[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have anexcellentcomposition?
Quoting Krispen Hartung <khartung@cableone.net>:
> Imagine if everything time I said something was
> beautiful, I had to qualify exactly what I meant down the specific
> logical atoms that denoted my owen sensory data or memories of sensory
> data. It would take hours and we'd never be able to communicate. It's
> easier to just use the word and assume we have a common understand in
> absence of there being an actual "Thing" out there called beauty.
This point is well-taken: that a word such as "beauty" is a shorthand
that we can use to communicate with the presumption that you and I
have enough in common that our respective approaches to "beauty" are
similar.
Having worked with live organ/choral music, a "good" acoustic suggests
a live space with reflective surfaces and enough reverb to carry the
sound without destroying clarity. A "poor" space would be one that is
"dead" -- that is, a space with carpet, acoustical tile, and absorbent
properties.
One time a live-sound person commented to me that he had dealt with a
lot of "bad" rooms. I asked him, "What to you is a bad room?" And
his answer: "A room that has reverb."
Thus, when someone tells you they want to deliver to you a "good" or
"beautiful" product, you might want to investigate exactly what they
mean to avoid an unpleasant surprise. :)