I’m taking a French class focused on the Renaissance. In class we debated whether the culture of the Renaissance or today’s had better thinkers, artists, mathematicians and scientists. A classmate argued that the art that emerged from the renaissance was amazing and some of the best the world has ever seen, and that the progresses in math and science were astounding for their time. I acknowledged that sure many of the pieces of art from the renaissance are masterworks and classics. However, in the past only nobles could focus and learn about the arts. Today almost anyone can become an artist. There are millions of talented artists from top selling musicians and painters to street artists who continuously expand the arts on a daily basis. Concerning science and math, algebra was a big deal when that was being reasoned out. Today 6th graders know algebra, and we’re the most educated generation to exist.

I think the problem with today’s ever expanding arts and sciences is its over saturation. We’ve come to the point where the frontier of a subject is highly specialized, and with so many of these specialized subjects, it is difficult for the “right” information to reach the “right” people to continue the advancement of these subjects. This is a concern with data organization that Vannevar Bush predicted.

Each generation that follows will raise the ceiling in all subjects. Some more than others. I think future wars will push us past our limits. My generation is a reflection of that. I won’t write a paper until the night before the deadline. Similarly war and the threat of death seem to create the proper motivation for the world to expand its capabilities. Most modern and advanced anythings were repurposed technologies or methods originally meant for war. Medicine, communication, travel, mass production methods and many more things all were built upon the ingenuity born from war. I think America leads in the development of science and tech because our culture is very focused on military. I’m pretty sure we spend more than the next 20 or so countries combined on defense. And interestingly enough we make the latest phones, computers, streaming devices, pioneered social networking and media sites, and we release the most art in forms of movies, televisions shows and music. I guess the future will tell what my generation is remembered for.

From what was discussed in class, the creation of two selves is attributed to the unnatural act of silent reading. The idea of a second self stems from the question of who does one read to when reading silently? The rise in literacy across the globe created a split in identity. People no longer identified themselves by their job titles or positions. The second self allowed people to now identify themselves in multiple ways.

I can’t exactly prove the above point, nor disprove it, but I can offer another theory. Perhaps this second self wasn’t derived from reading silently, but thinking silently. Do we assume that people thought to themselves exclusively out loud prior to the development of reading silently? On one hand inner thoughts could have been primal desires like ‘I’m hungry’ or ‘I’m cold.’ Thinking may have been a reflex that people were unaware of. On the other, inner thoughts could have consisted of complex questions such as ‘why am I here?’ or ‘what causes the cycles of night and day?’ People may have been curious and pondering. They questioned their surroundings and sought answers having debate with each other over these causes. Did this debate simply cease once people enjoyed seclusion or did it continue internally creating another voice? Food for thought.

The idea of a second inner self may stem from silent reading, but the idea of multiple selves definitely precedes silent reading. The ‘self’ is a complex combination of attitudes and emotions that appear in different combinations depending on the social situation. The way you act with a parent, a friend, a lover, a peer, a superior, or an underling all differ. I think the idea of oversimplifying people to a single ‘self’ is inaccurate. Even dogs show variation in their ‘self.’ They act quite differently with an intruder than they would with you.

Like I said, I can neither prove nor disprove any of these theories, but it’s interesting to see where this chain of thoughts leads.

My class discussion on the increase in volume and compression, and decrease in dynamic range of music over time has been shaped negatively. I think the quality of music recordings now is better than its ever been. I can’t say for certain that it’s because of increased compression, a decrease in dynamic range or just better recording equipment and processes. What I can say is that there is a reason audio engineers choose to mix and master the way they do.

I looked through the Dynamic Range Database, and for the most part, albums with higher dynamic range tended to be instrumental and grand in their number of parts and instruments. Even classic rock songs whose audio engineers criticize the lack of dynamic range in modern music don’t have particularly high dynamic ranges. I found a lot of these modern rock albums have high dynamic ranges on their vinyl releases and not on their cd and digital releases. That makes sense since right now getting the sound quality of vinyl digitally takes up too much memory. I think as technology progresses digital music will eventually surpass vinyl sound quality. It’s currently feasible, but not practical. So in the future when it does become practical to have vinyl or better than vinyl sound with an mp3, we will see the return of dynamic range.

I think when you make a song there are two versions of it: the live and studio versions. The live version is raw and soulful, and the studio version is refined and processed. Between these versions of a song you end up with the two sounding the same, both being different, but sounding good, and the studio version sounding way better. Through these iterations, dynamic range may or may not be important to achieving the envisioned sound.

An artist or producer trying to emulate the live sound in the studio is going to create a more dynamic record. They’ll use recording techniques such as simultaneously recording the whole band at the same time. You’ll see this in classic Blue Note records. They’re very dynamic and sound relatively similar live. Below are two Art Blakey recordings, one live and one studio recorded, that sound pretty similar. Personally I think having a record and live performance sound almost identical defeats the purpose of wanting to see the artist live, but I do think it’s ideal for soulful music.

I maybe biased towards this scenario, but ideally an artist has a processed studio recorded album that’s great and an equally great live performance whose imperfections demonstrate a new side of the music. I think the contrast in having a lower dynamic range in the recorded version and higher dynamic range in the live version makes the live one stick out. This is not to say that higher dynamic range is better. It’s the contrast from the original version that makes it stick out. For example Scar Tissue off of Californiacation (mentioned as notoriously loud on the loudness war page) is a great song both recorded and live with differing dynamic ranges as seen through its solo.

check at 59 seconds

check at 5:20

I’m not really going to talk about the last one. That’s where the studio version processed and sounds great. However, the live version is crap or different mix of the recorded version being played at a venue.

On another note, I think this loudness war creates the idea that dynamic range defines what makes a good recording. The article almost paints modern music as devoid of dynamic range. In my opinion, good music is interesting to listen to. A change in dynamics is just one way of making music interesting to listen to. It’s the contrast in music that creates this interest factor. Examples would be the adding and subtracting of instruments, a change in the sound of an instrument such as clean to distorted guitar or a switch in musical range such as low to high.

Above is We Were Only Dreaming – Tides of Man. The song has the typical mid range scoop (which in my opinion makes recordings sound grander). I still think the song is incredibly dynamic. I’m not sure if its the actually dynamic changes or just the layering of instruments, but its very interesting to listen to.

Stay With Me – You Me At Six has contrast from the low notes the singer sings during the verses and the higher notes he sings during the chorus. Notes themselves lend a change in energy to a song. That’s why Sinatra needs to increase his dynamic range because his musical range is about 4 notes.

To tie it all together, I think dynamic range isn’t everything. Newer recordings are made at a higher level of quality, and contrary to what the article may think are not devoid of dynamic range. I think if you look at mainstream music it could be true, but it may just be the format misrepresenting the audio. It could also be that my ear is trained to enjoy a mid scooped compressed master, but I’ve given my 2 cents.

I’m Jeremy, a criminology major at George Mason University. Outside of my studies, I enjoy martial arts, weight lifting, netflix, and music. Music is probably the biggest thing in my life after my girlfriend, and basic needs like eating and sleeping.

Concerning music, I listen to a lot of it. I mean a LOT of it. I have about 10,000 songs on my Itunes centered around rock and its many sub-genres, but there are pockets of hip hop, jazz, reggae, and other world instrumental albums. I’m constantly trying to expand my collection of music.

Aside listening to music, I also enjoy making it. I play guitar and bass, and can sing (not overwhelmingly well, but enough to hold a tune and sound not awful). Furthermore, I’ve begun to dabble in recording the songs I’m making. I’m actually getting a new audio interface today. I’m upgrading from old 2 channel usb interface to a thunderbolt 28 input interface (which is a serious improvement). I may post some of my work as I get through it.

I’ve played in a couple local bands in the area and have done some gigging. I actually played Mason Day last year opening for Jesse McCartney.

So yeah…music is a pretty huge part of my everyday. Keep listening.