An article in High Fidelity magazine, entitled Listening is Believing? and dated July/August 1953, sets forth the contemporary limits of sound reproduction in the inimitable style of advertisement copy: Technical electronics only so far. The rest of the job must be done by the mind of the That's not a platitude; it's a specification (Campbell 1953, 28). (1) The connection drawn between imagination and sound reproduction, that the imagination be an aspect of technical electronics, is meant to salve the imaginative mind of the listener. In doing so, however, it betrays an anxiety: the relationship has gotten out of balance, with human imagination falling short in the face of advances in technical electronics. The author, John Campbell, puts a firm boundary around the latter: it can only so far (Campbell 1953, 28). But in this arrangement, human imagination is a supplement, an accessory to technology, not vice versa. (2) Campbell situates this fusion of electronics and imagination in what he calls a approach to music reproduction: For true high-fidelity enjoyment, the total psychological aspect of the listener is an integral part of a psycho-physiological approach to music This psycho-physiological angle seems to involve primarily a belief in one's equipment, in its veracity as the best equipment: man with Equipment System A, who feels that he has the best practible system possible to him will enjoy his music greatly. Given the same equipment exactly, but the conviction that he was a fool not to have bought System B instead--he won't enjoy the music as much. Wherefore, for him, System B is in fact better. (Campbell 1953, 28) In essence, confidence in one's equipment and a full aesthetic experience are assured only in the absence of suspicion. The emphasis Campbell places on his equipment--technical electronics--marks a formal shift in our knowledge of musical sound. I shall call this epistemic in a moment. This shift produces an effect, an aesthetic effect. I quote Campbell again: A man with a speaker system he knows within himself is good, an amplifier he convincedly believes to be top-notch--for him, the music is deeper, richer and more rewarding (Campbell 1953, 28). (3) Campbell's psycho-physiological approach encompasses belief in the merit of electronics as a determinant of musical enjoyment. All of this is encapsulated in the following, in which life and sound are breathlessly homogenized: 'Know thyself!' must be the ultimate ideal, and the basic instruction for enjoying life fully. But if that's too tough a job--'Know thy sound system' (Campbell 1953, 28). The confusion between life and reproduced sound is worth addressing, and not merely dismissed as bad advertisement copy. Such a confusion between truth and life is characteristic of what I call here the of hi-fidelity, a made explicit in the discourse of sound reproduction in the early 1950s. I label this historical and refer to it as monophonic because of its delicate position: poised between an early realm of sound reproduction prior to the hi-fidelity era and a later realm dominated by stereophonic sound reproduction. Its status as a soundscape is assured by the reputed integrity of the sound: the concern for hi-fidelity presumes a sonorous whole based upon veracity, as if the sound reproduced were a whole, or at least wholistic, chunk of life. Such concern for matters such as fidelity and veracity is pathological; no referential object, no standard, other than the solipsistic listener is invoked. I shall label as pathological the mind set that engages both sides of this soundscape. (4) On Campbell's account, in the reproduction of musical sound, the imagination is a supplement to technical electronics, which, to repeat, go only so far, before imagination must take over. …
Read full abstract