,
which to him sounds out of tune all the time. But perhaps because of
having perfect pitch, he was excellent at detecting polarity inversions.> This question strikes me as a variant of the hearing-test canard.
Indeed. For what it is worth, I have very good relative pitch and used to
be an excellent sight reader when I was a professional musician, but
neither has any bearing on my abilities as a reviewer.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 12/10/14 12/10/14
A long time ago in the early 1960s I was told by the Choirmaster and Organist where I was by then a leader, that I had perfect pitch, he then laughed and said 'Doesn't help much, does it?'
It can be a bit of a nuisance, IME.
He was right, it makes listening to music, especially live music, quite difficult at times.
I find it quite difficult to listen to anything played on a modern Grand Piano. Much preferring such music up to Brahms say on a Viennese Action forte-piano.
Two nights ago I attended a long Carol Service in Nine Lessons, and there were some spine-shudderingly awful (unintended) dissonances, despite the antiquity of most of the pieces. I used to sing at these two services for many years.
You may recall that I invested in a wired remote for absolute polarity switching back in the early 1990s.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
I think that all keyboard music at least to the end of Brahms works with the Bach-Spiral temperament. That is a reconstructed non-equal "well-tempered" scheme believed to be the one that JS Bach taught to his keyboard students.
The Bach Spiral scheme makes the "homier" keys such as C more in tune, while "hiding" the resultant out-of-tune-ness in "spicy" or "accent" keys such as F# or b.
And if you look at the Well-Tempered Clavier from a structural standpoint while taking matters of temperament into account, pieces for the homier keys seem to have more sustain, to revel in the in-tune-ness, while the pieces in the farthest-out keys seem to "picket-fence" the notes in order to avoid dissonances.
I can point you to a pair of Brahms organ-work performances (Equal Tempered versus Bach Spiral organs) if you are interested; I wish I knew of a pair of Bach piano performance examples. But I once heard an MP3 of a late Brahms piano piece in Bach-Spiral and it sounded great.
Dunno 'bout Stravinsky, tho.
JM
Very cute also!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: