On audio purity, musicianship, commercialism, accessibility and automation

Audio engineers are by definition purists, they know so much about audio
recording and have spent so many years developing their high-level
production skills that they are committed to - or welded onto - what they
do. And they want to do it "right", as they know it. They can hardly be
expected to enjoy lower sonic purity, or to support lossy audio recording
formats. They want to capture the soul and essence of musicianship and
creativity, and they believe that this is best done through relentlessly
pursued, highly skilled orchestration of all of the facets of modern
hi-fidelity studio audio production - whilst artfully capturing the
spontaneity of the session. (Hmmmm.) It is also not suprising that, with
their own art and craftsmanship at such a high level, they expect the same
of the musicians they work with. Well don't we all want that? (Read more on
what some top-line audio producers want, here: http://sn.im/slq8r)

Well guess what? Most people can't even detect the difference between
lossless and lossy recordings. And even if they can, most people don't
care. Whilst they may respect and admire the production values and the
skills involved at the highest level, they want the finished product at a
price they can afford that sounds "good enough" on their (dare we say it?)
imperfect sound systems. That's "accessibility" at work. When was it ever
any different? Sure, there's a sizable niche market for audiophiles and
musical purists but the bulk of the iceberg is below the water. And that
bulk is keeping the small portion we see up above the waterline afloat.
Whilst it's all well and good to criticise artists like Britney Spears for
her imperfect singing, and to cast aspersions on audio tools that mold and
shape wayward singers into some semblance of acceptability, it's the
finished product that sells in the shops. Just to take Britney as an
example, she's a product of her times, and an artist with multiple
marketable skills and attributes. It's not about the audio purity or
musicianship, it's the total package that sells. It may not be right, but
it's the way it is.

Which brings me back to purity. Purity is really about reduction. Reducing
ourselves to our essence. Now to me that's taking us back to humanity's
beginning's and searching for what makes us, "us". It's not about the
tools, although the tools we make and use are clearly part of the essence
of "us". It's not about the arcane language of specialists, or secrets of
the trade. Applying purity as a test to the audiophile's argument about
lost musicanship and lossy recordings brings us back to the unrecorded
human voice. What we sing and how we hear it - live, individually and in
the context of our family or our tribe - is entirely up to us. Judging
other people, their skills, talents and their art is subjective - always
was - and individual to our selves and our context. Everything outside of
true purity - like audio recording itself - is impure, shadowy artifice. To
cling to that is to grab onto to a mist.

So it is throughout our lives. Audio aside, those of us (and this may
include myself) who cling to some form of 'perfect' Engish are not
acknowledging the very change that forced the English language into the
shape it is today. Similarly those who drive manual cars may scorn the
automatic transmissions that have taken the essence and skill out of
driving. And those who double declutch and hell-and-toe may scorn the
sychromesh that has removed the skill from driving a manual car. And on and
on. Pick any human tool you like and it has evolved to become simpler and
more accessible - more democratic, if you like. If you try to pin it down
and stamp a standard on it, or to trap it, you lose it. Or render it
irrelevant. It's shapeshifting, it's morphing, it's malleable. It's a puff
of smoke, and it's gone.

Posted via email from gtveloce's posterous