Replying to LO28308 --
Osiyo At, (Cherokee hello)
> Thank you for this most valuable comment. There is vast difference for me
> between listening to a live performance and a recording of a live
> performance (no matter how a good sound system is used). That difference
> is far greater than the difference between a digital and analog recording.
Absolutely,
> It is the same difference between looking at a succulant plant in the
> desert and looking in an aridarium (desert house) at the same kind of
> plant. In the former case you are within wholeness whereas in the latter
> case you have to imagine yourself mentally into that wholeness.
Yes but each have their purposes.
> I think, to use the desert as metaphor once again, a master is a person
> who roams the deserts rather then keeping at home a pack of desert
> snapshots in the pocket.
Rather it being what a Master is, I would put it as a part of what a
Master does.
> By the way, that lack of what you call "density" in digital recordings, is
> the "pixel" nature of them still coming through. Pushing more bits into a
> second of music will reduce some of it, but it will also need more
> computing power. The question is -- can all of it be removed by going for
> the sky in computing power?
Digital recordings give clarity where analogue recordings give resonance.
Each are simply a record of an event or a record of an interpretation of
an even (the engineer/producer) Sound will get better but a performance
is not only sound. As you noted earlier, if you want a real performance
then you have to got to it and understand what it is doing.
(snip)
> There is one other thing I wish to draw your attention to. Numbers need to
> be seen by the eyes. We cannot feel, taste, smell or hear numbers.
You cannot hear the symbols but you can hear and feel what the numbers
represent in time and pulse.. It is called rhythm and rhythmic density is
pulse plus multiple lengths (numbered) in action. Art is the antithesis
to science while science in the antithesis to art. In art you grow
complexity and manage change to the delight in novelty while in science
you grow simplicity and eliminate change in the ritual of repetition as
truth. It you can't repeat it then it isn't true (science). If you are
obvious and predictable in you repetition then you are no artist. A
craftsman maybe but not an artist.
> The
> human mind, as Goethe long ago observed, is our perception system, relying
> on all five sense to operate wholesomely. Should we try to perceive
> complexity by numbers alone, we will fail for sure.
I prefer Herbert Read's Education Through Art where he defines the mind as
a compilation of "minds" 30 years before Howard Gardner.
Best to you
Ray Evans Harrell
--"Ray Evans Harrell" <mcore@nyc.rr.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.