Ever since the introduction of digital recording in the 1980s there has been an ongoing controversy as to the merits of the new medium over the old. And unlike the leap from acoustic to electrical recording which happened about 1929 and the move to stereo recording in the mid 1950s the adoption of digital recording in the 1980s was not universally embraced as a step forward in recording technology by audiophiles.

So what is the issue?  Well it’s really quite simple.  Acoustic recording involved a needle connected to a membrane which vibrated analogously (more or less) to the sounds stimulating that membrane.  Electrical recording basically extended this technology by having the membrane (in the microphone) translate the sounds into analogous electrical impulses which were then recorded to a disc and later to magnetic tape.  This in turn would be used to drive a cutting lathe which cut the vinyl discs.  The discs are played with a needle in the groove which reads the little bumps and translates them into electrical impulses which are amplified to drive speaker cones which excite the air and produce sound.

Digital recording involves a sampling technique in which certain sounds or parts of sounds get encoded digitally and then reproduced or re-converted back to electrical impulses which then drive speaker cones.  The problem is that this is a sampling involving choices on the part of programmers as to which sounds/parameters will get encoded.  So potentially this would not be as accurate a representation of the sound as analog recording which responded directly to the sound as it occurred.  Of course more sampling containing more information produces a better recording than one which uses less sampling.

Now to be fair, all recording technologies have their flaws.  Even the best analog recordings do not reproduce the experience of hearing the sound live and in person. Characteristics and flaws in the analog equipment can and do limit aspects of the recording.  There is a limit to what this equipment can record so there are choices made even in the best case scenario as to what portions of the sound spectrum will get captured.  The frequency range and dynamic range are limited for example.  But the sonic experience of an analog recording is said by connoisseurs to be a warmer and more genuine sound than digital.

Certainly most people can hear the difference between early digital recordings and more recent ones.  That is because the sampling has gotten better, a wider range of frequencies and dynamics are being included.  But die hards will insist that analog recording was the finest recording technology for reproducing a satisfying listening experience and for faithfully reproducing the experience of the live sound.

I am not an engineer but as a person with ears I still enjoy the warm sound of analog recording.  Of course I listen to digital recordings because it is the dominant technology and I want to hear new recordings.  I am not advocating a change here, just pointing out the essential differences.

OK, you ask, this is all about sound but your title said it wasn’t all about sound.  So what gives?

Well my intention here is to use this simple exposition of recording technology as a metaphor for the digital sampling of opinions which are rampant in today’s business driven culture.  Everywhere we are asked for our opinions.  Whether you are approached by an interviewer, filling out a warranty card, or evaluating some experience you’ve just had at a concert or theater your opinions are being surveyed and placed into some sort of database which in turn undergoes some kind of analysis and that analysis, in turn, drives future choices made in a given business model.

Most of the audience at the première of Igor Stravinsky‘s Le Sacre du Printemps (The Rite of Spring) were rather famously not pleased with their listening experience on that night in 1913.  Yet today there are few people who would deny that this music is one of the most significant compositions of the twentieth century.  Modern business practices however would dictate that such music should not be programmed because it displeased the audience who would likely not return if they expected a repeat of such an experience.

The great musicologist/conductor/composer Nicolas Slonimsky (1894-1995) identified this phenomenon in his marvelous Lexicon of Musical Invective (1953) in which he documents quite a number of critical reviews of music which is now acknowledged as great but which, on first hearing by said critics, was described as inferior.  The point is well-taken.  Our initial experience of a new piece of music may be very different from our subsequent opinion after hearing it again.

With the elevation of statistical modeling to a religious practice there is increasing belief that those models embody the essence of truth and clear vision.  But what are the motivations behind this modeling?  Anyone who has taken a statistics course or who thinks about it for a bit will realize that statistics can obscure outcomes just as efficiently as they can clarify it.  So if the motivation is profit (as it should be in a business model) then there would necessarily be less of a focus on quality (whatever that is).

I have had many exciting and joyful experiences of hearing a new piece of music at a concert which I had never heard before.  I have experience the exhilaration of discovery.  Now not every new piece of music has this effect and, as I’ve said before, I have had that exhilaration of discovery after a second or third hearing.

I used to be very much a fan of classical broadcast radio.  At the time, in my adolescence, classical music was an adventure of discovery.  Of course I heard a lot of average and even poor music alongside the masterpieces but I also recall that there was an element of risk at times in programming new and less familiar music.  Sometimes I was bored, sometimes I was repelled, but sometimes I discovered something new to add to my listening repertoire choices.

That was in Chicago in the 1970s and 80s with Zenith’s WEFM,  WFMT and the late lamented independent WNIB.  But radio seems to have changed in similar fashion in terms of its programming to that of the concert hall.  Those radio stations frequently broadcast concerts of various orchestras including the Chicago Symphony, Milwaukee Symphony, Boston Symphony and various foreign orchestras.  Their programming also contained a fair amount of new music.

Over the last 5-10 years or so I have found classical broadcast radio to be increasingly dull and predictable.  Sure it’s good to hear Beethoven Symphonies and Mozart Piano Concertos but some stations have gone to a “request” model for their broadcasting which has resulted in an over representation of Bolero, the 1812 Overture and the broadcasting of what one writer called “wallpaper music”.  Wallpaper music is a reference to any number of newly recorded repertoire which is so mediocre as to make me almost scream with boredom and ennui.

I am not advocating ditching digital recording or a libertarian approach to concert programming.  Certainly both radio stations and concert organizations need to make at least a slim profit to survive.  What I am advocating is the inclusion of adventure and discovery in those business models to which I referred earlier.

Democratizing musical programming and playing to the center or the majority appears to produce mediocrity.  Every concert program and every broadcast classical station now are largely the same.  Of course there are notable exceptions as some orchestras employ resident composers and play the occasional premiere of a new work.  Less common is a second performance of a new work.

There are adventurous festivals of new music which program interesting music.  But these stand outside of the vast majority of classical programming today. So, at the end of the day (or the end of this little essay) listen to what gives you joy, but don’t be afraid of new musical ideas. And just be aware of new (and old) sound recording/reproducing technology and its impact on what you hear. It is not just about the music, it’s about the sound.