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?
hilde45
calvinandhobbes
317 posts
 
Some people (mostly male when it comes to audio and other mechanical objects) just plain love gear. That gear may have a purpose:

Cars: Driving
Cameras: Taking pictures
Audio: Listening to music
Bikes: Riding

But I think it's completely fair that some people love the stuff more than what the stuff is intended to do. That happens in all of the categories I've listed above...Cars that are only shown, not driven, Bikes that are collected and not ridden, etc. Who am I to judge what others take pleasure in doing.
hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
5,445 posts
 
@frogman said:

Now, everyone is free to approach and enjoy this hobby any way that it suits him and judging this is pointless.

Then you go ahead and judge. Ok, so which is it? Is this a non-judgable, everyone is free to believe their own truth about this topic? Or do is  your true for more than just one person (you)? I’m fine with you asserting that this question is relative to each person or asserting that there is an objective truth to the matter -- but which is it? FWIW, I have already laid out a number of opinions on this thread and don’t care to rehearse them, so take a look earlier if you care to see them.




rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano
2,822 posts
 
After frogman’s post I feel it very necessary to clarify my stance.
Of course, sound cannot begin to approach the profundity of spirit and soul that the art of music can supply (or any other great art for that matter.) They certainly don’t exist on an equal plain.
And I must apologize if I put that forth as a credo.
What I am saying is that this system “toy” gives me great pleasure in and of it itself.  Often I listen just for the “sound.” I realize that is not ideally why I’m listening.  But I’m seduced by the sensuality of it. And it IS an enjoyment in itself. Unfortunately the content of the music can suffer. I admit it is a big problem for me.  I often can’t get into the soul of the music.  And I’m unhappy about it.  But it just can’t be helped.
So, like it or not, sound and music share my affections
sokogear
1,121 posts
 
Hey @rvpiano- simple solution....only play music you like that is well recorded, pressed, and sounds great. You’ll have less selection but won’t be unhappy. Listen to the other stuff in the car, and the stuff you can’t get into, sell.
hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
5,445 posts
 
@rvpiano  I totally get where you're coming from. I would just add this comment. Leonardo Da Vinci was an artist and an engineer, a painter and an inventor; the "how" of things and the "feel" of things commingled for him. Their entanglement were the conditions which made him who he was -- and great, to boot. There are countless others who combined imagination and calculation, too. The view that one of these human faculties is "ultimately" more important may be an expression of personal preference, but as an expression of "how things really are," it's baseless. Would we have anything to play on our rigs without music? Of course not. Would we have anything to say without brains? No. But without means to communicate, who knows what we'd think? What would music be without anything to play it on?

This extends past gear to instruments themselves. A harpsichord score without a harpsichord? Nothing. Then came the forte piano and then the fully developed piano. More music was inspired and developed by those instruments because they provided modalities without which certain musical creations couldn't come into being. Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier" was made possible by Bach *and* developments in the technology of the piano. As McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." 
More to discover