100
Yes, and Beethoven didn't understand the violin, and on and on it goes. Standing around backstage with other instrumentalists, there's always complaining about how so and so composer didn't understand their bloody, pathetic instrument (fill in the instrument of your choice). The whole point is that new music challenges everybody, including the listeners.
A trumpet playing friend told me of Mahler's preference for F trumpet based upon his internet exchanges with other know-it-all trumpet players. He could be wrong. It really doesn't matter to me. I just feel that applying the modern, piston valve C trumpet to everything is not really an answer. They may be more secure in the upper end, but I find them lacking in the low end. A prime example of that is the trumpet solo in the third movement of Shostakovich's 8th symphony, which begins down low, then ascends. When Russian players use their Bb's on that solo, it sounds so much fatter. The lowest note should be equally as loud as the upper ones.
"Personally, I would love for every record reviewer who talks about SQ to post a picture of their set-up, and ideally a frequency response chart at their listening position. This, perhaps, sounds extreme, but could be very telling in what the reviewer is actually hearing at his seat. In most instances people aren't getting what truly is represented on the disc. You're getting a huge amount of audio information based on your room and the reflected sound".
What's the point when the same reviewers don't even know what the composer actually wrote? Besides, I don't really agree with the premise. Good sound should sound good on crappy equipment, as well as on expensive equipment. More to the point, there would be ENDLESS arguments as to what constitutes a good sounding stereo system (and what about the rooms themselves!). It would just lead to more elitism and endless debates. I do get your point - I'm just not sure it's truly a solution.
Recent Posts