When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Boy, from what I read here, can I make English to not be my native tongue? I see nuances with the language, that are beyond my capabilities. Guidocorona, it looks like you are benefiting from your second job. I find that I'm more in the Detlof camp, with one exception. One listening experience at Alex's(APL Hi-Fi)that left me unusually high for a few hours afterward. And it was digital.

Detlof, LOL! English is my first language and your competency in a second (?) language brings tears to my eyes. I'll never lift my eyes/head again. I'm so embarassed!

That said, I really agree, for the most part at least, with Mt T's sentiments. For myself, and for a very simple reason, the performance itself is what imbues music with 'soul'.

By way of example, I happen to be very moved by a recording of Sibelius' Finlandia Hymm which was reduced for male chorus and intended to be sung, acapella by simple marching soldiers (as in going to the front in the war with Russia).

Finns in general are all moved by 'Finlandia', with or without(more common) the Finlanda Hymm. It amounts to their national anthem, at least for the Finns I have known.

For myself, the full orchestrated version of Finlandia is very enjoyable and I can intellectually understand why it is considered patriotic. However it doesn't 'move me' in any recorded form, nor did a complete version move me live a couple of weeks ago. But two women with me at the live performance were moved to tears by the inclusion of the Hymm.

What moved me about the recorded acapella version of the Hymm by male chorus was my ability to appreciate the nature of the music as it might have been sung by common solders actually marching to war! I can tear up. I can visualize it!

Now that has NOTHING to do with recording format or any live v canned preferences. Its simply the sum of understanding the composers music and his intent as well as its effective communication (to me). Interestingly, this same music performed by a mixed chorus, has much less impact on me.

From this I conclude that, for myself at least, its the music and the style of its performance that imbues it with soul.

I think hearing the 'soul' as a result of the performance of music will always be dependent on the actual performance. The method of hearing the performance, whether live, or recorded on tape, LP, CD, etc will always be subordinate.

You can have a soulful performance without a specific format, but you cannot have a 'soulful recording' without the soulful performance.

IMHO.

Hi Newbee,
Heck I wished i had never confessed about that language thing....it makes me feel embarrassed now..., but besides my red face Newbee, I absolutely agree with everything you say here and neither am I in disagreement with Mrtennis as far as the above is concerned. It IS the performance together with the composition per se, which may carry meaning and can touch the soul. I have no quarrel with that in the least. The only thing I am contending and will keep on maintaining is that this thread belongs rightly here, because of the simple fact that until today there seems to be a better chance of being moved and touched by an analog attempt to mimic the real thing, especially with complex classical music, inspite of the undisputed shortcomings of analog, simply because analog in many cases ( not in all of course )still conveys more information than digital will. So the medium matters also as far as "soul" is concerned, with the right kind of music and its interpretation of course. Not to all and everyone of us of course, but to some and I happen to be one of them. This is quite an objective find, which in experimenting with a group of friends was repeatable, as we have done here but at the same time it is paradoxically purely subjective and applies only to myself and some other kindred spirits which, I suppose, have been bitten by a peculiar substrain of that bug called audiophilia, which will drive you to almost every live concert in town and compel you to do (almost) everything to put together a rig, which will help you to achieve a similar frame of mind, or of "soul" at home with the right kind of music. If you like digital, like I do and use it and enjoy it for what it is, but find it falls short for reasons sufficiently discussed in these posts in the rendering of certain types of music, then I simply fail to see that the medium should have nothing to do with conveying "soul". That at the same time you can experience this and be moved by music from a table radio is another kettle of fish entirely and has nothing to do with the question if digital will finally be able to convey soul or not which we are discussing here. Contrary to MrTennis I find this discussion here under this heading appropriate and legitimate in spite of the fact, that I agree with most of what he has to say.
Cheers,
Detlof

"its the music and the style of its performance that imbues it with soul."

Absolutely! And the equipment is a more or less imperfect conduit for that performance to reach us and trigger our emotional response. Example: several years ago I purchased a re-issue on 2 CDs of all the Dvorak [yes, I know, I am absurdly monomaniacal about this author] string quintets and sextets played by 'strings of the Berliner Phil'. I bought it as a documentary recording of sorts, it was recorded in the very early '60s. My initial impression was that the recording was blandly hazy. . . and supremely boring. My system consisted of EAD 1000 + DSP7000 MK3 CDp, ARC LS2B linestage, Rowland 7M monoblocks, Maggie IIIAs. I then started to replace some components one at a time: first the CDP was switched to X-01, then linestage became ARC Ref 3, recently speakers became Vienna Mahlers. At each step the music became cleaner, deeper, more emotional. . . and started to become 'beseelt'. . now because of its sweet emotionality it is one of my favorite recordings, in spite of being far from 'audiophile' quality .

the question is:

does the ability of music to commuincate depend upon sound quality ?

i say no. if one accepts that premise, the medium is irrelevant.

sound quality has varied over time, based upon the available technology. 80 years ago, people were enjoying music. today, people are enjoying music. people experienced the message of the music 80 years ago, as they do today.

do people enjoy bach, beethoven or brahms more today, because of sound quality of stereo systems than they did 80 years ago , listening to "phonographs" ? i think not.

there is no evidence that enjoyment of music is highly correlated to sound quality. in fact there were two studies published in stereophile, authored by markus sauer, which indicated that the satisfaction accruing from listening to music was not highly correlated with sound quality.

so, it seems that the issue of digital vs analog vs a live performance is one of sound quality, not "soul".