barryt
Member of the Trade: Austin Audio Works
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Posts
- 98
- Likes
- 46
I have been reading the delightful posts about materials used in the sonic creation process. Saw a very intelligent point made about production and re-production of music and the issues of the materials used in each process.
Let us clearly remember that this is all about timbre, the word we use to refer to the nature of the overtones (a sweeping and general reference to the harmonics amplitude and their phases, including all the multiple non-harmonic energies, not necessarily noise, but also perhaps non-harmonic mechanical derived energies added to the to the perceived audio signal, perhaps with the intention of emotional messaging, that give it the clues our brains us sound use to identify and interpret the source.
Simply put, on the production side there is no room for discussion. The artist chooses the sound of the instrument as part of the act of creation, it is an artistic decision, one based on his (her) creative processes and key to the 'Gestalt' of the creation. You may choose to like or not like it, but like the paint in a painting, it is the artists creative tool, part of the emotional message he or she is sending. It is not the viewer's job to change as it is intrinsic to the work presented and must be listened to as a whole and appreciated thus, it is the Gestalt of the offering.
On the re-production side changing timbre of the creation (which is what the materials used in the re-productive process of the listening do) in effect changes the creation. This brings us to the conundrum - who's art it?
If it the artist's (in which reproduction should be pure, truthful, and accurate to his creation), or is the listener's post-production creative process (turning up the bass would be an example of such) which is in effect interpreting the creation with more creation, thus we have timbre times timbre.
Beats me.
Your call just as long as you recognize that it is a choice you the listener makes.
Let us clearly remember that this is all about timbre, the word we use to refer to the nature of the overtones (a sweeping and general reference to the harmonics amplitude and their phases, including all the multiple non-harmonic energies, not necessarily noise, but also perhaps non-harmonic mechanical derived energies added to the to the perceived audio signal, perhaps with the intention of emotional messaging, that give it the clues our brains us sound use to identify and interpret the source.
Simply put, on the production side there is no room for discussion. The artist chooses the sound of the instrument as part of the act of creation, it is an artistic decision, one based on his (her) creative processes and key to the 'Gestalt' of the creation. You may choose to like or not like it, but like the paint in a painting, it is the artists creative tool, part of the emotional message he or she is sending. It is not the viewer's job to change as it is intrinsic to the work presented and must be listened to as a whole and appreciated thus, it is the Gestalt of the offering.
On the re-production side changing timbre of the creation (which is what the materials used in the re-productive process of the listening do) in effect changes the creation. This brings us to the conundrum - who's art it?
If it the artist's (in which reproduction should be pure, truthful, and accurate to his creation), or is the listener's post-production creative process (turning up the bass would be an example of such) which is in effect interpreting the creation with more creation, thus we have timbre times timbre.
Beats me.
Your call just as long as you recognize that it is a choice you the listener makes.
