Rudy Van Gelder interview from 1995

[JSngry]

Nah, this is more than adequate.

Enjoy!

[Scott Dolan]

Quitter!  

[JSngry]

Allen will not quit, which is all that matters. Whatever he thinks he hears, he will proceed accordingly. He will make something that did not exist before and that will be real.

So, yeah. Lowe FTW.

[Scott Dolan]

I guess that's something I've had a problem conveying here. I never wanted it to be Lowe for the loss. I've heard some of his music and found it to be really outstanding. 

Years ago he put together a project and I told him how much it reminded me of Dolphy's Music Matador, possibly one of my favorite Jazz tunes of all time. I'm not sure that he liked me saying that, as musicians, in my experience, don't really like being compared to other musicians. But, what he may, or may not, have understood was how much that particular piece grabbed me. 

So, yes! Long live the music and musical genius of Allen Lowe! 

But honestly, that is NOT what any of this is about. And I would guarantee that Jim and Kevin both agree with that. 

Hey, not that either you or I like to stir the shit, but this conversation has veered off the road and into a tree. 

So to be perfectly clear, this has nothing to do with the excellent music that Allen has produced. 

Fair enough? 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Scott Dolan

[JSngry]

Well, no, not really fair. The "creative process" (whatever that "really" "is") depends on the germination of an idea which then incubates, develops, and finally gets followed through to fruition. This can take years, or it can take seconds, or microseconds (aka Bird).

However long it takes, the one thing it requires is a certainty that, after all examinations and mullings, the idea can, should, and will be borne in a manner that justifies all the work. Not necessarily that it's "good"or even "great", just that hey, I did the work, I got the results, now let's see what we've got. Learn from its failures, find room for improvement, discard it if it doesn't really suit, but above all else, get it done. Can't move forward until you get it done.

This whole chain is predicated on the notion that the idea can be realized, that if it is not real now, it can be made real. You start telling somebody who operates on that basic premise that any part of what they hear (or "hear") is false, you undermine their basic premise. Data ain't got shit to do with that, science ain't got shit to do with that, not at this level. This is instinct (and I'm sure science is already working to figure that out, but so far...). You gonna fuck with somebody's creative instincts, intentionally or otherwise, hell yeah they gonna resist. And hell yeah they should.

This is not to say that all instinct is good, or that knowledge is not useful to refining instincts. It is just to say that to get from "what you think you are hearing is not real" to "you are not hearing what you think you are hearing" to "you CAN'T be hearing that because it's not real" is a route undertaken with any real initiative only if the goal is to get the person on the other side to admit that "no, I do not hear it. Well, I hear it, but no, I won't hear it, can't hear it...even though I do hear it". That's some seriousass soul-breaking if you ask me, not a fan.

This is music we're talking about, sound, vibrations received through our body and processed by our brain. Recorded music at that, by definition one step removed from "reality" the second it comes into being. Hearing it is a very intimate activity, you are letting things into your body that are put there by somebody else. On the one end, you have total withdrawal, never on, on the other end, free porn, 24-7, always there, always hard and wet, always on, NEVER off. In between, there are...options. Options and possibilities.

Nobody gets permanently damaged from thinking they hear 24-bit as being truly better than 16-bit. Some very few might actually really hear it. But we're not talking psychotic breaks here (although hey, breaks, one of the more delightful aspects of modern music), we're talking about arguing technology and data and quantifiable shit, and some of y'all got no skin in that game but as consumers. I'm waaaay more ok with people getting suckered out of money because they wanna be cool than I am by somebody getting up in my face and telling me that I don't hear reality-based sound. You civilians, discuss amongst yourselves, y'all save each other money and space and shit, go for that, and when I want advice about a TV or a coffee pot or a desk fan or some shit like that, let me in. Soldiers Of Creativity, do the same. The conversations will overlap. But please, everybody, do not project the ignorance of thinking that it "matters" in the same way to both groups.

Bits, shits. Data is objective. Reaction is not. Creation is definitely not. For that I am thankful, at least as it applies to the creation/reproduction of music. One Size does not fit all unless there really IS One Size. There isn't.

So no, not really fair.

[Scott Dolan]

If only I was bored enough to engage you this evening. Tomorrow, I promise.

That said, creativity has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

[JSngry]

Well, maybe not your part of the conversation.

[JSngry]

3 hours ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

What's funny is that I've followed his discussions of audio restoration and thought that he was a bit of a technology guy too. I guess I read him wrong.

So, what, he just got lucky more than a few times? Seriously?

 

[JSngry]

4 hours ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

 

What's missing in all of the dismissals of the science of sound is the simple fact that if it wasn't for this science stuff, there wouldn't be any sounds in your house.

A keen AND astute scientific observation. I wondered why I go deaf as soon as I step inside the crib.

Thanks, Kevin, mystery solved!

[Scott Dolan]

That wasn't a scientific observation. It was simply a statement of fact. You're going to some extraordinary lengths to keep your narrative afloat. Mst notably shoehorning the buzzword "scientific" in even when it has no relevance. 

Don't you think that's a pretty good indication that this argument is settled? 

[Big Beat Steve]

Science (or "facts") doesn't win listeners over. Individual, personal perceptions (including perceptions of sound) do.

 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Big Beat Steve

[Scott Dolan]

Which is fine until those incorrect perceptions are submitted as facts. 

[JSngry]

2 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

That wasn't a scientific observation. It was simply a statement of fact. You're going to some extraordinary lengths to keep your narrative afloat. Mst notably shoehorning the buzzword "scientific" in even when it has no relevance. 

Don't you think that's a pretty good indication that this argument is settled? 

Whatever "narrative" there might have been has turned into a running joke about the Civilian Expert Audio Enthusiasts who take a serious discussion between two Experienced Soldiers Of Recordist/Performing War and get excited about asses being handed and some such. Relishing a chance to call somebody a jerk. Truly Civilian behavior. Spectators! HEY TROUT, LEARN HOW TO SMILE WITHOUT SMIRKING!

Latest punchlines in the joke:

• What's missing in all of the dismissals of the science of sound is the simple fact that if it wasn't for this science stuff, there wouldn't be any sounds in your house.
• That wasn't a scientific observation. It was simply a statement of fact.

Mr Jones: Heeeeeeere's science!

Mr. Smith: That's not science, Mr. Jones that's simply a statement fact!

Are you certain Mr. Smith?

Positivily, Mr. Jones

(bom bom bom bom)

You guys played the Palace back in the day, right?

NO SOUNDS IN MY HOUSE? Dude, there are ALL kinds of sounds in my house, foundation settling, refrigerators running, birds from outside, traffic noises from up the road sometimes, people snoring, all that shit is gonna be there whether or not there's a perception or understanding of the science as to why I can hear those sounds or not. That sound is not created by science, science explains why it is there. Science can help me block the noise, or eliminate the source of it, science can do a whole big lot of shit, but science just sitting there being all theoretical and shit does not mean that their are automatically no sounds in my house. Ignunt Caveass Motherfuckers still had sound in their houses, just watch the Flintstones if you don't believe that, that shit tells it like it is.

"Argument"? The only "argument" there was to be had was whose business it is how people make their records, and unless you and/or Kevin have any recording projects in the works that you're planning on sharing with the class, you have no place in that discussion because you have nothing at stake there. Allen was, to use a popular phrase" inartful" in his expression of this, but the point still stands - him and Jim MAKE this stuff, you guys CONSUME it, each has a role, but unless you hear something in either's work that you find improper, inadequate, or objectionable, it ain't your talk, not that one.

Y'all's argument is with fellow Civillian Audio Enthusiasts about how $500 Testicle Warmers do or do not increase the bloodflow to your ears allowing for a  23% more releaxed reception of soundwaves coming out of rawhide covered speakers. Y'all go ahead and have that argument, that'll be fun.

I like the back and forth between Allen & Jim, two totally mindsets at work. Allen's the guy who plays with different 78 styli, tonearm angles, non-standard uses of noise reduction software, a real hands-on one-off, and his music reflects this, quirky, homemade, and always justified. Jim's a hard core objectivist, he can explain everything he does in terms of data, and deep data at that. His music reflects that as well, in sound and substance, cool, well-constructed, nothing left to randomness, and as with Allen, always justified. And in their back and forths, the differences are obvious, they represent the yin and yang of the hotly subjective experientialist vs that cool objective dataist, and ultimately they are both only as "right" or as "wrong" as their finished products.

Theirs is a discussion between front-end producers, not end-use consumers. You guys sitting in the stands cheering on with the pompoms and stuff and the cheerleaders chanting KICK THAT ASS/ KICK THAT ASS! ...stay in the seats, please.

 

 

[Scott Dolan]

I love the fact that you foolishly believe that only people who are recording artists have any knowledge of how audio works. Because there is obviously no way for anyone but a recording artist to know how audio works, right? One day we'll hopefully live in an age of information where even the little people will have access to these hidden secrets! 

I can only dream of a day when 24bit HDTracks are available to the common man with excellent playback equipment to do his own A->B testing against a 16bit version.

And honestly, cut it with the soldier/civilian bullshit. This is about audio, not music theory. Simple A->B tests, null tests, etc. can be done by anyone with the equipment (which is ubiquitous these days). Results of those tests from others are all over these glorious intertubes for all creation to see if they choose to educate themselves, rather than wax pseudo-philosophical about soldiers and civilians and creativity and hey just let 'em spew whatever nonsense they believe in as fact, man. 

One does not need to be a recording artist or engineer to understand the basic principles of audio. But, it's always a pleasure to be told that by someone who doesn't even understand them. 

Oh, and just for clarification, as you seemed to have skipped several posts here, this discussion is INDEED about what becomes the end user product. That had been made perfectly clear several times. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Scott Dolan

[JSngry]

 

[Scott Dolan]

And BTW, this: 

 

[[["Argument"? The only "argument" there was to be had was whose business it is how people make their records...]]]

is 100% percent incorrect. I'd encourage you to go back and actually read Jim and Allen's posts instead of only mine. 

The argument is ONLY and SPECIFICALLY about 16 vs 24bit audio playback. 

[JSngry]

and how it mattered or didn't to each of them as part of their personal production process.

It will only matter to you if you don't like the way their records sound.

 

[Scott Dolan]

Wrong once again. There were parts of the conversation that dealt with that. Those weren't what I was responding to. I was responding to Allen's declarative statements about things such as "my caveat, however, (and it is significant) is that analog has a depth of field which digital is incapable of replicating". 

Or, "I do agree that, at 24 bits, digital has finally found a way to match analog in basic sonic warmth and appeal." 

Both statements are complete bullshit, and have NOTHING to do with "personal production process". 

They are snake oil pitches that any audio enthusiast can tell you is bullshit. 

And once more, this was about the final product. Not the process of making the finall product. 

[rostasi]

All kinds of people give reasons for their perceptions as fact. 
Social, political, and especially (because of its inherent
ineffableness) cultural observations are all over the map
in wildly differing ways. Yes, it's damn frustrating to hear
people expound on self-glorified attitudes, but I've found
that the worst way of trying to convince someone is by
pointing out, relentlessly, that something they're saying
is not factual. Hell, I've lost friends just by having a different
viewpoint without trying to convince them and they end
up getting all butthurt and that's that.

Sometimes, one will say that they're doing all of this "correcting"
for the benefit of others (so that they don't become hoodwinked
into believing some erroneous concept), but really all you can
hope for is that people just do their homework and hope that
they use some sort of good analytic thought to come to their
conclusions. Using the two examples above, I'm thinking that
the problem may be with definitions. Maybe there's a disagreement
about what "depth of field" means? How about the phrase
"sonic warmth and appeal"? Thinking that Allen is a walking
fake-news site when it comes to his personal observations isn't
going to suddenly produce endearment from him. It's going to do
exactly what it has done - make him run away while the person trying to
do the "convincing" is left out in the cold - essentially accomplishing
nothing positive in the end ... as well as losing the election.

[Scott Dolan]

Well, all of that is very thoughtful and fair. But, let's also not act as though Mr. Lowe is some kind of sweet, innocent angel. 

Let's keep in mind my first statement that set him off was that what he was experiencing was expectation bias. 

No name calling, no sneering, no belittling. Just a human fallacy that we all suffer at times in all kinds of endeavors. 

[JSngry]

 

[JSngry]

I dig that the Flintstones gave up their bodies to be made into delicious gelatinous nutrient delivery systems. I myself would not be so noble, even if extended the invitation.

[rostasi]

I wouldn't mind - as long as the final result wasn't gelatinous.

[JSngry]

Crunchy? Like bone meal?

[rostasi]

3 hours ago, JSngry said:

Crunchy? Like bone meal?

 No, I mean that I wouldn't want to be represented by something that's a collagen-based foodstuff.

... and I'd want to be something definitely healthier than what resulted after the 'stones gave of themselves!