****Folks on this thread do seem to listen to music as if they were music critics, instead of music lovers.****
Nonsense! And if I weren’t in such a good mood today I probably would have said "bulls++t!" We’ve been here so many times before that it’s ridiculous. Let’s take a closer look at this assertion and hopefully put it to rest once and for all (unlikely)....shall we?:
The main problem with that assertion is that the implication is that when there is any critical analysis there is less love for the music; that the "critic" is somehow automatically LESS of a music lover and that the listener who won’t or is incapable of being analytical is somehow a more "pure" lover of the music and is more in touch with or receptive to the emotional content in music; a ridiculous and self-serving stance. I would ask the "music lovers" here to please point out what it is they bring to the table of discussion or simple sharing of music that separates them from the supposed "critics" here. Let’s see, by way of quotes from prior posts or new commentary, what it is, exactly, that points to any advantage or any sort of "higher ground" in the areas of appreciation or love for any music by a choice or inability to be analytical. The point is, as has been pointed out many times before, that analysis ADDS to appreciation and can, if anything, fuel deeper love for the music. Now, conversely, kindly explain and point out what has been written here by those who add some degree of analysis to the "appreciation mix" that suggests that they love music any less.
I hope that the parallels between this "argument" and the old-jazz vs. new-jazz debate does not go unnoticed. It should also be pointed out, Rok, that I haven’t seen very much "music loving" from you lately by way of music sharing, but plenty of "criticism". I also don’t see any criticism by those who do analyze of those who choose not too, or can’t. Why the other way around? Hmmm....ironic, no?
Edit: to suggest that pointing out a very interesting aspect of a music is to "approach music from an academic standpoint" as opposed to "the emotional" and to equate this to "dissecting a frog" is unfair and condescending. In my universe it would merit at least a "isn't that interesting" or "Hmmm, let's see, I wonder what Medieval music is like?". Oh, well; to each his own.
Nonsense! And if I weren’t in such a good mood today I probably would have said "bulls++t!" We’ve been here so many times before that it’s ridiculous. Let’s take a closer look at this assertion and hopefully put it to rest once and for all (unlikely)....shall we?:
The main problem with that assertion is that the implication is that when there is any critical analysis there is less love for the music; that the "critic" is somehow automatically LESS of a music lover and that the listener who won’t or is incapable of being analytical is somehow a more "pure" lover of the music and is more in touch with or receptive to the emotional content in music; a ridiculous and self-serving stance. I would ask the "music lovers" here to please point out what it is they bring to the table of discussion or simple sharing of music that separates them from the supposed "critics" here. Let’s see, by way of quotes from prior posts or new commentary, what it is, exactly, that points to any advantage or any sort of "higher ground" in the areas of appreciation or love for any music by a choice or inability to be analytical. The point is, as has been pointed out many times before, that analysis ADDS to appreciation and can, if anything, fuel deeper love for the music. Now, conversely, kindly explain and point out what has been written here by those who add some degree of analysis to the "appreciation mix" that suggests that they love music any less.
I hope that the parallels between this "argument" and the old-jazz vs. new-jazz debate does not go unnoticed. It should also be pointed out, Rok, that I haven’t seen very much "music loving" from you lately by way of music sharing, but plenty of "criticism". I also don’t see any criticism by those who do analyze of those who choose not too, or can’t. Why the other way around? Hmmm....ironic, no?
Edit: to suggest that pointing out a very interesting aspect of a music is to "approach music from an academic standpoint" as opposed to "the emotional" and to equate this to "dissecting a frog" is unfair and condescending. In my universe it would merit at least a "isn't that interesting" or "Hmmm, let's see, I wonder what Medieval music is like?". Oh, well; to each his own.