 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.213.156.33
In Reply to: RE: I guess we're alone, bro posted by docw on March 08, 2008 at 14:39:12
I'm kind of in a strange position here..... I'm **very** surprised this hasn't been picked up by others..... Aside from one thread on another forum site (link), I couldn't find anyone on the entire internet who has suspected a fraud with Dudamel/SBYO..... (I might check out the album in question in that link, which is different from what I discovered.)
My biggest concern is how badly desensitized the world has become, when it comes to music and entertainment. I thought it was bad, but not **this** bad.....
(But then again, I don't know a lot of people who thought Paul Potts was nothing special. If it weren't for bad timing, in regard to technology recognizing audio tracks, Joyce Hatto today would be talked about like Horowitz, Cliburn, and Richter...... Not to mention the exchange I had on Hip Pop over something that I thought was obviously a fake.)
If I was a member of a "selection committee", I wouldn't have suspected anything either. Mind you, I got the CD because of a comment Brian Cheney made, which triggered my curiosity for the recording. I didn't expect to find a smoking gun. (I also notice Amazon.com does not even use the correct samples for this CD.)
I also feel strange because this is a slam-dunk certainty, but also something that can really shake the entertainment world at its very foundation. This was on "60 Minutes", for crying out loud..... What's holding me back is could potentially crush a lot of people, caught in the middle of this. (The Los Angeles Philharmonic and Deutsche Grammophon.) And I think others will in time figure this out. It's out there, it's widespread, and it's recognizable.
- http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.music.classical.recordings/2007-08/msg02226.html (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
I hope I spelled that right.
Um, you are telling me that Deutsche Gramophon would release a Joyce Hatto style recording based on a decades-old analog master tape.
Hey, it's not impossible.
However, I would expect that a pre-Dolby A analog master tape (back then a lot of classical recording was done 15 ips on 1/4 inch two-track) would have a definite analog tape hiss component in its power-over-time frequency spectrum.
Yes, I know that there is CEDAR and a lot of other plug-ins. But still.
Also, I heard the live Boston Symphony Hall broadcast of the SBYO, and spoke with people who were there in person. The guy knows how to wave a stick. Why mess with fakery?
As far as Windows Media goes, my understanding is that the Gracenote database recognizes CDs by the number of tracks and the timings of each, or, if such are in the TOC data, ISRC code numbers. But for pre-ISRC CDs, it's tracks and timings, as far as I know.
I have dealt with Gracenote but never quizzed them on this specifically.
Two years ago, this would not be a topic of discussion; it makes me want to drink a few beers in a pub in Britain and then visit Ms. Hatto's grave.
JM
Obviously, my post just below was not aimed at you in any way. Sorry if it came off that way. I have no gripe with you at all.
dh
"I hope I spelled that right."You did spell it right..... No big deal if you didn't.....
"Um, you are telling me that Deutsche Gramophon would release a Joyce Hatto style recording based on a decades-old analog master tape."
Anything analog can be digitized...... Anything digitized can be time-stretched or time-compressed. With wave-editing software. Connect the dots.
I personally do not know who in particular is responsible for this..... It might be DG..... Or it could have been done behind DG's back..... Don't even want to speculate what might have occurred.
"Hey, it's not impossible."
It is very possible...... Any of us could transfer a 1960s-vintage LP to a digital file, and then "time-alter" the digital file with common wave-editing software.
"However, I would expect that a pre-Dolby A analog master tape (back then a lot of classical recording was done 15 ips on 1/4 inch two-track) would have a definite analog tape hiss component in its power-over-time frequency spectrum."
Once again, software can remove it. The Rach Two I've linked from Shipway (see post above), was originally recorded onto an analog cassette *without* Dolby..... From an FM radio station to a consumer cassette deck. Far more noise than on a commercial recording. I used digital software to remove the tape noise, yet leave the sound intact. That too is not overly difficult.
"Yes, I know that there is CEDAR and a lot of other plug-ins. But still."
The industry-standard for "time alteration" software is Serato "Pitch 'n Time". A Digidesign Pro Tools plug-in. Probably used on that recording.
The software I used is a "freeware" product called "BestPractice". From the SourceForge site. (I tried several, but the sonics were too degraded. BestPractice isn't exactly Pitch 'n Time, but the results were at least presentable.) Even time-alteration (without pitch alteration) is ghastly simple. Too simple, in fact.
"Also, I heard the live Boston Symphony Hall broadcast of the SBYO, and spoke with people who were there in person. The guy knows how to wave a stick. Why mess with fakery?"
Heck, the LAPO hired him as the next MD..... Simon Rattle has rung praises...... And that "60 Minutes" piece...... I cannot speak for others.
If someone can submit what they think is a genuine performance, I'd like to see it. Some claimed the Proms Shostie 10 was genuine. But only if the wind and brass players were all experts in circular breathing......
"As far as Windows Media goes, my understanding is that the Gracenote database recognizes CDs by the number of tracks and the timings of each, or, if such are in the TOC data, ISRC code numbers. But for pre-ISRC CDs, it's tracks and timings, as far as I know."
The original Szell clip was roughly 7:14. The re-done clip was "time shrunk" to a speedy "6:15".
Once a digital clip is digitally altered, along with the tag info, Gracenote wouldn't be able recognize the clip in its original state.
"I have dealt with Gracenote but never quizzed them on this specifically."
I don't know the exact science either. I do know this was how Hatto got nailed. (But a lot of those recordings were *not* altered.)
"Two years ago, this would not be a topic of discussion; it makes me want to drink a few beers in a pub in Britain and then visit Ms. Hatto's grave."
The only reason why I caught this is that I was so deeply familiar with the Szell/Cleveland B-7 performance. After listening to the B-5, I was ready to post a "mildly-positive" review here. But the B-7 set the alarm bells ringing.....
To compare Hatto to Dudamel, no matter how you feel about Dudamel's performances, is ludicrous. NOBODY had seen Hatto perform for some 30 years when those records started coming out, the reviews of her real career that could even be found were mixed at best, and the other musicians who were supposed to have appeared on her records could not be shown to even exist. How many top tier orchestras has Dudamel conducted here in the states, mostly to the acclaim of people who have demonstrated track records of both competence and honesty? Is every orchestral musician in the world involved in a giant conspiracy to prove that the people who pay them are complete idiots?
As for your comments that this or that would "never happen" if what you were saying weren't true...you've submitted nonsensical "evidence" over and over again in attempting to prove this. In the Julia Fisher Mozart clip you said it was obviously a fake because she played the section violin parts in addition to the solo parts. Having taken part in performances where this was done on similar repertoire, I happen to know for a fact that this doesn't prove jack squat except that you don't know what you're talking about. Same for the piano behind the conductor in Dudamel Brahms (?) concerto video on YT. I saw the Detroit Symphony play the Shostakovich PC1 just last weekend and guess where the piano was--right behind the conductor. The pianist never looked at the conductor even once. And who was conducting? That uppity lip-synching phony Gennady Rozhdestvensky. Let's just say that I'm pretty confident I wasn't listening to a taped performance while 75 or so dedicated professionals--some of whom I've studied with personally--pretended to play their instruments. Oh, and then there were the "phony" clarinet fingerings that turned out to be totally plausible, and the bass positions that may well have been divisi...and then you have to ask if that's in the score there? Didn't you even bother to check? For all the expertise you claim to have, I'd expect you to own Dover scores for all this stuff and have half of it available off the top of your head. But of course, you're really not *that* astute, are you?
Todd, you have proven here over and over and over again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. God help the people who take you seriously--which, in case you haven't noticed, appear to be very few in numbers. Continuing this crusade of yours to save classical music doesn't make you a hero. It makes you an ass.
dh
Why are you so upset?
I ask because such an accusation, if false, shouldn't draw such ire. And it shouldn't draw a post that looks like it took a whole day to write.
First of all, I wrote that last post in about 10 or 15 minutes.
As to why I take such offense to your posts lately....I know what it takes to get to the level of the musicians in a top tier orchestra. Anyone who knows what kind of insane odds you have to beat no matter how good you are just to land a gig you can live off of playing that music would not make the accusation you have made here so cavalierly. I know you've never seen Dudamel live. Have you ever seen Julia Fisher live? Or any of the classical musicians you've asserted are fooling the world with phony or doctored video performances? I suspect the answer is no across the board. Yet you have no problem coming out and saying point blank that their recorded performances are not honest. And now you assert that DG (or someone at DG) has perpetrated a Hatto-esque fraud on behalf of Dudamel--after DG themselves were the victim of some of the Hatto thefts? It's pretty rich that you can brush aside the difficulty of noise reduction aside by claiming that this--and time-stretching--can be done without a hint of distortion, while one of the cornerstones of your argument against the evils of pitch correction--a directly related technology--is that the studio trickery makes all vocalists indistinguishable from one another. Is this a test to see how duplicitous you can get before someone calls you on it?
The Hatto fraud was possible because it was perpetrated by one or maybe two people alone who fooled for a time critics who had gotten a little too confident in the integrity of EVERYONE in the classical music business.
By contrast, you are suggesting a fraud is now underway that would require the direct complicity or at least the gross negligence of all the musicians and peripheral staff in a number of top-tier orchestras, reviewers who have seen this performer, and at least one of the world's largest classical music labels. You would have us believe that hundreds of top professionals the world over are either idiots or, even worse, have overnight forgone all sense of integrity, and all just to advance the career of Gustavo Dudamel. Not even one member of the orchestras, audiences, or recording staffs has stepped forward to utter a peep that would support your claims--and, in contrast to the Hatto situation, we all know for a fact that those people do in fact exist. You take all of this and a couple recordings, most of them from You Tube, to mean that you are the last man on earth with integrity, brains, and ears. The rest of us are idiots and liars. That almost every shred of "proof" you submit is refuted by people who know more than you do is meaningless to you--you just ignore the explanations and move on to find some other "unexplainable" phenomenon.
I submit that the odds are pretty overwhelming that in fact it is not the musicians who have actually worked with Dudamel and the audience members who have attended his performances who are lacking intelligence and scruples. It's you.
dh
It's only a perception..... People like to use it to trump opinion and judgment. Instead of addressing the opinion or judgment at face value."I know what it takes to get to the level of the musicians in a top tier orchestra. Anyone who knows what kind of insane odds you have to beat no matter how good you are just to land a gig you can live off of playing that music would not make the accusation you have made here so cavalierly."
If that's the case, you shouldn't be worried about this..... But you obviously are worried......
Someone once accused Aleks Syntek of being fake. Was I offended? Hell no..... I was confident that the accuser, if he were objective, would eventually see otherwise. And he ultimately did.
"I know you've never seen Dudamel live. Have you ever seen Julia Fisher live? Or any of the classical musicians you've asserted are fooling the world with phony or doctored video performances?"
I'll say it again, that's all I've seen. And I will also tell you that the first, second and fourth movements on that DG Beethoven 7, WITH 100 PERCENT CERTAINTY, is from Szell/Cleveland. 100 percent certainty.
This is so slam-dunk, it isn't even funny. Listen to that clip, and then the actual Szell/Cleveland recording.
"I suspect the answer is no across the board. Yet you have no problem coming out and saying point blank that their recorded performances are not honest."
If I did see them live, would it make any difference about what I see on the footage? Absolutely not. The only thing I would say is I finally saw something that I thought was genuine. And realize the artist is capable.
"And now you assert that DG (or someone at DG) has perpetrated a Hatto-esque fraud on behalf of Dudamel--after DG themselves were the victim of some of the Hatto thefts?"
I don't know who is responsible, and I won't speculate. I will only say it was done. Again, with 100 percent certainty. (I won't even cite Dudamel directly..... He could be someone being exploited. But I don't know.)
"It's pretty rich that you can brush aside the difficulty of noise reduction aside by claiming that this--and time-stretching--can be done without a hint of distortion,"
I never said there wasn't any distortion. That's half the problem.
"while one of the cornerstones of your argument against the evils of pitch correction--a directly related technology--"
Do you have some sort of stake in this technology? I hope not. I despise it. And I think it's destroying music.
This is what I'm attacking head-on. Dudamel and Fischer are mere symptoms. (Someone asked me if I knew anyone else like this in the classical world, but I don't know of one. It's only Dudamel/SBYO and Julia Fischer. It's been an engulfing cancer in the pop/rock world.)
"is that the studio trickery makes all vocalists indistinguishable from one another. Is this a test to see how duplicitous you can get before someone calls you on it?"
Let them call me on it. No problem.
"The Hatto fraud was possible because it was perpetrated by one or maybe two people alone who fooled for a time critics who had gotten a little too confident in the integrity of EVERYONE in the classical music business."
Toss the "integrity" out the window. I've been fooled lots of times, and I will get fooled lots more times. It happens. Integrity is a perception, not a certification of trust. (I don't think being fooled in itself would necessarily compromise such perception.)
And I think this very thing is happening here.
"By contrast, you are suggesting a fraud is now underway that would require the direct complicity or at least the gross negligence of all the musicians and peripheral staff in a number of top-tier orchestras, reviewers who have seen this performer, and at least one of the world's largest classical music labels."
It seems like a plausible contention, but again, I cannot speak for others. But I'm not letting others' purported reputations trump what I experience with my eyes and ears.
"You would have us believe that hundreds of top professionals the world over are either idiots or, even worse, have overnight forgone all sense of integrity, and all just to advance the career of Gustavo Dudamel."
I personally hope Dudamel succeeds, even if what I stated is true. I hope he's a victim of this. If he is the real deal, this is hurting him, and hurting him BAD. And if he is the real deal, they should let whatever flaws through in a genuine performance.
I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. But the end products I've seen are not real performances. I feel like I'm watching the musical equivalent to professional wrestling or old Japanese monster movies.
"Not even one member of the orchestras, audiences, or recording staffs has stepped forward to utter a peep that would support your claims--and, in contrast to the Hatto situation, we all know for a fact that those people do in fact exist."
If I was so certain there was solid evidence to the contrary, these comments wouldn't bother me. (See my Aleks Syntek comment.)
It's like, I've never heard of an orchestral concert being sold out three months in advance. I don't recall Vladimir Horowitz even doing that. I've seen so few accounts from people actually attending these concerts. (I get more feedback on Franz Welser Moest from Cleveland.) I suspect that the sellouts maybe even be "staged."
There is also a violin concert with Dudamel as a performer, the Wednesday prior to said concert, and tickets in all sections of Disney Hall were still available as of a week ago. Is Dudamel the violinist such a non-attraction? I find that intriguing too.
But still, this is not about Dudamel. This is about goings-on in the music industry that I think ought be questioned. And media perception alone doesn't cut it.
"You take all of this and a couple recordings, most of them from You Tube, to mean that you are the last man on earth with integrity, brains, and ears. The rest of us are idiots and liars."
So if someone claims something, and you don't perceive it, this implies that he's calling you deaf, dumb, or a liar?? This is as wacky as the offense some "all wire sounds the same" people take whenever audiophiles claim hearing differences in audio cable.
I know a lot of people who claim things I don't perceive...... It doesn't bother me at all.
"That almost every shred of 'proof' you submit is refuted by people who know more than you do is meaningless to you-"
It's not really "proof"..... Save for maybe the Szell/Cleveland thing...... But one can still claim it's not Szell/Cleveland. Or claim I didn't take the clip from the Dudamel recording. (How does one "prove" that two analog photographs are identical?)
"-you just ignore the explanations and move on to find some other 'unexplainable' phenomenon."
I think I'm not ignoring them. If I am doing so, point the specifics out. I'm trying to respond to everything. Just like here.
Listen to that clip. Is it not Szell/Cleveland? Is it not taken from the cited CD?
"I submit that the odds are pretty overwhelming that in fact it is not the musicians who have actually worked with Dudamel and the audience members who have attended his performances who are lacking intelligence and scruples. It's you."
I've never implied a lack of intelligence. But when people bring up this sort of stuff, it's as if they're doubting their own intelligence. What else would motivate such a comment?
Whenever one is paranoid over integrity or reputation being undercut, such preservation of perception should never hinder information of what's really taking place. Good, bad, or ugly.
....and the way he lives his own life when he can proclaim that integrity is something that exists only in the eyes of others.
dh
The terms "integrity" and "reputation" are often used in attempt to assign a "generalized quality" to people or institutions that I think in reality is far too difficult to assess, with any sort of accuracy or assurance. Such assignment is so subjective. To where it can become divisive.Too many of us treat integrity/reputation as if it's something sacred. I have a similar opinion of citing credentials or background. I think it's divisive because it is often treated **factually**, as opposed to being of one's opinion. And it's used to conveniently trust or distrust an individual's judgments, opinions, and/or "righteousness". Without much further thought.
And worst of all, such labels often enable the hyped to do the wrong thing. (This is where most "double-standards" originate from.)
Take all these religious scandals and misdeeds that go on around the world. It's often due to those of authority being revered unconditionally, to where even wrongdoing becomes acceptable behavior.
Same goes for politicians. People tend to hype their integrity, and it enables corruption and scandal. (Don't get me started on that.)
I think one should simply do the right thing, and let the integrity and reputation take care of themselves..... When one is no longer fixated on how he or someone else is perceived, it sets him free.
People question my reputation all the time. It goes in one ear and out the other. In reality, nobody has control over it.
But when one becomes fixated on defending a "quality" perception like integrity or reputation, it's often because there *is* something to hide.
I have not used the word "reputation" once in this thread. It also seems to totally escape you that your assault is not just on Dudamel, or a couple of select individuals. For all of the things you are saying about Dudamel to have passed, HUNDREDS of people with their own careers at stake would have to be complicit. The world of classical music is just not *that* dark of a place.
dh
The late Steve Zipser once accused my of being deaf, and several on Outside have accused me of being dumb.....
I guess my integrity and/or reputation is indeed lacking..... [-;
A bit further up, Detective Todd, through a process of elementary deduction, makes the following observation about the Szell and "time-stretched" Dudamel performances:
Try to play the tracks simultaneously. There is still a "time variance" in the linked clip, but you'll notice at certain points, the tracks merge as one. (This would never happen with two different performances.) You'll also notice that save for occasional "spot dubbing" and the sonics, the "echo" is identical to the initial sound heard.
Excuse me, but the merging of tracks "as one" at certain points is exactly what anyone should expect when one performance is "time-stretched" to be exactly the same length as another performance. If it were really the same performance, the merging of tracks would be constant, not merely a phenomenon which occurs "at certain points".
"Excuse me, but the merging of tracks 'as one' at certain points is exactly what anyone should expect when one performance is 'time-stretched' to be exactly the same length as another performance."
There was still a cyclical "time variant" in the linked clip. I could straighten that out as well, but the variance actually takes the "guesswork" out of playing the clip "dead on" simultaneous and tweaking the clip's duration.
If these were different performances, no way would the two clips ever "merge as one". (And stay within two seconds of each other for a seven-minute clip.) The reverb, attacks, dynamics, decays, tone, pitch, etc. would all be noticeably different. When these two tracks merge as one, it actually sounds like only one track is playing.
If you want, point to a clip of a different performance that you think might achieve the same effect (I'll purchase another CD if need be), and I'd be happy to post the results as files on my accessible server. (Or you can try to do so yourself.)
Well stated.
In a year Mr. Dudamel takes over as principal conductor of a major orchestra. Many young maestri have two or three programs they handle well and can repeat in their travels to great acclaim, then move on. Soon Dudamel will no longer have this luxury. Time will tell if he can live up to his lofty reputation. I won't use the term "hype" since it's implicitly derogatory. As for the commercial performances being counterfeit, only comparitive audiograms could establish this for sure.
However, most music lovers will have to judge the man by recorded performances. Those currently on the Deutsche Grammophon label should never have been released. I haven't heard the Mahler 5, but both Beethoven performances are routine to scandalously bad. They make me doubt all the superlatives even established critics have heaped on this young performer.
As I have said before, I wish Dudamel the best and hope he does succeed. If he comes to San Francisco, I'll be in the audience and will report my impresions.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
