@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.
