For too many years now, I have spoken, written and railed against
amplification in opera, in the concert hall, in postage-stamp sized
theaters.  Clearly, it's been a losing battle, especially in light of
the current dire developments in New York.

But tonight, suddenly even the very philosophy of my quixotic campaign to
"preserve the natural sound" has been undermined, and by somebody I really
cannot challenge.  I respect John Dankworth's opinion on everything, but
when it comes to performance -- which he has so splendidly practiced for
some 50 years -- his word is worth in gold for me.  And it was he who
tonight responded to my complaints about "what the world is coming to" by
motioning to the rolling hills of Sonoma outside the window: "That's the
only place where there is no amplification," he said.

"As soon as you move inside, to get out of the rain, when you're inside
a room, a hall, a hut or a concert hall, there is amplification from the
walls, the ceiling, and now you can hear what you couldn't get in the
great, unamplified outdoors.  So, it's just a matter of degree when you
add electronics...  and how much of that."

But, but...  "It's true, of course," said a singer at the dinner, "that's
why regardless if there is electronic amplification, I always look for the
spot on the stage where the voice projects better than elsewhere -- it has
to do with the reflection from the walls."

But, but...  I still think amplification -- from rock and, far less
jusitified, Broadway -- has gone nuts, and I still would like to hear my
concerts and opera "unamplified." And yet I overlooked this very simple
and important point about the "artificiality" of all indoor sound.

Janos Gereben/SF
[log in to unmask]