Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do audiophiles "like" music?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do audiophiles "like" music? - Page 9  

post #121 of 345

People, check this out, it's music, not like this silly noise clip from before:

 

 

 

 

Anyway to sum it up - sure, it's not just notes, another thing is how it's put together, the pace, rhythm, and so on.

Like I said, music is the most expressive art.


Edited by XVampireX - 9/30/13 at 2:45pm
post #122 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubs28 View Post
 

Seriously ... if you like music .. you can't listen it on some crappy headphones. People who like watching TV, spend alot of money on TV screens also. If you like watching TV or movies, you don't do it on a bad screen. (unless you got financial issues)

 

I think if you let a music lover hear my headphones for 10 minutes .... he / she will upgrade their headphones too. Unless they like hiphop, then they will stick to their Beats by Dr Dre headphones.

 

 

You can very easily enjoy films and music on bad equipment. I didn't even know headphones could scale to this degree for many years. I've had plenty of fine moments using 10/20/30$ earbuds. I remember in college in the photo lap developing film having some awesome moments working on photos and having music playing through some terrible mp3 player. You can still hear mostly everything. Songwriting and musicianship(how one expresses the theme through his or her playing in dynamics and rhythmic variation etc) is really what matters to me in the end. Everything audiophile phones bring is just a bonus to me.

 

As far as movies go. I dont believe you would argue people never enjoyed films on VHS as much as dvd, or dvd as much as blu ray. Because I have had just as many amazing moments with all the formats. It's nice to have that extra detail but it is in no way necessary for enjoyment.  Can we not bash certain brands of headphones here as well... to each his own please. Beats lovers welcome.

post #123 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llloyd View Post
 

 

 

You can very easily enjoy films and music on bad equipment. I didn't even know headphones could scale to this degree for many years. I've had plenty of fine moments using 10/20/30$ earbuds. I remember in college in the photo lap developing film having some awesome moments working on photos and having music playing through some terrible mp3 player. You can still hear mostly everything. Songwriting and musicianship(how one expresses the theme through his or her playing in dynamics and rhythmic variation etc) is really what matters to me in the end. Everything audiophile phones bring is just a bonus to me.

 

As far as movies go. I dont believe you would argue people never enjoyed films on VHS as much as dvd, or dvd as much as blu ray. Because I have had just as many amazing moments with all the formats. It's nice to have that extra detail but it is in no way necessary for enjoyment.  Can we not bash certain brands of headphones here as well... to each his own please. Beats lovers welcome.

I think it depends.

 

The main reason I spend money on equipments including headphones is for watching anime, music is just a bonus from the audio section :P

 

Btw, I do admit that buying expensive stuffs makes me feel good XD


Edited by kn19h7 - 9/30/13 at 7:05pm
post #124 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by XVampireX View Post
 

People, check this out, it's music, not like this silly noise clip from before: 

 

Anyway to sum it up - sure, it's not just notes, another thing is how it's put together, the pace, rhythm, and so on.

Like I said, music is the most expressive art.

 

It's rather presumptive to claim that whatever your definition of music is, is the only valid one.

 

If you don't like atonality, or strange tonalities, stay away from Alvin Lucier et. al.
If you don't like arhythmia, or strange rhythmic patterns, stay away from Harry Partch et. al.

 

And to claim that one art form is more expressive than another is also complete bosh, it makes you seem very ignorant.


Edited by limpidglitch - 9/30/13 at 7:27pm
post #125 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by XVampireX View Post
 

People, check this out, it's music, not like this silly noise clip from before:

 

Anyway to sum it up - sure, it's not just notes, another thing is how it's put together, the pace, rhythm, and so on.

Like I said, music is the most expressive art.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

It's rather presumptive to claim that whatever your definition of music is, is the only valid one.

 

If you don't like atonality, or strange tonalities, stay away from Alvin Lucier et. al.
If you don't like arhythmia, or strange rhythmic patterns, stay away from Harry Partch et. al.

 

And to claim that one art form is more expressive than another is also complete bosh, it makes you seem very ignorant.

 

My sentiments exactly.  It's a shame some people take such a blinkered and narrow-minded point of view, then attempt to foist their opinion as absolute fact.

It's quite sad really.

post #126 of 345

Well if you're talking about me saying that I think that music is the most expressive art and you're saying that noise is music...

post #127 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by XVampireX View Post
 

Well if you're talking about me saying that I think that music is the most expressive art and you're saying that noise is music...

 

*sigh* *facepalm*

post #128 of 345

Exactlimus.

 

Watch and Listen:

 


Edited by XVampireX - 10/1/13 at 3:05pm
post #129 of 345

This rather underscores the OPs point, as I can't really imagine one who loves music, or the arts in general, would say things like this.

 

Quote:

[…] sure, it's not just notes, another thing is how it's put together, the pace, rhythm, and so on.

Like I said, music is the most expressive art.

post #130 of 345

How about this for a definition of music:

 

 

When its overall conception is greater than the sum of its notes.

 

 

 

While I understand this definition is very vague, its subjectivity and interpretation are precisely why it is so fitting for music. Ultimately, music is so intuitive and deeply human that it is cruel to subject it to constricting definitions.

 

 

I almost want to say if you are trying to explicitly explain away music in a verbal definition, you're missing the point. 

 

What do you guys think?

post #131 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by 96rubberduckys View Post
 

 

I almost want to say if you are trying to explicitly explain away music in a verbal definition, you're missing the point. 

 

 

Quite, so do we really need/want a definition?


Edited by limpidglitch - 10/2/13 at 12:09am
post #132 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

Quite, so do we really need/want a definition?

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

*Goes off to listen to John Cage's 4′33″

post #133 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ View Post

Ok. You say "In paint art and any other art, you can only guess what the person was thinking about or feeling."
as opposed to music.

Tell me, what is this musician thinking...



This musician is thinking "who needs musical ability?"
post #134 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post


This musician is thinking "who needs musical ability?"

 

A trite response. 

post #135 of 345

I still don't think you make any sense with noise = music.

It's just not right.

 

So far I've proven you wrong.

 

Like we said before, so if that is music, then farting is also music, how about car noise, or any noise, it's also music. I mean seriously, lets all just yell, and call it music.

Oh and then call us musicians, yea!

 

SERIOUSLY?!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do audiophiles "like" music?