...and now a word from your anti-sponsor...


"...the whole artifice of recording. I see it like this: a voice into a microphone onto a tape, onto your CD, through your speakers is all as illusory and fake as any synthesizer—it doesn't put Thom in your front room—but one is perceived as 'real' the other, somehow 'unreal'... It was just freeing to discard the notion of acoustic sounds being truer." - Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead.

Personally, I couldn't agree more.
ghosthouse

Showing 2 responses by bryoncunningham

I think Johnny was saying...

1. An acoustical sound is generally regarded as real.
2. An electronic sound is generally regarded as unreal.

However…

3. A reproduced acoustical sound is no more real than a reproduced electronic sound.

Therefore...

4. A reproduced acoustical sound is no more truthful than a reproduced electronic sound.

And…

5. The use of electronic sounds doesn't make music less truthful.

Personally, I disagree with both (4) and (5).

I do, however, like some of Radiohead's music.

Bryon
05-14-11: Martykl
...many (including me) feel that acoustic music is more revealing than electronic for judging the fidelity of playback.

I agree with this, Marty.

I listen to a nearly equal amount of acoustical and electronic music. It is often difficult to judge how close an acoustical recording is to the live event, but it is nearly *impossible* to judge how close an electronic recording is to the live "event."

Bryon