Digital
Overviews of the progress of magnetic-tape recording such as that in the March "Editorially Speaking" are interesting and bring valuable perspective to the history of high fidelity. However, William Anderson's comment that digital recording "could con tribute even more" to the increase in information density on magnetic tape may be slightly optimistic or misleading.
Digital tape recording is often characterized by the "data rate"-or, more physically, the number of bits per inch carried on the tape.
Densities of 800 bits per inch are fairly easily obtained on audio tape, with 1,600 or slightly more on tape "certified" against dropouts.
Let's take 9,600 bits per inch as a rather optimistic density for very-high-quality tape-storage systems. Direct conversion of analog signals to digital form may require sampling at rates of 20,000 to slightly more than 40,000 times per second, with a minimum of sixteen levels of digitization, to obtain adequate dynamic range plus distortion of roughly 0.002 percent of saturation levels. The actual distortion increases rapidly for low-level signals with this sixteen-bit conversion, and the total bits per second is at least on the order of 300,000. Thus, one second of single-channel analog information requires perhaps 30 inches of digitally recorded tape-to which can be compared the 17 inches needed in a standard (analog) cassette recorder. Although the model I have used may involve an overestimation (I haven't considered, for instance, the bit-saving techniques used in various time-delay units), a factor of 10 to 15 remains missing even on the most excellent tape system.
Of course, the number of tracks per lateral inch of the tape could be increased by a factor of 10, but the main point still holds: digital techniques are not a direct way of increasing information density on tape. Rather, they are a way of reducing effective noise levels as far as is desired, of reducing distortion below that of analog recording at high levels, and of eliminating the effect of speed variations in the tape record/play system. Extremely flexible signal processing would also be possible.
However, an increase in bits per inch or second is not a first-order expectation.
The major reason why digital techniques are tape hogs is that the recording levels used are generally full-plus or full-minus saturation, with no use of the dynamic range inherent in the magnetic coating. This conservative approach is necessary because of the possibly disastrous effect a single false bit can have; if it is in the most-significant location, the effective distortion it will cause can be 50 to 100 percent for the length of the dropout section on the tape. Although error-detection and correction techniques can reduce the chance that this will occur, they add an overhead of necessary bits to the digital signal stream.
HARRY R. ZWICKER; Elkton, Md.
The Editor replies:
Space considerations in "Editorially Speaking" dictate a high information density and sometimes even an intentional dropout (omission). I did not intend to suggest that the first benefit of digital techniques would be tape savings; I think it is generally agreed that their ability to solve the noise problem is quite enough to make them worthwhile. Regarding information density, however, in the same issue there was the following statement by Robert Donadio, BASF's manager of technical development: "Today we're up to 6,250 bits per inch, and this figure is determined by the digital electronics rather than the tape, which is capable of much more." In other words, we should expect greater densities in the future not only from improved software, but from improved hard ware as well.
Music Biz
I'm a young songwriter who's been working away at it for about two years, itching to break into the industry but unsure how to go about it. "How to Get into the Music Business" (March) was fantastic. It sure shed some light on the subject, and I know that many others out there must want to thank STEREO REVIEW (and Scott Mitchell!) for it. I take pride in my songwriting. It's something that's mine alone and conveys what I have to say to the world. I want the world to hear me, so when I make the move I'll follow the advice in the article. Who knows, I may even run into Scott at a recording studio some day.
STUART HICKS, JR. San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Was it really my letter that prompted the March feature "How to Get into the Music Business"? Well, it's enough to make one believe in . . . almost anything. Unfortunately, during the interim my cynicism has got the better of me, and my advice to aspiring rock stars is to forget the whole business and take up something respectable, like smuggling or chinchilla ranching. As for me, I'm planning on a long and humble career as a reviewer, at the end of which I'm going to be cremated and have my remains scattered over Barry Manilow. You can't take it with you.
SCOTT MITCHELL; Austin, Texas
In March's "How to Get into the Music Business," the "Outside Reading" list on page 61 incorrectly included New on the Charts under "Songwriter Magazines" in stead of "Record Business Magazines." The publisher of New on the Charts reports that he is being swamped with questions, tapes, songs, etc. from aspiring songwriters that he cannot afford to acknowledge or respond to individually. Also, the address given in the list was incorrect. It should read: New on the Charts, c/o Music Business Reference, Inc., 1700 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10019. We regret these errors.
Twentieth Anniversary
About twenty years ago (March 1958, to be exact), I had the pleasure of reading the first issue of HiFi & Music Review. Since then, I have not missed a single issue of the magazine known today as STEREO REVIEW.
The bound collection has the best place in the room where I listen to my records. I cannot thank you enough for the pleasure and information about music and the art of music re production that the magazine has given me. I wish the writers and editors many, many more years of good work helping readers to a better understanding of music and sound.
AUGUSTO M. DAMONTE; Rome, Italy
Ah, how sweeter than a baby's kiss, to have a thankful reader!
Cassette Packaging
As the audiovisual librarian of the Iowa City Public Library, I have been distressed at the diversity of cassette packaging, which seems to be increasing instead of diminishing (as noted in William Anderson's March editorial, "Minimax"). There is apparently no concern for the way cassettes will be stored or located in library (or home) collections. The expense of repackaging cassettes to fit library shelves has been a serious deterrent to many libraries that would otherwise eagerly invest in the format, which is more durable and com pact than discs as well as easier to use. I pro pose the following dual solution: (1) Package music cassettes so they are the same size (two-dimensionally if not in thickness) as discs, thus enabling them to be interfiled in the same browsing bins using the same catalog system (Angel-and now RCA-is trying this). (2) Package spoken-word cassettes in book-size/shape containers so they can be interfiled and cataloged with their print counterparts (as is now being approximated by London and Philips). In both cases, the same type of covers, annotations, and enclosures (texts, librettos, etc.) that are such an invaluable part of the best disc packaging should be provided.
CONNIE TIFFANY; Iowa City, Iowa
Discophilia
I can't resist responding to K. Blain's March letter on disco, which he knows he "will never get to like." I, too, was a hard-rock fan, until the Stones started putting out garbage ("Goat's Head Soup"), Led Zepdit to ("Houses of the Holy"), the original Deep Purple died, and Jefferson Airplane lost the Kaukonen-Casady team forever. Rock lost its sense of humor, ceased to be fun, and began taking itself far too seriously. Only Aerosmith and disco are around to fill the gap.
As I think back over disco songs I've be come familiar with over the past year, many come to mind that are distinguished by their catchiness, inventiveness, brilliant arrangements, vocal excellence, and, most of all, the feeling they give that the performers are having a very good time. Among these recent top quality pop songs are C.J. and Co.'s Devil's Gun, Andrea True's New York, You Got Me Dancin', Andy Gibbs' I Just Want to Be Your Everything, the Commodores' Brick House, Teddy Pendergrass' I Don't more, Rose Royce's Do Your Dance, LTD's Back in Love Again, Heatwave's Boogie Nights and Too Hot to Handle, the Bee Gees' Stayin' Alive, Donna Summer's I Feel Love, and the Emotions' classic Don't Want to Lose Your Love and Best of My Love. None of these songs owe apologies to anyone for their musical quality. They've got it--and if K. Blain won't listen, it's his/her loss.
DAVID GREEN; Houston, Texas
I am an avid reader of STEREO REVIEW, and I appreciate great performers of all kinds, whether in jazz, rock, soul, or classical music. So I was glad to see Ed Buxbaum's March review of Donna Summer's "Once Upon a Time." She's been one of my most treasured artists-and the engineering for her albums should make the U.S. studios envious. For years I have said nothing to the rampant disco haters, but when it comes to Donna Summer they're going too far.
CHESCA SCALPI; Beacon, N.Y.
Inconsistent Complaints
I really get a kick out of the idiots who write in to complain when one of STEREO RE VIEW'S critics knocks an album by one of their favorite artists, only to turn around and knock an album or artist they happen to dislike. When a reviewer is unimpressed with an album and says so, he's just doing his job.
The best way for readers to express their own criticism is to not buy the records they don't like, rather than rushing to the "Letters" columns to heap abuse on other people's favorite performers.
JAMES P. MITCHELL Ypsilanti, Mich.
More Bests
I much appreciated Steve Simels' choice of the best rock albums from the past two decades (February issue), but he forgot a couple: "Raw Power" by Iggy and the Stooges and Dylan's great Albert Hall bootleg. And another thing, does Steve really believe that the Beatles' white album is better than "Sgt. Pepper" or the Stones' "Exile on Main Street" than "Beggar's Banquet"?
JIM MCDONALD Flint, Michigan
Steve Simels replies:
I thought it would be unfair to include the Dylan bootleg, brilliant as it is, simply because it is a bootleg and thus unavailable to most readers. As for the Beatles and Stones albums, I frankly had to flip coins to make those decisions. It was also a heart breaker to omit "Raw Power"--and, incidentally, "Who 's Next." Had I been able to pick ten albums instead of only eight, they would have been right up there with the rest.
Richmond Bill
In February's "Editorially Speaking," William Anderson discusses two methods of supporting America's cultural institutions, artists, and scholars. One is the traditional rationing of monies in response to individual fund-raising appeals from various groups. Mr. Anderson likens this to the society matron's "frog-and-egg system" described by Ruth Draper in The Italian Lesson. In utilizing this faithful old system, patrons dole out favors "where they will do [their] personal concerns the most good." Perhaps when more people can afford a silver frog and a jade egg as mere desk ornaments, they will be likely candidates to respond to solicitations from worthy causes.
What Mr. Anderson fails to realize is that the second method, Rep. Fred Richmond's Arts and Education Bill (H.R. 1042), is not de signed to remove frogs and eggs from any one's desk. It merely provides a simple and convenient method of contributing tax deductible dollars for those who desire to make a financial and moral commitment to the general good of the cultural environment.
If passed, the bill would establish two check-off boxes on the federal income-tax form whereby a taxpayer could make tax deductible contributions to the National Endowment for the Arts or for the Humanities or both. Certainly this method will be more universal and realistic than the other, since it will reach many more small donors who have never before been solicited because the cost of individual solicitation is so high. The legislation is not aimed at eliminating contributions to groups meriting "personal concern," since its purpose is to broaden public support and not to deflect from private giving.
The Ford Foundation's report on the finances of the performing arts unequivocally stated that the sole hope for future funding of the arts is increased support by private individuals. Two Harris polls clearly indicated that a majority of the American public wants to contribute in some manner to arts subsidy.
H.R. 1042 ties these two elements together in an efficient method for providing urgently needed funds for the labor-intensive, capital-starved arts community. The bill requires no new agency to be formed, and it would cause no added drain on an overburdened national budget and a minimal increase in federal paperwork. It is a simple, pressure-free method to facilitate cultural support by individual citizens that will result in a massive influx of new funds from a significantly broader sector of the public, and this engendering of citizen cultural awareness will have further impact upon interest and attendance in our nation's cultural facilities.
FRANCES RICHARD, Executive Director National Council for Arts and Education; New York, N.Y.
The Editor replies:
I confess that I had never thought of "traditional" fund raising as de pending on the "doling out" or "rationing" of funds, though I suppose there may be some reluctant donors who have to be browbeaten into an appearance of generosity. But the class issue is pure red herring-introduced, I would hope, facetiously. As my editorial not ed, I do not myself rely on the "frog-and-egg" system to do my charitable duty, and I cannot imagine that anyone has ever been kept from contributing money to anything for want of desk ornaments, jade or otherwise! To sum up my objections to H.R. 1042: (1) Do we really need even one more line or box, let alone two, on that already unforgivably complicated piece of bureaucratic outrageousness called Form 1040? (2) If the answer is yes, will we not then be committing ourselves to accommodating ten or a dozen more boxes for other claimants to check-off charity-hospitals, diseases, and what not else? (3) The federal bureaucracy has not grown to the size it has through a "minimal increase in paperwork." The National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities started out in 1966 with a $5 million appropriation, an administrative budget of $727,000, and seventy four employees (twenty of them on part time).
They had a $155 million appropriation in 1977, an $11 million administrative budget, and 218 employees (as of September 1976). Proponents of the Richmond bill suggest that as much as $1.8 billion might not unreasonably be expect ed from taxpayer check-offs, and this would be administered by the National Endowments.
My own experience (and native cynicism) lead me to think it not unreasonable to expect that multiplying the funds to be disbursed by fourteen might very likely mean multiplying the disbursers by a significant factor as well. And what of the invisible cost of processing the names, addresses, and amounts for all those tax-form check-off boxes? Is the IRS's computer time free? (4) The Endowments do their job very well, perhaps because they do not have too much money to play with, but more likely because they are in the matching-fund (or "put-up-or-shut-up") business. The government's role is that of a catalyst or a preceptor setting an example, saying to the public, "Get out there and support what you want supported." (5) The Great American Middleman, even if he arrives in the shape of the federal government, has nothing to contribute in this case but his middleness. What we need to go to work on is the gulf-wide and growing-that already separates American audiences from American artists. The plight of serious musical composition in this country, to take but one example, is directly owing to the increasing isolation of musical creators from their proper audiences. Foundation grants, institutional sinecures, careless commissions, and a general artistic incestuousness do produce a kind of music-but who is listening? Without precisely suggesting that artists go, back to starving in garrets, I think the time has come not to increase further the distance between the producers and consumers of art, but to find ways of decreasing it. Writing your own checks to encourage the art you want encouraged seems to me one way of doing this.
But I may be wrong. Perhaps Americans do want Uncle Sam signing the checks-and deciding who is to get them as well. What do readers think?
Disc Pioneer
It was good to learn, through Larry Klein's February column, that Emory Cook is alive and well and that there still is a "Cook Laboratories." Starting in 1953 I began collecting his "Sounds of Our Time" discs: rail roads, the Mosque organ, rain and surf, steel band, and so on. They are still exciting to hear. But I recall that ten or fifteen years ago a flood in Stamford destroyed all the mile stone Cook recordings, and I lost track of Mr.
Cook despite efforts to find him. I was never brave enough to spring for the binaural hard ware, but he did open me up to some great audio adventures. Thanks for word of him.
DAVID V. PITTENGER; Dallas, Texas
Larry Klein's "Audio Q. and A." in February brought back my memories of Emory Cook. I have seven or eight of his mono 10-inch 33 1/3-rpm records. The earliest was re corded in 1950 on rainy nights along the New York Central tracks near Peekskill and called "Rail Dynamics." The fidelity was amazing, the transients explosive. At the time I had what was then a "super-power" amplifier, all of 20 watts.
W. G. MILLER Wichita, Kan.
Loudspeaker Weather
Concerning recent reader letters on the matter of the weather's affecting loudspeaker response, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Both loudspeakers and our ears are subject to pressure variations in the atmosphere. When your speakers sound lousy, check the barometer; you'll find that "the glass is down," as sailors used to say.
RALEIGH G. SMITH; Norfolk, Va.
Is Porgy an Opera?
It seems that old misconceptions die hard.
The revelation of Gershwin's complete Porgy and Bess, on stage and records, in the last two years has confirmed in the minds of most mu sic lovers and professional critics the work's status as a landmark twentieth-century opera.
Yet STEREO REVIEW'S editors persist in hedging their bets and placing it in the "musical theater" category (for instance, in the 1977 Record of the Year Awards and "Best Recordings of the Past Twenty Years" in February). Unfortunately, the RCA recording that has been garnering all the accolades upholds this non-opera categorization well. It is a version the grand-opera enthusiasts can feel safer in liking, because of its Broadway-like orchestral sound and its theater-wise attitude.
There's nothing wrong with "musical theater" but it's a shame that the status and respect brought by so-called "serious music" designations such as "opera" and "symphony" can be awarded to any minor nineteenth century Italian melodrama or a Meyerbeerian spectacle or one of Shostakovich's lowest-common-denominator exercises and yet be denied to Porgy and Bess. It is formally operatic, melodically rich, strong in personal style and originality, intelligently unified both dramatically and musically, and much more honestly "verismo" than any number of nineteenth-century attempts. That it is a master piece, recent musical criticism has fully confirmed. So what reason can there be for not calling this great opera what it is?
GREGORY R. SURIANO; Newark, N.J.
The Editor replies:
All true, but, from our point of view, calling it a "masterpiece of the American musical theater" is as high an accolade as designating it a great opera. Further, the high value Mr. Suriano places on the latter is not shared by most Americans. I re call that some years ago a perfectly splendid American musical by Kurt Weill (Street Scene) was driven off the boards in New York by perfectly well-intentioned partisans who kept insisting that it wasn't a musical at all, but an opera-and it promptly closed for lack of business. Mr. Suriano is rightly ambitious for Porgy and Bess, but calling it an opera is more likely to hinder than to help his cause.
Was Disney First?
Five stars to James Goodfriend for his excellent February cover story on Richard Rodgers! Well, perhaps four and a half. He says that Oklahoma changed "the very nature of the American musical theater," but didn't Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs accomplish the same feat of totally integrating songs and story six years before? And you can hardly call it a "pretentious intellectual exercise" that didn't work, as Mr. Goodfriend describes the previous "book shows" on stage. Snow White can't boast as many songs as Oklahoma, but it had hits too:
I'm Wishing, With a Smile and a Song, Whistle While You Work, Heigh Ho, and Some Day My Prince Will Come.
DANIEL IVANICK; Ithaca, N.Y.
Heard any of them lately?
Rodrigo Premiere
In Paul Kresh's February review of Angel Romero's new recording of the Rodrigo Concierto de Aranjuez, he says that Romero gave the work its U.S. premiere in a concert at the Hollywood Bowl in 1964. However, it was I who gave the work its first U.S. performance, in a 1959 concert with the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by Robert Shaw. As it happens, that was also the first time I appeared with any orchestra and the first time the Cleveland Orchestra performed with a guitar soloist.
REY DE LA TORRE; Fremont, Calif.
Mr. De la Torre is correct, and we regret the error.
John Stewart
I want to thank Noel Coppage for his continued interest in (and praise for) the work of John Stewart. I too feel that Stewart has long been overlooked by the American public, and I frankly cannot understand why his records have never sold well. His music is among the most sensitive and vital I have heard, and his understanding of Americans' love of the road and of freedom should place him in the same echelon as such highly publicized (justifiably so, I should add) artists as Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, and even John Denver.
However, Mr. Coppage's sardonic comment (in his February "Best of the Month" review of "Fire in the Wind") about the relative musical knowledge and abilities of the other Kingston Trio members confuses me. I have always been a diehard Kingston Trio fan, and I cannot believe that Mr. Coppage heard something I missed in their recordings.
Admittedly, Dave Guard (at the beginning) and then John Stewart were the musical leaders and highlights of the group, but to imply that Bob Shane and Nick Reynolds knew so little about their guitars as to be able to play in only three or four keys is childish. Mr. Coppage should do himself a favor and listen again to such Kingston Trio albums as "Goin' Places," "Make Way," and "Time to Think." Shane and Reynolds may not have been virtuosos, but neither were they slouches.
JOHN BIRCHLER; Altamont, N.Y.
How about virtuoso slouches?
Also see:
Source: Stereo Review (USA magazine)