Music Dynamics.

It had been a long time since my hibernation. Time for something new!

It has been a great opportunity for me here in UK too access to various data and info about music and art. At least, the internet speed is really fast, streaming is no longer a problem for me to learn new thing.

To be honest, I used to think that Classical music is something dead. But, now i could certainly say that, no it isn't.

Take one example: Chopin Ballade No.1 in G minor. I took the same piece performed by different players (Arthur Rubinstein, Horowitz, Zimerman, Michiavelli, etc). I noticed that,

1. All of them perform flawless. This is the basic requirement for classical pianist i suppose.

2. All of the performances have different video time length. It means that each of them is performed at different speed.

3. Each of them performs with different physical facial expression. As well as their dynamics, loudness, quietness, where to pause, where to emphasis, etc..

4. All blend in to: each of them has a very special interpretation into that particular piece.

This makes the piece alive. What was Chopin thinking? The song is just named "Ballade in G minor", this title doesn't show any clue. For instance, "pop song no.12 in E major", what's that suppose to mean? no title, only music score with expression signs.

In exact same notes, same timing/beat, same kind of piano; each of them brings you into a different realm.

In that case, emotion & dynamics is really something that makes song/music different & unique. isn't it?

Do jazz interpret music as such? Or just pure theory? Pure feel? Improvisation from the original song? No feel of the title at all?? What's happening?

Cables, for Hi Fi.

(Purposely do not write out all of my thoughts, to reduce complaint!! I think it's short enough =D)

Once i think that the interior and exterior properties of speaker/interconnect cables do make sonic difference in Hi Fi. (I'm talking about high fidelity sound). This is because the inductive, capacitive and conductivity of the cables do change the sound characteristic.

But, scientists say it doesn't cause any difference in your ear, or our mind. Is this true?

I do still believe hifi cables do make a different in the sonic element!!

"The human mind is such a suggestible, inaccurate device, why do we bother to listen at all? We should just measure music and go home. " -Michael Fremer, stereophile reviewer.

What he said is so true, you opinion?? As when i played my guitar solo..........

It was a "chance"? or miracle?

After a very very very long thought, referring to a lot of data, I found that "Acoustic" involves a series of very complex waves interactions. It may involve sound decay, sound delay, reverberation, echo, effects of human neuron's limitations, etc, whether linearly or non-linearly.

A far voice may sounds "soft", but the "soft" is very different from the "soft" when we turn down the volume of the hi-fi system. Sound of far distance decay over distance, but the high frequency will decay faster than the low frequencies, due to the environment's nature. A far sound will sound "soft" in treble but "not-too-soft" in bass. Non-linearity! Room's acoustics changing the wave pattern, it become slightly more reverberant for a far voice. Etc, etc...

My church (before renovation) have a so-called "warm" sound. I tried very hard to mix the bass so that it'll be clearer those days, but i failed to. Until now, when i look back to what i was trying to solve, only i realize the whole picture! (i hope i'm right).

Different materials absorbs different frequencies, usually the hardest/most costly to be tamed is the bass freq. My church was having some partitions, carpets, cushions plus some ceiling which seem to absorb sound pretty well, but just the HIGH frequencies.

My church was having an under-powered amps driving the FOH speakers and for bass guitar. Yet, it was so warm. The answer could be, the room attenuated the mid and high range, leaving the bass untouched/build up its energy. Hence, while the midrange and treble (which is most sensitive to our ear) being normal (no energy build up acoustically), the bass was being build up causing an illusion of deep bass. It explains the "muddy" effects of the bass, which is much undesired. But, we like bass, bass gives energy. Try to listen to music by laptop speaker, the louder u make it, the noisier it'll become. It have to be balanced by bass.

Anyway, just wanna stress that the acoustic of the room is kinda... just nice to suit the under-powered amps, yet still sound so nice. We once removed a partition, the bass became a lot muddier, and it was since then i wanna get the bass sound right, nailed to its position, not floating around and kacau other instruments.. HAHA!. Quite a luck to get this kind of "just fine" or "it wasn't tuned!!?" environment, or i should say "Thank God" for knowing our budget..

The newly renovated church acoustic is a very challenging one, indeed! The prob now is how to equalise the system to suit our ears via room acoustics! Perhaps it'll not be a chance play this time (serious, lol!!).

Mixing. EQ

Equalizer (EQ)? You may find it on some mini hi-fi. The most basic one can be "tone" or "bass, treble, mid" adjustments. Hence, an equalizer serves as a device that changes the characteristic of a sound.

There are quite a number of them, from the smallest basic treble-bass that kind, to the 32 bands frequencies wide range graphic EQ, and to the most sophisticated parametric EQ.

Why change the sound characteristic? Isn't that original sound is the most important? The most expensive amplifier gets the most original sound, right?

Actually, in my personal view, original sound is important, but when playing in a band/orchestration, some frequencies can be eliminated to ensures the clarity of every instrument. For example, when u boost 100Hz for the kick drum, you may as well want to decrease the 100Hz of the bass guitar while boosting it at maybe 250Hz (its very own place in the wide frequency spectrum) . This is to ensure that they don't overshadow each other. Ensures clarity!

People usually likes to make a "smile" face on the graphic EQ on their home system, this is due to a psychoacoustic effect on human's brain. Our ear tends to accept and translate sound level in a non-linear scale. Meaning, while you hear the midrange frequency doubled its "loudness", it doesn't mean that your brain takes bass (same power of boost) as doubled loudness. Usually we are weaker at the bass and treble response at low volume, hence we tends to boost them up in everyday consumer hi-fi. But in live music where the SPL raise till a significant loudness, things become different. EQ is then used for the clarity and the feedback control. If used wrongly (if overboost), it may cause distortion. Distortion destroys speakers.

Still, original sound will be the most important thing.

Yet, how come... Perhaps a room having weak acoustic don't meant to be mixed nicely? But, when i play CD on it, it sounds just fine, just a little bit muddy/draggy.. How to mix in a semi mic in room? How to mix if there is some instrument that just doesn't need nor can be mic in? How to compensate? Any idea?

Another thought on worship band.

That day i talked with a friend, and we get something like this:

Worship leader's job is to get the congregations to be attentive towards God, and ultimately to bring them into a worship. Church worship session have songs with a similar theme, and that should be what the worship leader trying to get the congregation to think about. Hence, preferably, the worship tunes should be synchronized with what the pastor wanted to preach.

Also, worship leader shall have the anointing to affect the congregations, spiritually (holy spirit and stuff like that). But, i was thinking, should worship be done together just like in group prayer (same thought, same spirit and everybody says "amen"!) or just different people different touch/thoughts?

Personally, i think that if it's not done in "togetherness", it'll be messy. Everyone will be having their own stuff and there is no unity. Even in the normal "world" bands, they play with same philosophy (you can see how badly a man can be changed once he's affected by the culture of the band he joined). Similarly, in church worship team, we all play different instruments, but our spirit should be aligned. The team have to follow what the worship LEADER leads, and not to lead individually.

But, how a pianist worship with a piano? Perhaps you can imagine the piano as a voice, just another kind of voice. Take 5 people sing together in harmonics, and we change all the 4 voices to string, left one human voice. It's the same isn't it? And you can also notice how a person usually free-worship in spirit- don't know what is he singing at all, only God knows via spirit... Haha, but for pianist, can't just free flow, only if you have the skill or talent. Else, tough.. very tough..

Now, i have another problem: if we just follow what the worship leader wants, and play it very harmonically, is it enough? This may be true for a thought: "good worship does not occurred naturally, but we have to "do" it out. This is very true.

Still, i do think that there is an element missing.

Perhaps this is not too important as christian shouldn't worship only at church, but it's an everyday "thingy"!

Psychoacoustic versus worship.

I'm not sure about this, really!

Music was 1st invented for spiritual worship purposes. It means it's having the ability to bring human's mind into another level of realm. (Christians believe that 1st musician was Lucifer, who became fallen angel when he started to worship himself instead of God with music). The history tells that music was developed only for spiritual purposes before it became an "art" for the society. After that, music was developed even more rapidly by the "world musician", its purpose was shifted from spiritual to entertainment.

So, we bring back this question: does music really affects one's mind? Can it bring a person to another realm and affect the emotion etc? Reality tells us that it does, e.g. Mozart effects causes the spatial intelligence to increase temporarily, Death metal music may bring people to think about despair, depress or emo.

Can we play or arrange something to bring christians to worship more deeply (mentally)? Will the way the singer sing-whether have emotion or not- bring the worshiper to different "place"?

Oxford university came out with a research recently, it says that we can hear shapes and taste colour.. What the heck is this? This is non other than the power of other senses (other than sight) on predicting an object's characteristic. Have you heard someone said "Marshall amplifier have a more rounded sound" or "when playing classical guitar, one should get the round sound and not the oval one". One tends to relate a lower frequency sound (lower tone) to rounded object and higher frequency (high tone) to sharp object. Does this effect mean anything to the music arranger when arranging a complex sequence of notes and harmonics? What will we "see" and where it'll bring us to? Can this be applied to spiritual purposes or was music first invented for this purpose?

Of course, worship leader must have a pure heart in worshipping God and he shall lead the members in the house to worship. But, what is the purpose of music? For a same worship leader, can he leads even better when there is an expert music team behind? Or when there is a team of psychoacoustic experts supporting him..?

psychoacoustic---psycho=mind, acoustic=sound. Is this the relationship?

Wanna buy a guitar..

What guitar should i buy, or should you buy? These are from my experience..

1. Wood of the guitar. Different wood gives you different sound, e.g. spruce top gives a very bright sound while koa top gives a relatively mellow sound. Rosewood back gives a bassy sound and maple back gives a more thin sound. It depends on what sound you like.

What about the quality of the wood? Let's say if you have a normal spruce and grade A spruce, the only difference is the stability of the wood. For the grade A wood, it's already seasoned and the sound quality is assured. But, for a non seasoned wood, chances are, it turns out to be very nice or very bad, some (those that are not completely dry) may even bend, which is very very bad..

Another thing, some say the different wood looked differently, e.g. some has more packed pattern, some loose. The packed one is sold more expensive, because of it's "artistic" look, not the sound quality..

2. The bracing. Even from same wood, different manufacturers have different style of bracing design. It affects the sound quality also. Hence, you'll have to try out few guitars so that you can get the sound that you prefer. Personally, i prefer Martin guitars than Taylor guitars.

3. The action. Even how good the sound is, if the touch is very bad (very hard to play), it's useless. I'd tried some handmade guitars before, although the sound is not bad, the strings are way too high from the fret, hence it's akward to play fast. The neck thickness, the buzzing of strings, etc.. these have to be considered.

4. Then, you have to check check very carefully the accuracy of tone each strings at each bar. make sure that the tone (especially after 12th bar) is still consistently in tune.

5. The value of the guitar. I'd been thinking of this question for some time. Good instrument will have their value increase over time. e.g. you bought a Selmer saxophone at 50's, now the price is almost 30 times the price last time.. But if you buy a kapok guitar, do you think you can even sell the guitar? This is the different, hence buying good guitars is another kind of investment, provided you really know how to take care of it..

These are what i know so far. I heard people say that hand made guitar's sound quality will increased by time, but machine made one won't.. I doubt on this. Also, don't be cheated by the price and think that price higher, sound better.. it's not that case. Some price are meant for the outside look only, not the sound nor feel.. E.g. standard taylor has standard price. Those limited edition one will have the more or less same sound, but the design varies a lot..

Imagination.

Does scientist create a new theory out of math or imagination?

Initially, i thought it's the upmost important for a scientist to good in maths and derivations stuff, such as how to derive a new equations and stuff like that.. But after a further thought, i feel that it's more important to imagine than to derive ike a rationalist, though it doesn't mean that math is not important..

Faraday discovered electromagnetism, found the relationship between electricity and magnetism by imagination, not derived it out of math (although math did help). Einstein discovered relativity theorem when he imagine a situation where speed is close to speed of light. Of course, math did help. Also, John Dalton, J.J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford and James Chadwick's contribution in atomic models is out of imagination as well. Etc..

So, it's like... driven out of imagination, using math as a tool, a new theory can be formed. Imagination>Theory>New stuff. Maybe music works in this way also...

What about pure math?? Since what we observed is kind of... uncertain, as what we see in quantum physics. Hence some scientist try to derive everything out of pure logic, such as string theory!

Music shift?

Suddenly i have a thought: baby boomers and music style revolution.

During World War 2 (WWII), many men died as they fought in a battle. This ended up causing a phenomena where there was an unbalanced ratio of adults to children. Slowly when these children grew up, they became the main part of the society. But, do you think they will prefer the classics-classical & big band- or the new born rock and roll?

Big bands and classical orchestras are formed by a band of 'old' musicians, who talked about the deep theories in music and the fine progressions and arrangements. Usually they made the gentlemen style, quiet but meaningful. This is contradicted to the rock 'n' roll, funk, r&b or hippies which were made up of good-looking young players, who also share the same interest as other baby boomers around the country.

It's almost the same for today.

Rock music has a more energetic feel, which is preferred by teenagers. Loud music, heavy beats and opportunities to dance around freely..

Since there were no 'market' already, the classical orchestra and big band slowly vanished. Teens tend to follow their teen idols and no adults were there to preserve the fine classics.

~~But, as well, there were many other factors that causes the shift, such as high cost of maintain a band made up of more than 30 members. During the war, some fine players in those big bands had lost their life as well, causing a discouraging situation.~~

Is there any significance on "throwing away an old idea and come out with a whole new idea"? As in "throwing away the well established classic and roar out a ROCK N ROLL tiger", and this tiger is the one that influence the most on todays' music.

Since we are not throwing away any idea, we continue to establish a firm theory on the particular music as:

baroque to romance
delta blues to cool/fusion jazz
rock 'n' roll to alternative rock.
The next generation will lead to...?

Three different theories (but similar), two great shifts in the main direction, one cause...

Color tone?

Recently i found that i dislike cartoon picture with uncreative colour tone.. Those that you may see in those children's stationeries or toys.. I think they look like dead objects.

Personally, i feel that an good art work can produce multi-angled perspectives from multiple views, whether it's by physical eyes or inner-psychological eyes.

If the art work is a 2D work, perhaps tone plays an important role. However, the meaning behind it makes it alive. In 3D art, it's possible to unlock the normal predicted perspectives to a wider view. If 1D, such as poem/stories? I think same things applies too.

Music as well... But how to explain? I still have got no idea.

That day i saw in a magazine, where at one point, in a room, you see a multi circle picture composed of the paint of the room. Shift a single angle and you will get a whole lot different view on it! It's great, you won't get bored in this kind of art work. Every angle is another great art!

Bible as well.

Modern art that emphasis on simple lines and classic art that is precise and detailed, which one will produce more imaginations and limitations?

It's too subjective... (No conclusion)!

hymn vs contemporary worship music.

"A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"-Martin Luther (paraphrase of Psalm 46).This is one of the earliest hymn. Early hymn are paraphrased from the bible verses. Self written lyrics were not allowed.

Charles Wesley developed the new style of lyric writing. He integrated one's personal feeling to God with the original bible verses. And hence broke the old rule of lyrics writing. E.g. "Where Shall My Wondering Soul Begin?"-perhaps the old love songs are written in this way.
(http://www.hymnlyrics.org/newlyrics_w/where_shall_my_wondering_soul_begin.php)

"Hark! the Herald Angels Sing" is a song of Wesley as well, it's still very God centered but not by paraphrasing.

These are some other hymn which are not paraphrasing bible, yet quite God centered: Amazing grace, count your blessings, fairest lord Jesus...
(http://www.hymnlyrics.org/mostpopularhymn.php)

Current worship song such as Kathryn Scott (one of the contemporary christian song singer) sings praise and worship song that are musically not suitable for church worship. Yet, it's a very good choice on personal listening at home (usually when praying or praising God at home). Some other examples are Doug Horley, Michael Smith, etc. The lyrics tends to be very similar to modern love pop songs.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_worship_music)-if you trust wikipedia..

Yet, not all are like this. Say, if you see the hillsong lyrics and arrangement, it's very suitable for church worship. I take an example, "everything that has breath" is very God centered. Some other such as "To you" is very much like a love song, especially:

"Hear my cry
My deep desire
To know You more".

It's alright to be like a love song, since we all love God. Just to show the effects of pop culture on church music.

These are "lyric"ally. If seeing it musically, the contrast is more obvious. From no instrument, till A capella, to piano.. This is actually very similar to normal music development. Later, musical instruments are added in.

Some people like the old style of serious worship, some like the current 'euphoria' style of worship. I think both can't be eliminated.

Also, when there was rock and roll music, there were rock and roll church music. When there were is rap music, there are rap church music as well.

At the past, If not mistaken, church music (hymns/Bach's music) is leading the development of the art of music. It's a contrast now.

Musically, we can clearly see the contemporary factors in it. Yet, I'm not too sure about the lyrics part. It's kinda confusing to analyze words for me, since i'm still not trained well in literature knowledge. So, if can, please tell me more so that i can sharpen my skills on it.

(I depends mainly on the church music history on wikipedia. Many tell me don't trust wikipedia, but just take it since it's relatively too hard to find any other reliable sources online.)

Pop Music.

Recently, i realized why I hate pop music so much. It’s mainly caused by the ‘unchanged’ and uncreative instrument playing method. Yet, I totally changed my mind recently!

Pop music is a trend of music. Every era has a different trend on music, and i call this pop music. For every era, their pop music will be sharing the same type of composing and singing methods. And they are, as well, sharing a roughly same idea-trying to reveal the ‘current’ state of social or art status. It can include what ordinary middle class society hoping for, or what teenagers think of ‘love’. Or it’s just a mere fantasy-fantasy in different era is very different! It’s another kind of human history on everything. Some composers tend to write out their feel on what happens via a very literary style, some just ordinary white words. I’ll prefer those parables.

Perhaps we could know more about current state of socio-economy and art via music. Art is always a more relaxing method to understand what happens around us, the thoughts of writers and to play around with!

Leehom MusicMan

爱得 得体 : It's kinda old school song, with a electric guitar solo that sounds a little bit metal (and a little Yingwie Malsteem). Very rich arrangement, yet, the drum beat is a little too repetitive. (Maybe he is trying to introduce Rock/Metal to us via a softer version so that we can take it!). It'll be better if he put in a heavier/thicker electric guitar sound.

心跳: His signature pop song style.. HAHA! No comment!

春雨里洗过的太阳: I love this song. It's having a "Norah Jones" feel.. The cause is mainly the electric guitar inverse reverb effect. Very calming "California style"..??

Everything: I love this song as well. Very emotional, having the 爱错(Shangri La album) feel.

我完全没有任何理由理你: An 'experimental' style (close to) song. He's teasing those critics who refuse to accept the new born singers/artists. I have got some John Frusciante(lead guitarist of Red Hot Chili Peppers) feel in this song, especially the guitar solo, it sounds like his (can refer his personal album, Murderer-To Record Only For Ten Days-John Frusciante). Overall, he is trying to introduce more style to us (i think so..) and it's nice!

另一个天堂: duet. Island romantica feel. HAHA!

玩偶: Mixing the happy rock with the happy Chinese Traditional style. So, in some part, you can get the feel of...Chinese opera style (like traditional wedding song..??). He is playing his voice, great. Electric guitar skills improved.

脚本: Some part, it has some old pop style, some part japanese song style, some part bon jovi style. It's a mix! It sounds very nice. One thing to note is the part after the guitar solo. His voice is changed a little, too trebly and become not very clear. I think he never sang so high and still using the 'real' voice, hence it should sound a little bit..wierd.

可敬的对手: 6/8 song. 1st time listening, i straight away get a "can you feel my world" feel mixed with 伍佰 feel. The centre part where the piano just swing up and down with drum and vocal is my most favoured part! It's like..hanging out in nowhere!

摇滚怎么了!! : He was playing with this song (hear his voice already you knew it), that's the spirit of rockers' song! Suddenly goes back to the 60s' (the accompany vocal), suddenly funk punk rock (rap part), suddenly 古筝.. HAHA! Just that, maybe coz this song he was playing all by himself alone, the whole real rock feel haven't come out.

The coordination of various artists is an important part. Usually when we jam rock, a lot of feel doesn't come just from you alone, other players ill inspire you as well, and this is actually crucial. Same applies to all his rock song. If he could get a full band to play his song, it'll be very very nice!

Drummer is Musician!

When we talk about music, we would say music is composed via harmonization and rhythm. At least this is true for modern music.

Because for the era long before this ( maybe the classical era, when Beethoven had not started his romantic revolution, rhythm was nothing ). They used mainly tonal harmonization composing style instead of rhythmic composing-which is mainly used nowadays.

Who are the musicians and how we consider harmonization? For me, musician is one of those who are able to play out a sound from something, and it's meaningful-can be solos or harmonization with other musician.

So, as we say that most of the music nowadays are made of rhythmic composing, rhythmic harmonization is at uppermost important. Drummer is the main man in charge of rhythmic session of a song, and the key is to harmonize with other instruments played. Rhythmic harmonization! Although drummer usually don't know about music theories other than beats and pattern, LOL!

Sadly, nowadays, there are too much of music depends solely on rhythm, and sometimes you would be annoyed and disappointed by the identical chord progression and verse-chorus-bridge arrangement style. Hence, if a particular piece of music is composed carefully, that is, considering both rhythmic and non-rhythmic (tone harmonization, as in classical and jazz) part, 'it' should sound very nice. Or maybe i should address that music 'She' or 'He'!

Anyway,

This theory seems doesn't fit in to the 'experimental music'. I still can't get it. One introductory example, try listen to white noise. Yes, White noise, the sound you hear on a TV when those white and black spots come out after the 'national song' sang-when all the TV programs ends.

Lastly, don't think that white noise is annoying. Maybe it's just because your TV speaker is not good enough. Provided the audio system is good enough, white noise is used in some physical-psycho-therapy thingy. It actually makes us feel calm!!! Why?!

Sad Sad Sad.

A shocking message from my mom yesterday night. My one of my musical tutor, Uncle Benny Ng just passed away. It was a very shocking news, three days back i just called him up and talked to him regarding the woodwind performance during the Christmas. Two weeks back we were still talking to each other in the church camp at port dickson. He looked very healthy. This is such a sudden breaking news.

He is my tutor on clarinet. He plays clarinet and alto saxophone in big band. He has a plenty of precious big band orchestration scores, bought in during the 50's or 60's, if i'm not mistaken. A soloist on jazz for both of his instruments too. He then did some research on the way all those orchestration instruments goes harmony and sounds nice. Having all sort of information, knowledge and experience in big band orchestration (anything, from woodwind tenor sax to brass trombone to string violins), he is one of the rare musician in this country.

During the classes with him, he actually taught me how to appreciate music, especially the classical and big band orchestration style music. And why is emotion in music so important. If not, i may still stop at the level, "technique good means music good".

So, he always tell me to reinforce the church band. He said just chords will not serve well, must put in some harmony and feel or emotion (spiritually). Actually, harmony is a much deeper knowledge then mere chords. In fact, the major and minor chords, although is the main building blocks of music, it was already outdated before baroque music. It was used during the renaissance period. We, usually, don't see any harmony on piano as the purely major or minor straight forward three notes 1-3-5 chords. at least it'll be inversions. Harmony is much harder. But it's just too hard for me, i'm still finding a way to arrange even a simple duets, not to say a orchesration...

Hope that god will be with his family to comfort them..

Rest in peace, Uncle Benny!

The limits in music??!

What’s the least division of frequency that human’s ear hear? Is it okay to further divide what we hear in a chromatic scale? I’m not so sure, but then if the frequency between two adjacent notes is almost or smaller than the ‘theoretical least division’, it’ll sound very smooth. But, not every instrument will be able to play it. This is because for any instrument, if the frequency is divided into a very small division, it causes the main characteristic of each instrument to break down, since every instrument’s frequency is combined by countless types of frequencies.

Or maybe we should say that human ear will not be sensitive enough to differentiate these small parts. Any instrument that plays it will sound almost the same. And, we won’t like it very much, because it’s not arpeggio, nor octave.

The question comes back to how we judge an instrument? A good violin should sound a bit ‘rough (woody) but smooth’. This kind of characteristic is mainly caused by the characteristic of materials (wood) used. We can say that this is actually a slight ‘out of tune’ frequency that blend together with the correct frequencies. It means that there is a lowest possible limit, if we don’t want to get a pure waveform in the violin. To carve a good violin, you need maple at the back end, and spruce at the top. Good guitar needs a spruce top as well, and an Indiana rosewood body.

Pure wave = the whole orchestra will sound like computer generated sine waves..

There is also a limit in musical tuning. For every frequency division on every adjacent note, they cannot be perfectly divided. Hence, some says that B flat is the weakest key. This shows that it’s meaningless to further separate the note into a smaller portion, since we can’t even notice the non linear division of notes, most people can’t get a perfect major key scale, what if we say about chromatics and higher division than chromatics?

Some argue also that maybe there will be a better material to build a better sensitivity instruments, (no sine waves orchestra, but slight different superimposed waves). In this case, like i say before, we will need a whole new theory. Just like how Einstein broke Newton’s law, not easy!

It's all bout taste 2.

If we don't want to equalize the positioning, want to make it 'live', it is not possible as well, since 'live' itself is already isn't that 'live'. Only if we decide that what we hear in a concert to be a reference of 'live'.

Concert and real unplug acoustic (like how we play at house) are very different. The sound we equalize in concert shows is a lot more than what we did in an CD album. Live stages forbid any acoustic feedback. To achieve this, especially on a large stage or hall, it's virtually impossible without any EQ. But it's different in recording studio.

But concert tends to be more 'powerful' than CD, because the artists want to create a more lively concert, for their fans to 'get high'.

It's just like preaching on stage and writing books. Both content are the same, just that the presenting style different.

SO, back to it.. If 4 person play band in a room. All set their sound to what they like, will it sounds great?

• If it sounds bad, they need some equalization so that they don't eat up other member's main frequency.

• If it sounds great.. EQ is not needed.

Brass band, Big band, Classical orchestra sounds very nice unplug and unEQed.

Why? How?

Their skills? Our system's problem causes us not to originally reproduce the sound?

Some people like Rock, Noisy music, Some like live with lots of dance music, Some like jazz quartet-passion but quiet. Some like classical violin solo, some like orchestra, the louder the better, but do not like rock. Some like songs recorded in 50's methods, they say got feel...

It's all bout taste, it's art anyway.

It's all bout taste 1.

Suppose you have an instrument, if you want to record it, some usual methods are:

• Mic it (closely or far).
• Connect line out from that instrument (if it has one) to a mixer.
• take both natural sound and line out sound (mic+pickup).
• etc..

Which will you chose?

In the 40's, mostly they mic the guitar. Recently get an album with plenty of Robert Johnson songs inside. Yes! the legendary blues guitarist, playing his legendary skills on Gibson L-1. I thought it'll be fantastic. But when I play the CD, i realized that it was recorded on 1936... It shouldn't sound awesome..

That time, there were LP, that is, Long Play. I believe, if they were to record just ONE song into ONE LP, it should sound nice. But since it's a 'Long' Play, they were trying to compress everything into one LP. So, what they did?

• Cut off the bass frequencies, because bass frequencies carries the heaviest memory.
• But it really sounds bad.. Again, the engineers those days did something:
• Boost back the low frequencies on the phonograph itself. But, it didn't sounds that awesome as well, yet at least better.

If a LP recorded with just ONE song, i think it should sound very nice, seriously, since it manage to play even the ultrasonic range. We must ask Phil Jones from AAD about why is this so.. He is an expert, tons of researches on speakers' behaviour on this company.

Hence, equalization makes the early 40's recordings very unpleasant to listen to.

Today? We equalize(EQ) the sound as well. But does it sounds better? Some yes , some not so..

The dilemma are:

• If i want to record a guitar sound, should i place my mic in front of the guitar? Or at the sound hole? Or 45 degree to the sound hole? Or to the bridge? Or through a warm sound amplifier? Or through line out? Or through line out via my favorite Boss direct box? * Every sounds are different.

• If we want to record what exactly our ear hears, we place double mics at ear level. Will it records ambient noise? Will it be lack of bass? Will it left out the 'pick' sound?.....

• If we record with mic, which mic? Some laggy mics produce 'warm' sound. Some ultra-fast-reaction mics produce too 'dry' the sound. Some bass are heavy, Some mid range frequencies are full. How?

It's all depends on the artist. Know why Jimi Hendrix's Strat can be tuned to such a powerful state? Why my Yamaha never ever get BBKing's Gibson sweet sound? Know why people buy Steinway and Sons and not multi-purpose Clavinova even the price are 10 times more?

They want that sound. They tuned the tone till what they want.

If the recording studio were to ask Mr B to record via the studio ultra expensive rack system+guitar amp, Mr B will stick to his maybe not so expensive old lovely sweet amp. Musicians, is that so?

So, it's all bout taste.

Live, Records and acoustic. Why so difference?

What we hear in recording studio, in live concert and purely acoustic presentation, are they the same?
The answer is certainly, NO!

In recording studio, they provide the best ambient acoustic for different instrument.

• They use best instruments.

• They use the best microphone to pick up signals from instruments.

• They use the best balanced/digitized mixer to mix all the instrument together.

• Then, pan to left or right the position of each instrument.Trying to get the most real positioning.
  

• Then, equalize if they feel all sounds are blended up till some instrument could not stand out.

• They use the best monitor (but those with weak bass) to examine the clearance.

• Then they cut off the unwanted acoustic noise of each songs.

• Remix it into 24bit, full bandwidth, burn to CD with the best machine.

• Remixed and equalized means not original already.

• sell.

So, what bout live?

• They use the best instruments also.

• But the room ambient is not that desired kind, but is also the one that recording studio can never ever achieve.

• They use the best microphone, and signal cable,

• But they need to control feedback.

• Hence, a parabolic equalizer is introduced to each instrument, to cut off the aggressive feedback frequency.
• They cut off the ultra low frequency to increase the clearance of each instrument, since the ambient is big, the audience at back row will only hear some annoying ultra low bass.

• It become narrow bandwidth.

• It doesn't sound original after all these major 'operation', Especially if the instrument used is not having a good pickup.

• Some very pro pro audio master use stereo in their concert, hence they can pan the position of each instrument.

Acoustic presentation?

• Normal instruments, no mic, low volume (CD volume), no feedback.

• Every instruments' position is clearly heard.

• But the volume may not be balanced or even.

• PA system or mixer is unavoidable if blending guitar into a brass band or string band.

• It's the most natural sound.

So, people prefer live or concert? It depends. If he wants ultimate clear sound, like what you expect to hear the difference between Martin guitar and Taylor's guitar, then CD is the choice.

If you prefer Live mood, the sense of 'big', you'll like to choose concert.

No one can overtake anyone. Even with the best audio equipment!

Pi- a- no....ba da ba pa ba.... I'm lovin' It.....!!

I love piano, like many other do.

I was at my church that day, a night in year 2004. Service was over and most of the members gone home. I saw the digital piano sitting right beside me. I'd never ever touch it before, since i'm a guitarist and piano....

....When i was in primary three, i learnt some basic. It wasn't even grade 1, it was so called LEVEL 1. It was really boring, i have to say (and i understand why a lot of children don't really like piano, especially at lower grade. The song are made easy, but it doesn't really sound that good. I stopped it after three weeks. LOL (Not even one month)!!.....

Don't know why, mayb out of curiosity, i turn on the main power switch and pressed some key on it. A little girl came, and she just pressed on the 'demo' button.

Can you imagine? A digital piano connected to the main PA, through the FOH speakers amplified by the Peavey-made-in-USA mixer rated at 110W r.m.s, and my church is no bigger that 100 people venue..... It was loud! LOUD!

Chopin Fantaisie Impromptu in C#m just flying all over the place, like a dancing elephant LOL, till now still i remember that tune, in fact i like it very much. LOL!

It just sounds like waterfall, ya.. or .. like kinda... fantasy! Thinking out of the box and stuff like that. Chopin is really a genius in piano indeed!

So, i started piano (in fact keyboard) from a beginner training course provided by church. I learnt pop songs, which i managed to convert straight away from guitar chords and style.

So, i picked up my piano. I keep improvising, hoping one day i can play my tune and compose my tune which sounds like waterfall, something modern that chopin never saw before, and not following any theory.. ?? It's just a dream that drives me to continue my piano, and absorbing new stuff!

By the way, Jazz is just like Taylor's series or Gamma function etc.. (just learnt today at skol, LOL). Too many theories it has, and at last, when all blend together, you can just play any notes u like, provided it sounds nice. Ya, that's music, sounds GOOD...