tannhauser 101 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Good news everybody!After a lot of patient hassling, I finally got WGBH to reupload the Live from Frasier audio of the oboe/piano form of Williams Oboe Concerto. Enjoy!http://www.wgbh.org/programs/Live-from-Fraser-Audio-276/episodes/Oboist-Keisuke-Wakao-29779 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Terrific! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 FinallyIf I grab it with D/L helper I get a 128k MP3Is there an AAC somewhere in the choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muad'Dib 1,871 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Superb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 No the mp3 is all there ishttp://streams.wgbh.org/online/clas/LFF_110623keisukewakao.mp3http://streams.wgbh.org/online/clas/LFF_110623keisukewakao.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The Boston pops one had an orchestral accompanimentThis one seems to be only Piano +Oboe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 When I saw it live the string section was on stageI also don't remember it being an hour long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 it's not 1 hour, it's 18 minutesHow many "movements are there? it seems like 3ok it's 3 movementsPreludePastoraleComedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Sorry I didn't realize the mp3 was of a 57 minute radio show and not JUST of the oboe concerto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The movement have clean silences in betweenSo I isolated them , saved in WAV with the proper names, than made new 320k MP3's with LAME Drop. I don't think there will be any drop in quality with the re-encoding since it's a much higher bitrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,424 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Why not make FLACs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Stefan is right. You ALWAYS lose qualify when you encode to mp3. There is no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I can do that too, but why would I lose quality converting a 128k MP3 to 320? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,424 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Better yet. Burn the file on CDr as a playable audio CD, then use EAC to rip that CD into FLAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 that seems a bit too anal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I can do that too, but why would I lose quality converting a 128k MP3 to 320?You are not converting from 128 mp3 to 320mp3 at that point. You are converting WAV to 320 mp3.You ALWAYS lose qualify when you encode to mp3. There is no exception. that seems a bit too analMark, he was joking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 ok, I'm not arguing just for the hell of it but just to knowThe 128k already has the high frequencies cut off . The WAV files doesn't not restore them either. So the 320 MP3 encoder would simply have nothing to remove? Or would cut off the same top end that is already missing, like "empty space" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 There would likely be NO audible difference that you would EVER hear converting that particular WAV to 320kbps mp3.But TECHNICALLY, every time you make something into an mp3 it removes SOME of the original data - whether you can ever HEAR that loss or not another story.So yes in this case, make 320 mp3s to listen to on your ipod and you'll be perfectly fine.But in general, any time you edit ANYTHING for any reason, save your final work as WAV then convert it to FLAC.mp3 is for listening and conserving disk space. Lossless is for archiving and trading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 254 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 ok , that I understandBut since were dealing with a low quality radio show (until the thing is released on a c.d.), I was more focused about the "no audible difference " part instead of making huge files for nothing, and to put in my ipodI keep my WAVS of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 But that's my point - you don't need to keep the WAV. If you convert that WAV to FLAC, its IDENTICAL. Then you can optionally make an mp3 for portable devices.There's no reason in the world to keep WAV AND FLAC versions of the same thing.There IS a reason to keep FLAC AND MP3 versions - if the latter will be going on devices with limited space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it.ye, if you do it multiple times. I agree .But "first re-encode" loss of quality should be minimalBut that's my point - you don't need to keep the WAV. If you convert that WAV to FLAC, its IDENTICAL. Then you can optionally make an mp3 for portable devices.There's no reason in the world to keep WAV AND FLAC versions of the same thing.There IS a reason to keep FLAC AND MP3 versions - if the latter will be going on devices with limited space.ok, that's correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yea, you're fine.But if you ever traded with anybody, you should give them the FLAC not your MP3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 254 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it.ye, if you do it multiple times. I agree .But "first re-encode" loss of quality should be minimalYes, you barely hear a difference after converting it the first time. I tested it once with a file and it needed some re-converting until I heard a difference. But still, one looses quality from the beginnig on.(is this correct english "one looses"?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'd be more concerned if the converting included changing the sampling ratei think you lose a lot on first try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 8,438 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but I'm happy to see a version of this available for listening. Hope the full orchestral version appears one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,456 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 No you don't. You only want what the composer himself has made available for the very first time. And that's this file. Anything beyond this is totally unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,593 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it.ye, if you do it multiple times. I agree .But "first re-encode" loss of quality should be minimalYes, you barely hear a difference after converting it the first time. I tested it once with a file and it needed some re-converting until I heard a difference. But still, one looses quality from the beginnig on.(is this correct english "one looses"?)"loses", not "looses""loose" = not tight"lose" = not win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 254 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannhauser 101 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Such a wonderful piece. I keep hearing little shades of War Horse in the first 2 movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,456 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yes, you barely hear a difference after converting it the first time. I tested it once with a file and it needed some re-converting until I heard a difference. But still, one looses quality from the beginnig on.(is this correct english "one looses"?)"loses", not "looses""loose" = not tight"lose" = not winDon't forget, you can use "loose" as a verb, if it has an object of what you are intentionally making loose. Examples are to loose a boat from its mooring, or to loose missiles at invaders.The most famous example that I can think of is the line "He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword" in "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" by Julia Ward Howe (1861). That might also tell you how archaic the word is in that use.In your case, Nemesis, you don't actually hold "quality" in your hand as a holdable, countable object, and set it free when you re-convert. You started with a file, you end up with a file. Since quality is directly proportional to file size, having less quality is just a byproduct of the file conversion process.This has been another free grammar lesson by Professor Wojo. I miss Blume. He used to write these, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 254 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 But what about sound quality? It's not just quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Good news everybody!After a lot of patient hassling, I finally got WGBH to reupload the Live from Frasier audio of the oboe/piano form of Williams Oboe Concerto. Enjoy!Thank you for your efforts, tannhauser! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,816 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Great work tannhauser! I can't wait to listen to this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,729 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 yeah huge thanks tannhauser. I didn't realize the concert had already aired and they removed the MP3 . I thought it was a future event or the website was screwed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,585 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I want all these concertos on CD. The harp one, the oboe one, ...BTW, I've heard Memoirs Of A Geisha for cello (Yo-Yo Ma) and piano (John Williams?) and it was fantastic, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,816 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 With luck Leonard Slatkin and Detroit Symphony will record these new concertos in the future. I think they have several of the older ones in the works at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,585 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yes, but I want DG to do it. If not, Boston Pops/Sony will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 155 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Thanks very much for the hassling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TownerFan 5,237 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The Boston pops one had an orchestral accompanimentThis one seems to be only Piano +OboeIt's the reduction prepared by JW himself. Almost all of his concerti were reduced for soloist w/ piano accompainment. I think Hal Leonard has most of them available.The concerto is scored for oboe and strings, likely a nod to Ralph Vaughan Williams' Oboe Concerto (which has more than a thing in common with JW's). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,816 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is such a beautiful piece of music. I think the piano and oboe reduction gives it a certain clarity, intimacy and enhanced lyricism.And I can't wait for someone to record the full version some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joni Wiljami 1,212 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Great piece!Last movement really is like "Haydn playin' with Schostakovich" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The Boston pops one had an orchestral accompanimentThis one seems to be only Piano +OboeIt's the reduction prepared by JW himself. Almost all of his concerti were reduced for soloist w/ piano accompainment. I think Hal Leonard has most of them available.The concerto is scored for oboe and strings, likely a nod to Ralph Vaughan Williams' Oboe Concerto (which has more than a thing in common with JW's).In one interview Williams said he composed a piano reduction simply so the soloist would be able to practice the concerto without the entire orchestra. I'd imagine he does that for every concerto, which could explain why the reductions exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 254 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I like the Indiana Jones statement in the 3rd movement at 0:13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 3,308 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 This is absolutely fantastic. I love some of the pastoral music here, very much in the vein of War Horse, or shall I say Ralph Vaugh Williams. Beautiful!I'd love to hear the full orchestral version of this.Oh, and am I the only one who thinks John Williams was trying to hint at the danger motif at the 2nd movement, specifically at the 33rd minute of the broadcast as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now