2. misc-audio
  3. 162189-139155

Why do some think "music" (not gear, trading, etc.) is the ultimate end?

A recent thread spurred a debate about the word "audiophile." Again. It went round and round in the usual ways.

What I don't understand is why so many take for granted that loving music is superior to loving gear. Or that gear is always -- and must be -- a mere *means* to music, which is the (supposedly) true end.

But if you stop and think about it, why do we love music? It gives us enjoyment.
Isn't that why people love gear? The enjoyment?
Or even, to push the question, buying, selling, changing gear? That's for enjoyment, no?

So, it raises the difficult question: Why do some think that "music" as an "enjoyment" is better than "gear" or "shopping, buying, selling, trading"?

Not everyone believes this, but it is the most prevalent assumption in these discussions -- that "love of music" is the end-which-cannot-be-questioned. 

So, while music is the largest end I'm personally striving for, I do realize that it's because it brings me enjoyment. But the other facets of the hobby do, too. And I'm starting to realize that ranking them is an exercise but not a revelation of the "one" way everything should sort out. It's all pretty subjective and surely doesn't seem like a basis on which I could criticize someone else's enjoyment, right? 

What do you think? On what grounds do you see it argued that "music" is a *superior* or *ultimate* end? Whether you agree or not, what reasons do you think support that conclusion?
128x128hilde45
mhe
22 posts
 
It's backwards to say we value music because we enjoy it. Rather, we enjoy music because it's valuable. 

The pleasure or enjoyment is a result of being in the presence of something beautiful or meaningful or important. 

Think about how music affects people, how they experience it. They don't say, "Oh, that Coltrane solo wasn't much good, but wow, it gave me a lot of pleasure." Instead the music is so powerful, so brilliant, transcendent even, that pleasure can't help but attend it; pleasure becomes a sign of value, not the source of the value itself. 

In fact "pleasure" and "enjoyment" are not strong enough terms for "music heard so deeply that it is not heard at all, but you are the music, while the music lasts." 

I can't quite see an experience of the sublime arising from stereo equipment, but I'm open to differing opinions.
hickamore
673 posts
 
Yin/Yang. Can't have one without the other. The reality lies in the eternal tension, the inherent fusion. Not a contradiction. The nature of being. Like a chemically inert atom.
troutki50
41 posts
 
Why do imagine a small group of 30 to 50 year old dudes debating which "test tone" sounds best through random gear?
Post removed 
mhe
22 posts
 
The experience of great music can be divorced from pleasure.

Bono (of U2) fame, tells a story of listening to "A Love Supreme" over and over, trying to work his way into the music. He sensed something good was there, but it took him time to access it. I think this can be a common experience. We hear something but don't really enjoy it, but get an odd feeling that something of importance was there, and we go back to the piece until we can grasp it.

I myself would never want to listen to "A Love Supreme" if I wasn't up to the experience. To know the greatness was there but being too tired or stressed to experience it--that's something I avoid.
More to discover