Sat front row at the symphony...

The idea that “the conductor’s perspective” (location) is best is flawed. Good orchestral composers and orchestrators are keenly aware of and exploit the fact that instrumental sounds blend to create specific desired colors and textures when heard from a distance. Just one example, a unison musical line played by a clarinet and a flute will sound very different and with a unique tonal color when heard from a distance than it will heard up close. The “detail” and separation heard up close may not be at all what the composer intends for the composition.

@viber6 I couldn’t disagree more.  Yes, following a score is a great thing and, sure, sitting up close one can hear MORE of the individual details, but not necessarily more details which in a good hall are all there and in proper scale.  In fact, you lose the details which are the unique sounds of the blends of instrumental colors.  Some of the music gets lost.  Great composers think in terms of many layers of nuance of instrumental color, not simply melody.

”Pictures At An Exibition” is a wonderful work and Ravel’s orchestration is a great example of why he is considered one of the great orchestrators.  His orchestration is by far the best and most popular.  Korsacov’s not so much. The composer of the work, Rimsky-Korsakoff was himself a great orchestrator and I suppose that an argument could be made for why, in spite of how great Ravel’s version is, the piano version is the best since it is closest to the composer’s intent.  

With respect, I think you miss the point. The composer’s intent always wins. It has to. The composer knows that listeners will not have the conductor’s perspective. Moreover, a conductor often has the assistant conductor sitting in “the house” and will ask him/her about balance issues. The best know instinctively how it will be heard from the audience’s perspective. IOW, the conductor controls the balance of instruments as he hears it up close, but mindful of and relative to how it will be heard from a distance.

I think that we as audiophiles tend to be detail junkies. There is a lot of beauty in a more nuanced approach to seeking “detail” in our music.

Not only is it not the case that “this level of analysis is essential to enjoying…” a musical work, this perspective misses out on the full expression of what great composers intended.

@viber6, again with respect, I still feel you miss the point. First, when I refer to listening “at a distance” I am not referring to back of the hall. Sure, every hall has some seats that are possibly too far back and not very good seating locations overall. I’m not talking about that.

You refer to detail that is apparent when following a musical score and not heard unless listening up close. I simply can’t agree with that premise. I would say that when listening from up to a mid hall perspective (and probably even somewhat further back) one can hear every detail that is there to be heard and as seen in a score. No, it will not have the separation that is heard up close, but it will be there and in a more musically honest balance. Separation is not necessarily detail. Acoustic sounds need a certain amount of travel distance to fully develop. Moreover, a certain amount of “homogenization” is precisely what great composers want. Lastly, the great composers were (are?) not particularly concerned about pleasing any particular (or all) segment of the concert going public, and certainly not audiophiles. Their main goal is to be true to their artistic vision.

Thanks for your comments, even if we disagree. And, yes, I have studied countless scores as part of my preparation for performance.

To be clear, I should have written: “…one can hear every MUSICAL detail that there is to be heard and as seen in the score”.  As mahler123 points out there are a lot of extraneous “details” that are the result of the physical act of playing an instrument that not only do not add to the music, but can be distractions. This is part of the premise adhered to by musicians of “projecting” the sound.  

@viber6 Why do you expect to “be nearly deaf if (you) get to be 100”? Honest question and no judgment implied, but the comment made me wonder if that is tied in to your need for a lot of “detail” in your music.

You are clearly a music lover and the bottom line is that this is all that really matters. You are also a musician. I am a musician. I generally prefer to not write about that when posting on audio forums, but we disagree so much on the issues discussed that it has to be mentioned for context. I am an orchestral musician and regularly play in major symphony orchestras, Needless to say, I have also attended countless live performances, That it is “a losing battle” for a violin soloist to be heard above an orchestra is simply not true. I am intrigued by how someone with your experience could form that impression. Good violin soloists have huge sounds that easily keep the sound of a fine orchestra from overwhelming. My goodness, violin works were composed before there was any kind of electronic sound “enhancement”/manipulation or recording.  Did all those great composers waste their time?

@viber6 , thank you for your comments.  We clearly have different perspectives on some of the issues discussed.  I feel that you take some of the points that you are making to an extreme that is not only inaccurate imo, but that clouds the issue being discussed.  It is simply not true that an orchestra is always reduced to playing pianissimo when the solo violin is playing.  Of course care is taken so as to not overpower the solo violin in the big tuttis, but in most concerti there are passages in which the orchestra can play at and the score instructs reasonably healthy levels while the solo violin plays.  With respect, I think you exaggerate the point.  One may prefer a different type of balance as a listener, but that is not necessarily “best”.  Moreover, if sitting very close it is not only the soloist that is then heard more loudly.  Everything will be louder.  On hears more separation of instrumental lines, but little blend.  Blend is important.  

I stand by my comment about the significance of the fact that there was no recording technology when these great works were composed.  Additionally, there also existed large concert halls at the time and the idea that only sitting in the first or second row can one hear the work as intended by the composer is unrealistic.  This is the problem with comparing the home high-end listening experience to the live.  We can become used to the music and its details being thrown at us, instead of being willing to aurally lean into the music as we listen.  We may prefer the balance and spot lighting that home audio provides, but this doesn’t necessarily honor the composer’s intent.  In my opinion the composer’s intent is paramount.  

****It is a legitimate tactic of the recording engineer to boost the SPL of the violin by close miking in order to get more equality between the soloist and orch, even if the natural balance is altered.****

How can altering what is natural be legitimate?  Perhaps a necessary evil and legitimate for recordings only because the immediacy of live performance is lessened by the recording process, even in the best recordings.  Then, you have the problem of the way that close miking inevitably alters timbre, not only volume.

An example that I pointed out previously.  A unison line scored for, say, bass clarinet and cello (a common orchestration technique) heard from the first row of the audience will sound like…..a bass clarinet and a cello playing the same notes twenty feet apart.  Two different tonal colors playing the same notes.  Heard from a distance, say, tenth row or even mid hall it will sound much more as intended: a single, but altogether new and different tonal color in the composer’s tonal palette.    
 

In answer to your question.  I have played clarinets (primarily bass clarinet) and saxophones professionally my entire working life.  Often in the very hall and with the orchestra where mahler123 heard the Shostakovich concerto.  “David Geffen Hall”, is the new name, btw.  I agree with his assessment of the improvement in the sound after renovation.  Not only from the audience, but on stage one hears much improved definition from the bass section.  Before, the low frequency energy was there, but little pitch definition.  Much improved clarity overall. 
 

Regards.

viber6, you have to define “detail”.  This has been pointed out previously.  Sure, one hear a certain type of “detail” up close.  We can debate the importance of some of that up close detail.  To a great extent it becomes a personal preference based on a variety of things; not the least of which is how one listens to music and even how each of our individual hearing apparatus hears.  However, and importantly, one also loses important musical detail up close that can only be heard from a reasonable distance.  

viber6, you like the up close perspective. That is fine, more than fine, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. Clearly we will not agree on this point. More specifically, on which approach serves the music best. “Chacun à son goût”!  In my opinion the music, as intended by the composer, gets priority. I will close with a few final comments to address yours:

To be clear, my example of bass clarinet/cello blend is but one example of many and of all that is going on in a large scale orchestral composition. That blend IS the detail, the new compositional detail. If we are to give composition theory as used by the great composers any credence it is really not a debatable point. This orchestration technique is far more than an “interesting synthesis” and is crucial to the composition. It is precisely what the composer wants to be heard. Not the individual instruments, but the blend. This serves the composition best. Soloistic passages by individual instruments obviously do get their turn. Perhaps this analogy will help to make the point:

I am sure you are familiar with the work of the French-pointillist artists. Stand very close to a painting by Georges Seurat and one sees a tremendous amount of the detail that is all the individual and different color paint dots (not strokes) that were his signature technique. However, the images, which are the “message”:of the painting are indistinct. Then, stand back some distance and it all comes together and reveals images full of beautiful colors and textures that his work is known for. This is akin to what we are discussing here.

I have witnessed and/or participated in countless examples of an orchestral musician (myself included) “auditioning” a new instrument, or instrumental accessory. To do so in a familiar hall as opposed to one’s home is crucial. It is a very common practice to do so on stage before rehearsals or during breaks from rehearsal and a colleague or two are recruited to assist in listening and offering opinions on what they hear. Without exception the listening assistant goes out into the house to listen. Never standing close to the player and his/her new piece of gear. Reason is that what is heard from a distance is what matters most. Acoustic sounds need a certain amount of travel distance to fully develop. Often, an instrument that may sound robust or brilliant up close simply doesn’t project that sound well. Conversely, an instrument that may sound compact up close can have tremendous projection. One of those interesting mysteries of sound production. Of course, as you know, how the instrument feels to the player has to be factored in when making a determination.

Anyway, good to discuss these points with you (and others) and regards.

**** Your analogy of pointillistic artists actually makes my case, haha. ****

Not at all. Well, not in my world and that of just about every musician I know. Detail that by your own admission “does not make much sense” is meaningless and irrelevant as concerns what matters most, the music.

We are further apart than I even thought. While we are both musicians we live in different music worlds, in every sense of the term. No point (pun intended 😊) in addressing all that you just wrote, but I will address only one more of your comments and one which I think explains a lot:

**** Your job as a pro is to please most of your paying customers, the audience, who mostly sit far away. ****

Wrong! When playing in an orchestra, my job as a musician is to honor the music; IOW, “please” the composer by way of the conductor’s direction (sorry, audience).

Anyway, while I don’t have a problem with your wish to be “right” about this it’s probably best to end this dialogue as it is feeling like a competition of sorts. Your “haha” seems very telling.

I have enjoyed our dialogue, but prefer to move on. Regards.

Good for you! The level of musicianship possessed by today’s conservatory (college) age musicians is fantastic. Gets better with each generation due to better and better training. Attending performances at local conservatories is one of the sleeper sources of good live music. Of course, not on the same level as the great artists, but definitely worthwhile. Moreover, budding artists need to perform in front of live audiences, so it is a big help to them.