Post by Peter November 21, 2007 (111 of 161)
|
|
hotmifi said:
Funny world: nobody really knows what's going on yet, no official statements with plans from any side and a lot of unashamed Julia Fischer bashing in this thread.
"a lot of unashamed Julia Fischer bashing in this thread."
An exaggeration, surely.
|
|
|
Post by ramesh November 21, 2007 (112 of 161)
|
|
Thanks, Titus Livius.
I won't even tell you what I can do with the name, 'Monserrat Caballe'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livy said:
Please tell me how a RBCD recorded using 24-bit technology doesn't measure up to what one of these artists "deserves"?
The whole problem with RBCD's is no matter how good the recording process, the output for consumers (i.e. us) is limited to 16-bits - it could be recorded in MCH DSD but it would still sound like an RBCD (i.e. dynamically compressed and issues of harsh/distorted low-resolution PCM sound).
Equally for all fans of acoustic music, which is the type of music that Decca usually issues, the element of surround is simply not possible with RBCD - this is a crucial element to acoustic music (it is currently the nearest we can get to a concert hall presentation of the artist without actually being there) and for me and many others, it is in some ways the raison d'etre of SACD (leaving aside the more beautiful high-resolution sound).
Artists of Julia Fischer's stature deserve the benefits of reproduction that SACD can deliver and I strongly feel that artists like her (and many others in the Decca stable) *are* short-changed from an artistic standpoint because the RBCD does not (and cannot) convey the full depth of their tone, dynamic nuancing and hence their interpretation.
Why so few artists care about this matter suggests to me that the recording process is not fundamental to their career (beyond the intendant publicity and income that it can generate). Those artists (or groups) that do care about their artistic legacy can be found on the independent labels (they typically do care about sound, and will seek to issue SACD's if money permits) or, in the case of many orchestras, found their own labels to issue their work with the quality they feel it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by hotmifi November 21, 2007 (114 of 161)
|
|
Peter said:
"a lot of unashamed Julia Fischer bashing in this thread."
An exaggeration, surely.
The exaggeration documented:
"is about to be poached" "what a bad idea" "I simply don't believe that she could be that stupid" "like Ms. Fisher sold out to the big fish" "she sold out the company" "It spells out an ingratitude" Why cannot some artists think any further than their agents' noses?" "but money clearly drowns out her sweet sound" "her assets would be better accommodated in the DG stable" "Julia Fischer's defection" "Personally, I'd like to see more of Julia's physical assets." "But Decca will allow you to see more of her figure." "great deal of money into Ms Fischer's bank account to get her away from PentTone"
And nobody ever thought of: "She helped nurture and grow PentaTone." Nobody ever asked: "How many listeners throughout the world knew about PentaTone before Julia Fischer joined this label? How many listeners turned into first time (SA-)CD buyers after going to her concerts?" Is it the world upside down here or just me?
I just hope the style and attitude of some contributors in this thread do not reflect the typical SA-CD customer. Because if yes, then the SA-CD community would be in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Peter November 21, 2007 (115 of 161)
|
|
"Is about to be poached" was a direct quote from the article in question. I do not consider that "bashing", let alone "unashamed bashing".
Some of the other remarks you quote may sound harsh but serve to emphasise the disappointment her Pentatone fans have in the matter. Since they are some of the ones who pay to buy her recordings, their views, in some cases strongly put, are, I think, valid.
|
|
|
Post by Peter November 21, 2007 (116 of 161)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
The whole problem with RBCD's is no matter how good the recording process, the output for consumers (i.e. us) is limited to 16-bits - it could be recorded in MCH DSD but it would still sound like an RBCD (i.e. dynamically compressed and issues of harsh/distorted low-resolution PCM sound).
Equally for all fans of acoustic music, which is the type of music that Decca usually issues, the element of surround is simply not possible with RBCD - this is a crucial element to acoustic music (it is currently the nearest we can get to a concert hall presentation of the artist without actually being there) and for me and many others, it is in some ways the raison d'etre of SACD (leaving aside the more beautiful high-resolution sound).
Artists of Julia Fischer's stature deserve the benefits of reproduction that SACD can deliver and I strongly feel that artists like her (and many others in the Decca stable) *are* short-changed from an artistic standpoint because the RBCD does not (and cannot) convey the full depth of their tone, dynamic nuancing and hence their interpretation.
Why so few artists care about this matter suggests to me that the recording process is not fundamental to their career (beyond the intendant publicity and income that it can generate). Those artists (or groups) that do care about their artistic legacy can be found on the independent labels (they typically do care about sound, and will seek to issue SACD's if money permits) or, in the case of many orchestras, found their own labels to issue their work with the quality they feel it deserves.
Precisely. Do I understand from the question that one is expected to defend the view that listening to the CD layer of an SACD should be good enough?
I believe that RBCD is now a second-rate product; I will continue to buy them, though largely only at budget price. In the end I did get Freire's excellent renditions of the Brahms concertos, and paid little for them.
I already have several off-air recordings of JF playing various concertos and chamber music so far unreleased by Pentatone or Decca. Unless her labels tempt me with the best possible sound I may decide not to duplicate.
|
|
|
Post by hotmifi November 21, 2007 (117 of 161)
|
|
Peter said:
"Is about to be poached" was a direct quote from the article in question. I do not consider that "bashing", let alone "unashamed bashing".
Some of the other remarks you quote may sound harsh but serve to emphasise the disappointment her Pentatone fans have in the matter. Since they are some of the ones who pay to buy her recordings, their views, in some cases strongly put, are, I think, valid.
"their views" implies somehow there must be something they view. And what do they view? PentaTone, who seemingly could not manage their relationship with their top selling artist the proper way. How can one "view" it differently as long as one is capable of "viewing" at all?
If "Is about to be poached" was a direct quote from a badly written article, one could quote it mentioning that only animals can be poached. Quoting it without correcting is a quiet agreement that JF's intelligence compares to animals' one. I definitely know, she is brighter than that.
|
|
|
Post by Peter November 21, 2007 (118 of 161)
|
|
hotmifi said:
If "Is about to be poached" was a direct quote from a badly written article, one could quote it mentioning that only animals can be poached.
Don't bash the messenger!
"Quoting it without correcting is a quiet agreement that JF's intelligence compares to animals' one."
No, it isn't. You are reading into my post what isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by hotmifi November 21, 2007 (119 of 161)
|
|
Peter said:
Don't bash the messenger!
"Quoting it without correcting is a quiet agreement that JF's intelligence compares to animals' one."
No, it isn't. You are reading into my post what isn't there.
Right you are, you did not comment on the "poaching" phrase. And was I wrong in assuming you supported the "poaching" picture. And I would have been wrong in assuming you disapproved of it. Because you only gave the "poaching" phrase a broader audience by simply distributing it here in this forum. That's all you did. Or would that be again reading something into your post you didn't do?
|
|
|
Post by Peter November 21, 2007 (120 of 161)
|
|
hotmifi said:
Right you are, you did not comment on the "poaching" phrase. And was I wrong in assuming you supported the "poaching" picture. And I would have been wrong in assuming you disapproved of it. Because you only gave the "poaching" phrase a broader audience by simply distributing it here in this forum. That's all you did. Or would that be again reading something into your post you didn't do?
This exchange has gone on long enough.
|
|
