BROADCAST MUSIC

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 90, 13 October 1932, Page 20

BROADCAST MUSIC

PROBLEM OF THE

ORCHESTRA

A letter written by "Constructive Critic" and published in the "Evening Post" of sth October, criticising the performance (as heard over the air) of the 2YA orchestra was supported by L. D. Austin in a letter published last Thursday in this column. The two writers indicated their belief that dcfocts of-the orchestral performances as heard (neither had any fault to find with the actual performances) were due to studio technique, which embraces tho acouatics of the studio itself, and especially its acoustic conditioning by means of draping or the use of sound absorbing materials in the walla, and also the arrangement of the orchestra or other performers and the positioning of the microphone or microphones. It is evident, from, the frequency with which somewhat similar comments on the quality1 of the orchestral performances are heard that there is a widespread opinion that all is not at it should be. On the other hand, there is a sufficiency of opinion on the other side to give the question the appearance of being an entirely open one, in which personal tastes may be exercising too much sway. For example, so experienced a musician as- Mr. E. J. Hill expresses himself as satisfied. He writes: "Having been privileged to hear a good many orchestras both large and email here and in Australia, and having had considerable experience- with orchestral accompaniments in various oratorios, cantatas, and operas that I have taken the sole tenor parts in, I feel that I am eapablo of expressing an opinion of the merits of the 2YA orchestra. "In listening in I have been more than pleased with the results obtained, and have not noticed any tinniness as suggested t>y 'Constructive Critic.' The accompaniments to Mr. Vinogradofi's excellent piano concerto gave mo great pleasure. "A musical gentleman from Melbourne expressed himself as being surprised at the very fine results obtained." "EXPECTING A MIRACLE." Another correspondent, "5.0.5.," writes in the course of a letter too long for publication in full, condemning the. suggestion that broadcast studio performance is spoiled by "damping"; in other words, by the suppression of echo or reverberation. He aays that tho pure tone of instruments can be reproduced by the, microphone and contends that the addition of extraneous effects —resonance of walls and floors—is wrong. "The quality of tone for broadcasting must be produced within the capacity, of the instrument, whether human or artificial, and unless the instrument is built, or developed, and handled for such, purpo-jes, and does not have to depend on echoes and overtones which mislead the ear of the performer as well as the listener, then the microphone will continue to give the show away. . . . The simple truth of the matter is that the microphone demands revised ideas on performance. Too many people overlook this fact and stand about waiting for the radio engineer to work a miracle. . . . The next essential after ensuring that the individual instruments (of an orchestra) are producing real tone as well as can be is to see to the placing of the different instruments so that proper balance is assured. This surely must be the conductor's ■ job. ... No person connected with tho technical side, even if saturated with the aesthetic side of music, can make a masterpiece out of a mediocrity. ..." Such letters and comments suggest interesting subjects for general discussion without any direct reference to any particular station or performers. TRAPS FOR JUDGMENT. ,It is clearly improper for anyone who is merely a listener to say that the reproduction of the performance is bad, when in fact it may be extremely good, and the performance itself at fault. Ho is likely, indeed, to come to the latter conclusion when he finds that orchestral records please him very well and direct performances fall far short of it. On the other hand, the actual performance may in fact be very good, and may be spoiled at any one or more of several stages in its progress to tho transmitter. And, of course, it may be completely ruined, and very often is, by the receiver, though of course this effect does not account for satisfactory reception of a recorded performance and unsatisfactory reception of an original, one. No broadcasting authority can ensure that what the individual listener hears ,is perfect. -Receivers are of all kinds, some extremely good, and othors extremely bad. The broadcaster must provide for the. best possible reception by the best available type of receiver. This means, in effect, that the actual output from the aerial of the transmitter shall produce the best possible performance. The , broadcaster has then done his part, and the listener must do Ahis, or be content with inferior reproduction. CORRECTION MAY BE NECESSARY. But it does not follow that the broadcaster will produce this objective of hrst-elass output by using a studio performance that sounds exactly ridit Transmitters differ widely, as those who have • listened to ''chain broadcasts of a performance will be aware. The broadcaster must be prepared to modify the input so as to balance, if possible any defects in his apparatus. The betteivthe apparatus, the less need there will be of such correction, but tho necessity must be examined, and in the case of orchestral performances, the correct proceduro would seem to be that a musician, thoroughly acquainted; with good orchestral performance,should listen to the broadcast by means of the best receiver available, and study carefully whether it satisfies him. Ad-i justinehts should be made in the studio1 until it sounds right to him, whatever it may sound like in the studio. Whe-: ther this listener should be the conductor, temporarily sacrificing his baton for a passive role, or some trustworthy adviser, is a matter of expediency. ■'.It can be accepted as a fact that the verdict of this listener, as to the cor-: respondence between the actual studio performance and the radio output, should find confirmation in the characteristics of the station in possession of the engineers in charge. Unfortunately, these characteristics, though they disclose the existence of the disease, and may indicate-the necessity for surgery in the engineering sense, do not prescribe the immediate remedy. That must be discovered by trial and error. IMPORTANCE OF ECHO. The letter of "5.0.5.," even in the portion quoted, raises some interesting points. Contrary to the assertion of "5.0.5.," echo or reverberation has long since been recognised as essential for the. satisfaction of both performer and listener. N.o musician or speaker is comfortable in a "dead" chamber; ancl_ the 8.8.C.. went to great trouble to install an "echo" room by means of which any desired degree of room resonance could be injected into the broadcast music to rectify the oll'ecis of over-damping in the studios. The j reason, is simple.. The appreciation of I

music, however crude, is a matter of education, and we live in a world pervaded with echoes. Practically every souud we hear trails its procession of echoes behiud it, and wheu they arc artificially cut off the effect is strange and unwelcome. It was one of the advantages of electrical recording for gramophones that it became possible to reproduce the "roomy" effect of a natural and not a shut-in performance. "Bevisecl ideas of performance" are, as "5.0.5." contends, necessary; but that is not tho fault wholly of the microphone. This instrument'lias been enormously improved, and the more it is improved the less "revision of ideas" it will,, of itself, demand. It insists, however, upon being treated as an individual listener, close to the performers in the studio, and not as an audience distributed in a large hall. That is one of the factors that makes studio arrangement an art in which every local condition has its influence, and not a mere matter of accepting a formula or the result of experience elsewhere. The difficulties of studio arrangement are surprisingly great, and have produced arrangements which, to an orthodox orchestral musician, appear really radical. They are far greater than are imposed by broadcasts of public performances with the aid of up-to-date apparatus, for in these cases it is possible to get away from the orchestra, or the chorus, and secure a natural balance without disturbing the normal arrangement. This was well demonstrated by the Australian Grand Opera broadcasts a few weeks ago, and has also been indicated by relay broadcasts in New Zealand even without the more advanced microphone systems used for the Australian operas. "Listener" writes protesting against the practice of some radio enthusiasts who force the broadcast programmes on neighbours and others who may not wish to hear them. "The whole question of the indiscriminate use of the loudspeaker is a matter requiring urgent attention, but until public opinion has developed sufficiently to compel legislation on the subject, the question of annoyance to others is left to the discretion and goodwill of the individual set owner. As long as he himself can hear the- programme surely that is enough, without unnecessarily distracting others engaged in some other occupation or relaxation (or even attempting to sleep). . . It may be that some of the offenders are under the impression that they are conferring a benefit on all and sundry within earshot, but even the best of music is nothing but ian annoyance when one is otherwise occupied." The plan of the British Broadcasting Corporation to invite practising barristers to give a series of wireless talks in the autumn on every day legalprobloms such as hire-purchase and the Rent Restriction Acts has met with general approval in legal circles. The Bar Council, apprehensive of barristers snatching at • the chance of publicity, for some time refused to approve the proposal, but it has now agreed on condition that the names of .the speakers are not disclosed.