Listening to in Dolby Atmos Streaming, via Tidal/Apple/Amazon

[humprof]

Terry Riley's "In C," performed for the first time 60 years ago tomorrow. It was first recorded four years later by Columbia, and you can find a bajillion different versions of it today--but the two below are the only ones (re-)mixed for Atmos, AFAIK. (Riley is still composing today, age 89, with a view of Mt. Fuji to inspire him.)

It seems that early on, Riley was envisioning "In C" as sort of a "surround" work. Robert Carl's book about the piece includes a reminiscence by Riley's friend Stuart Dempster that "Terry had suggested people could wander around and change the sound by wherever they stood in the room." For the 1967 performance at Carnegie Recital Hall, according to a New York Times review, "loudspeakers were not only positioned about the auditorium but in the halls . . . the audience was urged by Lukas Foss, who oversaw the concert, to walk around and savor the sounds from various places in and out of the hall. Most of the listeners did so, and a few kept right on walking" (!).

Here's some of what Carl reports about the Columbia recording sessions, which took place a couple months later in a decommissioned church (no longer standing) on E. 30th Street in New York:

Columbia had just purchased one of the new Ampex 8-track machines, which used one-inch tape. The microphone setup . . . is difficult to assess; most participants remember a series of [Neumann] mikes hanging over them, and most remember special close miking of the Pulse. [One participant] remembers an immense mixing board, still run with ranks of black dial potentiometers. The recording engineer was Fred Plaut. . . .

[. . .]

The [second of "two other special issues that made the recording a challenge"] was more radical in its implications. Before the recording even began, Riley had decided it needed to be multitracked. This technique seems to be a legacy of his experience doing layered tape-delay pieces, which could build up a thick, propulsive texture very quickly . . . Thus the recording was conducted in three passes. . .

[Violist David] Rosenboom remembers that there was some concern on the pan of Columbia's team about the overdubbing process:

​

There was discussion about Terry's piece, and mine, which was a little unusual for the Columbia engineers, which was that you could take something that they thought of as classical music, and here are some of us talking about music where we would erase the boundaries, we were talking about crossovers between contemporary classical concert music and pop music of the time, and how they related, and we could do things like overdub, either edit and mix and combine things. And they were~ like. "What, you can do that?" But [producer] David Behrman was always the wonderful calm bridge between the Columbia staff and the musicians, saying "Oh yes, you can do that kind of thing!"​

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/03/nx-s...lution-of-terry-rileys-minimalist-masterpiece

 

[dapaladi]

first single "renegade" from manchaster indie rock band "doves", from the new album "constellations for the lonely" that will be released on january 25th.

 

[alansanchez86]

first single "renegade" from manchaster indie rock band "doves", from the new album "constellations for the lonely" that will be released on january 25th.

Big fan of "Lost Souls", will definitely check this out when it comes out.

 

[MrSmithers]

Big fan of "Lost Souls", will definitely check this out when it comes out.

Yeah Steven Wilson highlighted 'Lost Souls' in one of the Album Years podcasts, fantastic album. Glad to see Doves releasing new stuff in Dolby Atmos. Hopefully it's a good mix...

 

[alansanchez86]

Yeah Steven Wilson highlighted 'Lost Souls' in one of the Album Years podcasts, fantastic album. Glad to see Doves releasing new stuff in Dolby Atmos. Hopefully it's a good mix...

Yup, that's how I got introduced to them

 

[ssully]

Using a stereo mix as the baseline is fraught with problems. There are no rules with a remix, especially to Atmos. People who want the same thing should probably stick to the original mix.

I wouldn't say 'fraught with problems', I'd say it's a legitimate approach, and I'm curious what you think those problems are.

It doesn't mean the mix will necessarily be a success. As others note, Steven Wilson uses the stereo mix as a guide, but unlike his slavering fanboy base, I don't consider all of his mixes to be successful.

To me a successful remix does not *lose* anything important to me from the original mix -- and what's important can be anything from an actual part, to a hard-to-pinpoint 'vibe' -- but *adds* sonic delight to it.

Which is probably why I'll sometimes prefer an upmix of the original mix, to a surround remix.

 

[SomethingAnything]

Terry Riley's "In C," performed for the first time 60 years ago tomorrow. It was first recorded four years later by Columbia, and you can find a bajillion different versions of it today--but the two below are the only ones (re-)mixed for Atmos, AFAIK. (Riley is still composing today, age 89, with a view of Mt. Fuji to inspire him.)

It seems that early on, Riley was envisioning "In C" as sort of a "surround" work. Robert Carl's book about the piece includes a reminiscence by Riley's friend Stuart Dempster that "Terry had suggested people could wander around and change the sound by wherever they stood in the room." For the 1967 performance at Carnegie Recital Hall, according to a New York Times review, "loudspeakers were not only positioned about the auditorium but in the halls . . . the audience was urged by Lukas Foss, who oversaw the concert, to walk around and savor the sounds from various places in and out of the hall. Most of the listeners did so, and a few kept right on walking" (!).

Here's some of what Carl reports about the Columbia recording sessions, which took place a couple months later in a decommissioned church (no longer standing) on E. 30th Street in New York:



https://www.npr.org/2024/11/03/nx-s...lution-of-terry-rileys-minimalist-masterpiece

Wow. Thanks for letting me know. It's also on Tidal. Though not that second title. However I have also found A Rainbow in Curved Air and the beautiful Shri Camel. And his Sun Rings with the Kronos Quartet.

The mixes, from what I've heard so far, are excellent. I'm going to enjoy playing these.

(Thanks also, for that word bajillion, a new one for me. I like it. More common in North America, Google tells me.)

 

[humprof]

However I have also found A Rainbow in Curved Air and the beautiful Shri Camel.

I think those are exclusive to Tidal (so far). Enjoy--and let us know how they are!

 

[SomethingAnything]

I think those are exclusive to Tidal (so far). Enjoy--and let us know how they are!

They're good. Basically these are the three albums I've probably liked best from Terry R, and they're satisfying mixes.

The Kronos Quartet and Terry Riley album is also great and probably has the best Atmos mix of the lot. In fact, it led me to check out another five Kronos atmos albums, but no, all with far weaker mixes, quite FC (and the music not as good either).

I'm surprised these other Terry R albums are not on Apple. Nice to know Tidal can have some extra stuff now and then! (I've been considering the streaming service to be a poor cousin.)

 

[~dave~~wave~]

They're good. Basically these are the three albums I've probably liked best from Terry R, and they're satisfying mixes.

The Kronos Quartet and Terry Riley album is also great and probably has the best Atmos mix of the lot.

Agreed.

This album is the result of two remarkable men—the physicist Donald (“Don”) Gurnett, and pioneering composer Terry Riley—brought together by David Harrington, founder and first violinist of the Kronos Quartet.

In the early 1960s, Don Garnett developed instruments to record sounds encountered by spacecraft beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. The Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, launched in 1977, were provided with some of Garnett’s equipment. The recordings they obtained proved that, contrary to popular perception, even outer space is not a vacuum, but has a density through which soundwaves can be carried. Furthermore, some of those sounds appeared “musical.”

In 2000, Bert Ulrich, then curator of the NASA Art Program, invited the Kronos Quartet to make use of those sounds as recorded on the Voyager expeditions. Harrington immediately recruited Terry Riley, who enthusiastically embraced the project. This album is the result, involving not only the Kronos Quartet and the recordings, but also a choir which makes a serene appearance in “Earth Whistlers.”

Riley complements these sounds from space with his usual reassuring blend of folk and world music-inspired style, perhaps most attractively in “Planet Elf Sindoori.” After all, the perception of these sounds as being “musical” is ultimately our human perspective. The Kronos Quartet embrace Riley’s humane qualities, bringing warmth to these literally un-Earthly sounds.

Narration decoded by Apple:

 

[~dave~~wave~]

A Rainbow in Curved Air

Terry Riley, composer.
Mix about the farthest possible from "front centric."

 

[humprof]

Terry Riley, composer.
Mix about the farthest possible from "front centric."

Ooo, thanks for finding that. Now if Apple would also get the version by Poppy Nogood & The Phantom Band:
https://tidal.com/browse/album/385133612

 

[AudiophileStyle]

I wouldn't say 'fraught with problems', I'd say it's a legitimate approach, and I'm curious what you think those problems are.

It doesn't mean the mix will necessarily be a success. As others note, Steven Wilson uses the stereo mix as a guide, but unlike his slavering fanboy base, I don't consider all of his mixes to be successful.

To me a successful remix does not *lose* anything important to me from the original mix -- and what's important can be anything from an actual part, to a hard-to-pinpoint 'vibe' -- but *adds* sonic delight to it.

Which is probably why I'll sometimes prefer an upmix of the original mix, to a surround remix.

This is art. There are no rules.

Many who use the stereo mix to judge the Atmos mix, and are upset about things missing or being different, are judging art, which is a fool's errand.

I don't think there is such thing as a successful mix. One may like or dislike a mix, like all art. Again, it's art and stands on its own. The idea of losing or gaining something is strange to me. The artistic team decides if items should remain, be taken out, or added to the mix, but I don't see it as losing or gaining because the new mix is a thing in and of itself.

The view from the top is always best. I find it strange that people sitting at the bottom of the mountain in their listening chairs, are judging mixing decisions, without any knowledge of what was available the creative team or the demands put on the creative team or the desires of those involved.

Liking a mix or disliking a mix is totally cool with me. Nobody likes all art. But, people, not you, getting on their high horses about mixes is preposterous to me.

Of course these are all my opinions.

 

[AudiophileStyle]

 

[~dave~~wave~]

I think those are exclusive to Tidal (so far). Enjoy--and let us know how they are!

Shri Camel ~ Terry Riley

 

[yerbas07]

Hi...
I have a question regarding streaming atmos files from Amazon, Apple and Tidal. I find that the same atmos file has a different size and tag shape depending on the platform. My question is, who provides the atmos files on the streaming platforms? Do the record label or do the platforms prepare them themselves?
Excuse my ignorance.

 

[himey]

tag shape

?

 

[yerbas07]

I mean that tag songs are not equal, especially in classical music themes.

 

[DoublePackage]

 

[ssully]

This is art. There are no rules.

And yet, humans have lots of opinions.

We all have our private 'rules'. Artists do, too. You can bet that, say, Steven Wilson, can think of music or records that don't 'work' for him. They fail to engage him. He doesn't think they're very good. We all think this way.

Many who use the stereo mix to judge the Atmos mix, and are upset about things missing or being different, are judging art, which is a fool's errand.

Huh? There's no such thing as a person's critical faculty? No room for opinion?

By that logic, one must have the same reaction to every work of art.

But no one actually does. Of course it's personal.

(Which doesn't make asserting an opinion the same as asserting a fact, but grown-up people know the difference between them, right?)

I don't think there is such thing as a successful mix. One may like or dislike a mix, like all art.

If I dislike it, it's a failure. Which, again, is an opinion. (Duh)

Again, it's art and stands on its own. The idea of losing or gaining something is strange to me. The artistic team decides if items should remain, be taken out, or added to the mix, but I don't see it as losing or gaining because the new mix is a thing in and of itself.

The key you're missing is that a remix is a special case: it has a reference point. It's not an independent work of art. The only people who can approach it as one are those who aren't familiar with the older mix.

But if you're familiar with that reference point, it's pretty much impossible to not compare them. One has an informed opinion.

And find the remix better/worse/'just different' as a result.

The view from the top is always best.

Who's view is that? The artist's alone?

I find it strange that people sitting at the bottom of the mountain in their listening chairs, are judging mixing decisions, without any knowledge of what was available the creative team or the demands put on the creative team or the desires of those involved.

I'm well aware that a missing part might be missing because it simply wasn't available. Thus, not the mixer's fault. It wouldn't be fair to blame him for it being missing. But alas the product itself can still be a failure, subjectively. The excuse doesn't make the mix work any subjectively better. Brownie points to the mixer for trying his best with what's available, don't compensate. Doesn't work that way.

(And of course, the missing part could be the mixer's fault. Could be a mistake, or a decision. )

But as I said, specifically, a 'missing part' isn't the only way a remix can fail for me. Far from it. There are as many chances for failure in a remix, as there are decisions to be made during its making.

Liking a mix or disliking a mix is totally cool with me. Nobody likes all art. But, people, not you, getting on their high horses about mixes is preposterous to me.

This seems incoherent. At what point does expressing an opinion about a mix become 'riding a high horse'? That would be more like saying, "you're an idiot for liking|not liking this mix."