When I listen to my system.......
As I have stated many times, I listen to the musicianship and the composition. As I listen to SRV, just as an example, there are three musicians working together to create a "performance". How is it that anyone can put tone, sound staging, or anything else with the "sound" before the performance. There is much information on our recordings, and generally, many of these recordings are just so so with the fidelity. In fact, why do many listeners only listen to top notch recordings of higher fidelity, of the "sound", rather than appreciate those qualities I look and listen for. Is it because I was a singer / vocalist in my youth? Is it because I was around musicians who shared the joy of "music"? Is it because at a very early age, I was introduced to big band music and eclectic performances by so many, via my dad (he would have been 100 today; happy birthday dad). Yes, I consider myself an audiophile, because I spend money on gear and am careful with my dedicated room....my system allows me to hear more of the performance. But, it is the "music", the "performance", that matters most to me. I suppose I am feeling a bit nostalgic today, because of my pops. I am bringing this up again, because I do not understand the mentality of folks who listen differently than I. I know this subject might be ad nauseum to many, but some of the folks I used to design systems for, became less interested in the music, and more about the sound, placing the music and performance secondary, or not at all. I am just venting. If you would like to add to this post, I welcome all thoughts. No judgement from me. I wish everyone well. Enjoy! MrD.
Why do we listen to music? Dancing, Sex, Communicate with the Gods Influence Nature, Communal bonding, Eliminate Stress Honor the Gods, Enlightenment, Impress the neighbors Politics, Religion, Hedonism, Sophistication, Economic Protest, Frenzy, Reduce fear. Catharsis, Competition Insecurity, Boastfulness, Fad, Being cool, relive the past Experience musical genius. That's it...Mozart and dancing. |
This strikes me as absurd. Even if we were all in the original venue or recording studio, what we would hear would differ for each of us due to differences in our hearing! Mozart, Ellington or Hendrix heard on a transistor radio is still Mozart, Ellington or Hendrix... At least to those of us who play, music is not defined by sonics. Following your line of reasoning, every one who enjoys visual art should stop kidding themselves that what they see and enjoy at home in the form of photographic reproductions of paintings is not art.
|
That’s interesting, @asvjerry . Back in those days (and two or three years ago I practically quit drinking, so I guess I’ll include drinking while listening as "those days") I found it easier to relax and let my imagination roam free when I was listening, and therefore I was more forgiving of masterings and recordings than I am now. Which is not to say that all I listen to now is source material that I, personally, consider to be "audiophile grade," but I do find it difficult to listen to something, for example, that is flat and lifeless or harsh and grainy.
|
I listen to music on my system. It’s a recording of artists playing instruments. Whether it’s a recording or live it’s still music. Not sure how this would take any enjoyment out of the hobby. Seems like an irrelevant distinction within the context of how people listen or how they build their systems. |
@ jastralfu My statement clarifies that recordings are sonic derivatives of music, and NOT music. The key is that recordings are influenced by the recording/playback process. Real (i.e. live) music does not suffer from these issues. Consequently, ALL of us care about the efficacy of our systems, not just the "musicianship and the composition" that the OP favors. I was not not implying that recordings are unemotional, those are your thoughts alone... |
