Glanz moving magnet cartridges

Dear Dgob, refering to 'hearing' will not do. We all hear
(normal hearing presupposed) in the same way. But in the
interpretation of what 'we hear' the whole brain (seems) to be involved.
My basic assumption is the difference between 'knowledge' and 'art'. Knowledge is about 'the truht' ( or 'the false'). The art is not easy to simplify. But we associate this with'feelings': the beauty, the taste, the culture,the aducation,etc.,etc. But it is not about 'the truht'.
I have some friends who are professional musician (Concert
Gebouw) and I never got an clue of what they are 'hearing'.
To my mind they should be able to 'hear' the difference between my gear from 20 years ago ($5000) and at present
($60.000). But non of them were interested in my gear. They
were interested in the 'interpretation' of some artist of some composition. I put some LP with Svjatoslav Richter on my TT and realized that this LP was the worst (in technical sence)of my collection. Their comment was :'Onbelievable ,never heard Beetohoven in such an way.'
Raul made some remarks about the 'sommelier' with 'delicate
taste' trying to explain what he means by 'the best'. To my mind he was refering to some kind of art that one can only obtain by experience,learnig,etc. For him of course the 'knowledge' and the 'technique' are a means to an end: 'the music'. But if you are an musician and he is not you will never speak the 'same lanquaqe'.Ie if our 'whole brain' is involved in listen to music there is no way we can reach much consensus.
Ragards,


Very

Hi Nandric,

Thanks for your thoughtful reflections on what I am sure is a more common experience than it might generally appear. I agree.

A case in point might be in comparisons of the famous interpretations/performances of Bach's Partitas by Arthur Grimaux (Philips, L 02.207 L) and that by Nathan Milstein (Deustche Grammophon, 2721 087). In my experience, the latter seems to be favoured by many professional violinists while the former tends to be favoured by hifi buffs. Go figure, as they say!!

Happy listening

Hi Nandric,

Just to clarify a little: I agree with your distinction about perceptions of art and about the extensive complexity of any judgement of art.

However, I think that Baumgarten's work on aesthetics/taste/truth and Kant's critical response to this seems to have left the issue of 'art', 'knowledge' and 'truth' as equally complex and aporetic concerns: probably an insignificant pointer, given the general flow of your views as I read them.

Dear Dgob, that "the issue of 'art','knowledge' and 'truth'
are equally complex and aporetic" does not mean that we should confuse them. To me those aredifferent 'categories'.
But I am an 'Fregean guy' and you are, I assume, an Kantian kind of person. So I must underline that 'the art'
is not about the 'truth' in contradistiction to science.

Regards,

Hi Nandric,

I agree to some extent: although the third Critique might not quite uphold the distinction. Personally, I'm not quite certain where my philosophical leanings should be categorised but I obviously find much of great relevance to our concerns in certain German philosophers.

With kindness in gratitude