GA misinformations (was Re: triphop, garggggg)

[Chris Rapier]

On 2/23/06, TERROR FIRMA SKY <terror_firma_sky at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Jeremy David <epistemology at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason why nightclubs are often, but not always, better venues
> > for
> > shows than long and thin rectangular brick rooms, even if they are
> > "art spaces" is because nightclubs are built with good acoustics
> > in
> > mind. I hardly think that it makes me a bourgeois wimp for caring
> > that
> > music actually sounds as the artists intend, and that you hear the
> > instruments and voices instead of random droning waves bouncing
> > between walls, or that you don't hear the non-sound of waves
> > canceling
> > each-other out because the walls are too close together. That to
> > me is
> > far more offensive than a couple pieces of silverware clanking
> > around.
> > Maybe that's not true for everybody, and that's fine, but it sure
> > make
> > a huge difference for me.
>
> Any decent artist can compensate for bad acoustics or at least
> figure out how to use them to their advantage.

While this might be true for a specific genre of music it is
distinctly untrue for other genres. In some genres clarity, subtlety,
and nuance count for a lot and if all of those are being drowned out
by poor acoustis there is no way for an artists to 'play around' it.
So while Neubauten can often transform an underpass into an intregral
part of their performance I can't imagine Miles Davis or Art Blakely
doing the same. not because Neubauten are better artists - but because
they are approaching art in different ways for different effects and
meaning.

However, from an audience point of view - bad acoustics makes the bay
jesus cry. We actually *care* about being able to hear a band and the
music.