Sat front row at the symphony...

frogman,

Good points for discussion on several levels.  As musicians, we strive to blend our sounds and play together.  For orchestral playing, a 1st violin section in a large orchestra has 16 violinists who are told by the conductor to suppress individuality and play as 1 violinist.  However in small chamber groups, there is a single player on each part, so the quirky individuality can be heard.  In a string quartet, sometimes the viola and cello are in exact unison, so they try to blend and play as 1 instrument.  But the viola and cello have different tonal character even when playing the same note.  It is more interesting to hear the tonal differences so that even though the same note is being played, there is more color from the overlay of differences on top of the sameness.  One of my favorite old string quartets, the Budapest, had two violinists who had very different sounds and temperaments.  The 1st violinist, Joseph Roisman, had a dark, sensitive, introverted sound and personality.  The 2nd violinist, Alexander Schneider, had a more forward sound and extroverted personality and playing style.  Schneider told a story of how an audience member said the quartet was marvelous because they sounded like 1 instrument.  But Schneider thought if that was true, it was a lousy concert.  He wanted good ensemble, but with a recognition of the differences, with each of the four players contributing his own individuality.  I agree with the Schneider view, although there are plenty of quartet groups that strive for more blended ensemble and less individuality.

For orchestral music, each composer seems to have their tonal signature to produce a unique timbre when 2 very different instruments are playing unison.  Flute combines well with violin in their similar freq range.  Bassoon may combine with French horn for that unique timbre.   I can recognize the identity of a composer by the timbre of the combination, even if I don't quickly name the particular piece.  So how does the audience listener appreciate the spectrum of separateness vs total blending?  For a distant listener, the blending predominates.  For a close listener, there is more separateness.  If the musicians are skillful, they blend well no matter how far away the listener is.

Analogy with food.  You can have 3 types of food on the same plate in separate locations, each carefully flavored.  Alternatively, you can mix them and make a tasty soup.  Both are enjoyable experiences, but it is unlikely that the mixture, well homogenized, would be as tasty as the separate foods.  Steak and salad don't mix well, but separately each would be delicious.  

The wine connoisseur enjoys the total blended taste, but he goes further and tastes the various flavors as they may appear at different times during the savory tasting.  He wants to separate the flavors and in that way get more appreciation of the fine character of the wine.  Years ago, I tried a liqeur blend called "43."  It was said that there were 43 individual components, but I could only perceive a few.  A more trained connoisseur could taste many more than I could, and I will say he could get more out of that tasting than I.

All this is my roundabout way of saying that the more distant hall sound is more blended and homogenized, and the closer seat still has some blend but more detailed colors and distinct individuality.  Someone may like the blended, homogenized sound, but it is NOT more detailed.  Rather, the details of the differences are like homogenized soup, much less identifiable.  Distant sound is the product of acoustical multipath bouncing around of various instruments in the journey from the stage to the distant location.  These are the laws of physics, like it or not.  Blending yields less information.  The conductor on the podium has it all--good blending with the maximum detail and appreciation of all the instruments.

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.

Composers (and performing musicians) both create their art for all types of listeners with different musical knowledge and different seating preferences.  Music is a business which needs to serve as many customers (listeners, performers, concert halls, etc.) as possible.  The hall needs to be filled for maximum revenue.  Even if most of the seats are unacceptable to me, someone has to sit in those seats and get some enjoyment.  The general public who sits in distant locations hears the balanced, but homogenized sound.  They are not detail oriented a-philes.  They don't analyze the sound, but are content to enjoy the music as part of a social outing.  If they are happy with that, fine.  The composer wants to please these listeners.

Composers also want to please discerning musicians and a-philes like myself. Composers carefully craft the score in great detail.  Composers are perfectionists who edit and revise their work out of pride in making a finished product.  I have studied violin seriously my entire life with 100's of coaches and played with numerous groups, so I know the importance of precision and detail in the service of better competency in performance and learning more about the composer's similar goals.  

I don't know if you have studied scores of music you know.  In my experience, distant seats have no chance of capturing more than a small fraction of the detail that is in the score, which is much better captured by a close listener.  The conductor is in an enviable position of hearing more of this detail and the best balance than anyone else on stage or in the audience.  To see the score and hear this detail from an optimum close position has increased my appreciation of the genius of the composer.  The detail oriented a-phile also puts lots of effort and money into hearing more detail which increases his appreciation of his music at home. "Wow, I never heard that detail before.  This music sounds even better."

As an aside, I'm sure that if you got new eyeglasses that enabled better vision, you appreciated more details in familiar objects.  More details enable more perception of beauty.  Isn't it nice to find a woman's eyes beautiful at 50 feet away with better visual acuity whereas with the old glasses it was a blur and not as beautiful.

I have to say, @viber6 , that while I disagree with your perspective, I have enjoyed your comments (and those of o many others as well) as you make your case.  For me, while it is interesting to occasionally get that up close perspective, and hear all the extraneous noises that performers generate, a steady diet of such fare wears after a while.  Consider those paintings by old masters such as Rembrandt that have been subjected to analysis by XRay and CT scan.  Frequently all kind of detail is revealed that is not apparent to people looking at the picture.  Art aficionados who know these paintings well are always fascinated by these details . That doesn’t mean that this level of analysis is essential to enjoying the painting because the Artist didn’t intend for viewers to see any of it in the finished work.

  Hearing the spit clog a horn players instrument is interesting, but ultimately distracting.  I don’t need to see how the sausage gets made, I just want to enjoy my meal.  And now that I’ve mixed enough metaphors for the evening it’s off to bed

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.