Digital images...a music analogy...

snip

What is a Conservative and a conservative in your art world?

If either one is against change, then there is a problem in definition. How far back is the past, and that which we must keep up with?

Everything is changing, so to avoid being called conservative, with or without a capital letter, we must be continually reject the past.

In the mind of every 'modern' thinker there is a little conservative. In an open mind, there is no conflict between the past, 'modernism', and change. There is only art of quality, and refined taste.

I suggest that there is more to be had from one 'old' painting of quality than from a whole gallery of average work of this century and last.

My criticism of the last 120 years of art or so does not define me as a conservative.

I suppose that there might be something to be had in calling people stupid, but I have never been able to see it. Maybe it's a joke shared between 'intelligent' people?

You're key words above are 'how it attracts the listener.' I can assure you, that in my case, how it's done is of primary concern to this pure acoustics lover.

I'd much rather listen to a virtuoso performer play a traditional instrument sans amplification, distortion, echoes, etc. My personal favorite is the clarinet, not the least because I happen to be trained on it myself - 'licorice sticks' in the mouths of babes, preferrably - and it's interesting to me how few babes have made a name playing the clarinet - wonder why that is? OTOH, their are several I can recall who have claimed fame playing flute. But that's another thread...

I think I said that already, 'it's a matter of acculturation!' If most of what you hear is synthesized sound, and you're a young person with peer pressures telling you it's the only music worthy of appreciation, then I can see why you wouldn't have any appreciation for a virtuoso performer on a purely acoustical instrument.

Perhaps future generations will shun all purely acoustic instruments as 'old fashioned' and displeasing to the ear. Quien sabe!

If one synthesized the sound to meet you criteria I suspect your attraction would be the same because you wouldn't be able to tell how it was done. This is the case for simulating instruments.

Now the other matter is that the media influences the output. Historically the invention of a new media has always done this and I believe electronics are no exception.

There are those who write and still use typewriters and those who paint and shun computers. However, I believe that those who can attract the viewer are those who are superior in their craft in any media.

'Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.' -John Stuart Mill

Tired of Modern Art? check

Vibration sounds and feels different from instruments made of wood or metal v.s. electricity - rather easy for a trained listener to differentiate.

I have no evidence to back this up, but I suspect the electrical pulse (aura, personal vibe, whatever, and etc.) of those who find comfort in non-electrical sounds share some of the same properties of the waves from instruments made from nature. That could be what comforts the listener.

I have yet to be fooled by a synthesized stringed instrument.

I agree with you, but then I can't say that it's not possible to fool the listener into thinking it's pure acoustical when it's not.

But there's something, as you say, about hearing an instrument played in one's immediate presence. It defies imitation, IMO. Maybe it's the motion of the air from the vibes of the instrument that is different from the vibes from a speaker - which is where sound comes from if it's not coming directly from the instrument itself.

Also, you can always detect a 'hiss' in artificial sound.

Necromaniacs