You know, it's all too easy to blame amplification itself for sonic
problems, as opposed to poor mixing.
I'm involved in a composers federation called Pulse. Our regular
performing ensemble is a string quartet, two reeds, horn, tuba, a
percussionist (usually vibraphone) and a keyboard player, sometimes
augmented by "jazz" soloists. We played two gigs recently, one at a
club in Brooklyn, where everyone was amplified, and one at St.
Peter's Church in Manhattan, with hardly any amplification at all.
The sound was far, far superior at the club -- in fact, it's the best
the group has ever sounded, and all of the players agreed. We were
lucky in that we had a sound tech who really knew what he was doing
-- but such creatures *do* exist. I saw most of the Bang on a Can
marathon at the World Financial center a couple of weeks ago, and the
(amplified, of course) sound in that cavernous space was nothing
short of miraculous.
IMO, it's lazy and stupid to blame amplification per se for sonic
problems, as opposed to poor sound techs. At its best, amplification
allows the listener to hear *more* nuance and *more* expressivity
(especially in an acoustically subpar situation, like, say, a B'way
pit), since more of the subtle details are being transmitted to the
audience. Singers proved this ages ago -- the art of Billie Holiday
or Frank Sinatra simply isn't possible without amplification, and
proper mic technique is an essential part of their sound -- and the
same goes for Miles Davis when playing in a Harmon mute.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
