film or music

good music, no doubt. The acid test for me is - how many movies can you watch over, and over, and over again, and get as much or more enjoyment from than you did the first time?

i'm a filmmaker and my answer is, without a doubt, music. if i could make music, i would.

interesting thread, though. film can raise questions and sometimes provide answers. music cannot. why do i answer 'music?' someone please explain.

Many Marshall McLuhan interviews on "hot" vs. "cool" media are available by searching Google.

Here's a quickie:

Marshall McLuhan, in the 1964 book "Understanding Media" (the "Medium is the Message" book) [MCLUHAN] spoke of "hot" and "cool" media. Contrary to what you'd probably expect that to mean, television, film, billboards, print ads, music videos are classified as "hot" media. They are complete and finite (and not interactive) and what you get is all there is to get. You can make it bigger or smaller, but that doesn't change the amount or nature of the content. The most you can get out of it is what was put into it. "Cool media" is stuff like books, music (without video) non-representational painting, architecture, or basically any experience (but not just the "fine" arts, cooking for example, or nature) any experience where the "consumer" must supply his/her imagination for the media experience to be complete. A simple example would be you are reading a book, and the author describes people and places, but it still requires your imagination to make it a complete experience for yourself.

So, to respond to your post, McLuhan considered that "cool" media provided the more compelling experience, since no one can ever experience it the same way twice. "Hot" media on the other hand, gives the same experience over and over again -- and no matter how wonderful or stimulating, eventually you can't find anything new in it.