Has audiophilia changed your music taste?


Before I got into this hobby, I was big into heavy metal. I am very much into progressive bands like Dream Theater and Queensryche. My collection consisted of rock 90% and classical/jazz/other at 10%. Ever since I started getting into audio, my listening has changed and so has my music collection. What used to be 90/10, lean to rock, has changed to about 70/30 and changing weekly. Lately, I can't keep Patricia Barber off my system. I absolutely love her. The thing is, the other day I put on some Pat Travers and the listening only lasted about 30 minutes before it was back to Patricia Barber. For some reason, rock doesn't sound as good as it did before. Maybe it is my system or maybe it is me.

Anyone else like me?
matchstikman

Showing 4 responses by rsbeck

I have read interviews with engineers who admit they engineer a lot of rock music to be played on inexpensive equipment and car stereos. It is my opinion that a lot of Rock suffers from audiophile treatment. It isn't meant to be appreciated for its detail and focus -- it is meant to be a barrage. When your system pulls it apart and stages it, IMO, it sounds terrible. Stuff that was meant to be part of a barrage is now sticking out where it doesn't belong. So, I find myself listening to Rock less and less.
I also think it is natural for tastes to change with age. I no longer need angry teenagers to express my emotions for me. For example, I find myself relating less and less,
to the notion, "I hope I die before I get old." So, I find myself listening to more classical and jazz, female vocalists, as well as old R&B and blues.
I think it is too simplistic to break it down into a
convenient, but artificial split between those who listen
to music and those who listen to their systems. This
sounds to me like typical one-ups-man-ship rather than
an attempt to understand why some posters' musical tastes
have changed. There's a world of difference between
Audiophile tripe that is the musical equivilent of those
recordings of trains and such that some of our fathers
bought to hear the effects of stereo, and Mahler, Coltrane,
Max Roach, Clifford Brown, early Ray Charles, Robert
Johnson, Muddy Waters, Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, Aretha
Franklin, Early Staple Singers, Charlie Patton, and the
list goes on and on and on....

That ain't music, but the stuff you listened to when you
were 17 is? Well..........okay. I can accept that this may be one's "reality." But, I would advise -- don't kid yourself into believing this is true for everyone. To do so would indicate that not only haven't one's musical tastes changed, but neither has one's youthful solipsistic world view.
This is a good example of how a discussion about music
preferences has turned into a pretty typical pissing match,
complete with straw men, people talking at cross-purposes,
looking for an edge, "are you trying to say...[insert silly position here and argue against it]. With the usual attendant communication failure, with whipped cream,
chocolate sauce, and cherry on top.

The prize has to go to whoever it was who argued something
like, "my musical tastes haven't changed because they
didn't NEED to change, MOFO -- I had great taste at 17,
and I have great taste now!"

Oh...okay.

LOL.

Carry on, gents.

Figure out who listens to music and who listens to
their system.

Let me know who wins.
Okay -- Sorry about the earlier cranky post.

I've had a nap and I'm in a better mood now.

>>I'm not suggesting that any of the great performers whom you listed are equivalent to the "audiophile tripe".<<

No -- quite the opposite. I'm saying there is a world
of difference between the "Tripe" [Or, musical equivilent
of those train records] and the list of performers I mentioned.

I will take part of the credit for the misunderstanding.

I probably didn't express myself clearly.

I listen to Clifford Brown for many reasons. He plays
the hell out of his instrument -- AND -- because I am
lucky enough to have what I consider to be a great
system -- I can get even closer to his music.

And, if I haven't made this point clearly enough --

I think it is far too simplistic to try to split people
into these two camps -- those who listen to the music and
those who listen to their system.

It is convenient, it makes for easy one-ups-man-ship,
but I also think it is silly and can short-circuit a
better conversation.

Finally, my answer to the question at the top of this
thread is: Yes, I find myself listening to different
music now that I have a nice system. I think it is
great music and it sounds great on my system.

It is less filling AND it tastes great.

It is the chicken AND the egg.

It is the Lady AND the Tiger.

It is round AND flat.

I didn't listen to this much classical and Jazz when I
was younger. For whatever reason, I've acquired a taste
for this music -- AND -- I find that it also sounds great on my system.

I put it on, I listen to my system and find that -- voila --
great music is playing and it sounds great, both my system
and the music until the system disappears and there's
only music and then it ends and I think, boy am I glad I
have this system!