|
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
I think Magadansky's using 'perfect' in the same way as 'perfect translation' applies to messages between languages. The idea is that a track can be fully understandable by the listener, in the sense that they can hear all the nuances and sonic happenings consciously. 'Perfect' doesn't mean a measure by some standard, but a way of structuring music. Like, let's say you listen to a car moving in front of you and it's basically completely clear; the farther you move away from it, the more indistinct it becomes, so that if you sit in some field on the outskirts of the city the sound of cars passing becomes one droning continuum rather than a discrete sound. The character of the sound changes completely in the two instances, but even still, if you push yourself to listen hard when sitting in the field, you can pick out some little details in that drone even though the total field is basically a blurred wash of sound.
I haven't listened to Second Movements but there was this thread a while back about Justin Bieber's song being stretched by 800% percent. Perfection is the difference between that track and something like Troum - Autopoiesis. |
Well put. If the OP was meaning to talk about space in the mix, this seems to be an adroit description. Perfect would be thus defined as a "clean" mix where every sound has a surgically precise space and there are relatively few, if any, clashing artifacts which, given a staid music arrangement, might tend to be a little dry.
A dirty mix, would tend to let instruments bleed onto one another to a point where sonic artifacts are created, thus adding new parts to the mix. As the spectral field became more noisy and dissonant I could hear that challenging a listener.
___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012
|