[MrQ]

  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?!

 
 
I'm afraid the only thing you have proven is your ignorance.
 
The breadth and depth of what is and what could be considered music is vast. Fine artists and musicians have developed, experimented and challenged the notions of what art and music is and what it can be.
 
As in fine art, musicians have explored the abstract and looked beyond traditional confines. From Classical to Jazz to Industrial musicians have experimented with sound and looked for new ways to express themselves.
 
The use of 'Found Object/sound' music has a long history and it's influence on the use of sampled sound has been quite profound, from Stockhausen to Nine Inch Nails.
 
Can anyone arrange sounds and call it music, yes. Do you have to like it, no. Do you have call them musicians, that's really up to you and the connection you make with the sounds they produce.
 
The thing is people like you are never going to open their minds to other possibilities and you know what, that's fine. Enjoy what you like. The problem I and others have had is your dogmatic and absolutist notions of what music and art is and what it should be. I'm sorry to break it to you but the world has moved on.

 

[Destroysall]

  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?!

 
You can't disprove anything with an opinion. That isn't science. Noise can be music to some, just not everyone obviously. To tell you the truth, some of the earliest musicians weren't human. They were insects.
 
You seem to misunderstand the work of John Cage and his colleagues; that's fine. Though I must say this: Art is art, a brethren of philosophy. No matter what you think it is, it is the source of everything we know and love. You can't look at a chair and declare it not to be art because it has design and it serves purpose. The same thing can be applied to noise. It has a design to it because you can not create noise out of nothing. It has to be composed first to be considered anything, thus determining that noise is a combination of sounds (yes, with actual notes) that are played together simultaneously.

 

[XVampireX]

I listen to all kinds of music, including jazz, and I know that there's plenty of different genres and sub-genres and there's even experimental music with things you don't hear often, but when you hear just noise, that's not music, the closest that I agree with is Destroysall... that's why I gave him a thumbs-up.
 
Like I said, if you call that noise music, then the best music for you would be going outside and listening to whatever noise you have.
 
I'm sorry if you don't understand me, but I understand why some might think that noise is music, and I don't agree with that (And I'm talking about drugs)

 

[limpidglitch]

   
Like I said, if you call that noise music, then the best music for you would be going outside and listening to whatever noise you have.
 

 
You're starting to get the hang of it
You're a naïve listener, but I see hope.
 
Just listen, to whatever sound is around you, and you'll soon realize that what you thought was just silence or noise, is nothing like that simple.

 

[blueangel2323]

'Neath pensive mere of rime glowed lament flame,
And music dulcet silence plain became.

 

[Chris J]

   
A trite response. 

 
Thanks.
Can I get your opinion on Lou Reed?

 

[Hijodelbrx]

Getting back to the OP's point, truthfully this audiophile as music-lover is a discussion that's been happening since the advent of the hobby. This isn't a yes/no black/white topic. It's gray. There's extremes and the answers fall in varying degrees somewhere in the middle. I know people that absolutely love music but who also think it's absolute lunacy to spend money on equipment. They'll drop SERIOUS cash on shoes, cars, jewelry, etc. But never on audio equipment. The other extreme is the audio gear fetishist, the guy who's constantly flipping gear and HAS to have the latest and the greatest but doesn't have anywhere near the same passion for seeking out new music. I've been at this for close to 4 decades and the answers always been obviously simple. If you love music, you should want to hear/experience it as best as you can, period. If you have more money invested in your equipment than your music, you're a gearhead plain & simple. It's a simple equation really, compare the total cost of your gear vs. the total cost of your music collection. A 50/50% ratio obviously puts you squarely in the music-loving audiophile camp. I've easily got 15k in gear but 2x that in LP's, CD's, MP3's. Mind you, it isn't a question of right or wrong, or noise vs. musicality. Whatever floats your boat is acceptable as it's your money and HOWEVER you decide to spend it is nobody's business but your own!

 

[Sweden]

There definitely are too many audiophile who spend all their time and money on the quest for perfect sound only to end up with a select few albums of sleepy talentless slow jazz nonsense from Diana Krall and the likes, and top quality test CDs with in my opinion minimal musical value.
I've stated this before, but the more gear centric people get, the less music centric they become, and it's usually a sad affair.
 
I heard it before in the thread but if audiophiles were as passionate about gear as finding and sharing music, the music forum section of head-fi would be teeming with activity. As it is now now it's a desert with most threads getting buried by the sandstorm of indifference. 
You can tell peoples other interests like My little ponys and Manga or whatever have gathered much of an audience.

 

[TheAttorney]

  There definitely are too many audiophile who spend all their time and money on the quest for perfect sound only to end up with a select few albums of sleepy talentless slow jazz nonsense...

 
How many "too many audiophiles" like this do you actually know?
 
This is certainly a cliche that is frequently trotted out, but I've come across a fair few audiophiles in my time and every single one of them had hundreds, if not thousands, of albums, with a generally wide range of musical genres.

 

[The Monkey]

I can't speak for Sweden, but if "hi-fi" shows are any indication, I think the "sleepy talentless slow jazz nonsense" comment is pretty spot on.

 

[torta]

Well, if you own more than one headphone you are probably some kind of audiophile. If you have 10+ ... you are in deep
 
 

 sleepy talentless slow jazz nonsense from Diana Krall and the likes, and top quality test CDs with in my opinion minimal musical value

 
Musical value ... that is a good one, I really like when music aficionados pull this one out. Out of where? There are probably as many definitions for musical value as there are listeners.
I think audiophiles like music just as any other listener, they (we?) just spend a lot of time tinkering with equipment. I think its a bit haughty asking questions like that ... best you find an audiophile and ask him directly.

 

[Headzone]

 sleepy talentless slow jazz nonsense from Diana Krall and the likes, and top quality test CDs with in my opinion minimal musical value

I liked that.. I remember when I tried to listen to Diana Krall. At first I was like.. Hmm, this sounds pretty good. Few minutes after I was like, what the f** am I listening to? The real side of me would never listen to this kind of music. But it just sounded so good on my system. It's weird.
 
I have some songs that I listen to just for that one especially well recorded instrument, for example if the drum hits sound very natural, I may like that album just for that alone. It's weird.

 

[senzen]

Yikes, I think this is true in many areas. In photography we call them pixel peepers and hoarders, they take shots of walls and photo tests, never any interesting pictures; they're also the ones who cry bloody murder for anything. I don't think audiophiles are excluded from appreciating music, but it's the nature of the beast, and it's extremely boring. There's a lot of value in reviews and actual experiences, but the I can piss farther with my gear deal gets old quickly.

 

[torta]

Who is an audiophile?
 
If audiophile is someone who spends more time on gear (testing, comparing sound, swapping gear, reading reviews, posting reviews, ... etc) in comparison to average person ...  than big majority of posters on head-fi are audiophiles ...
 
So maybe question should be: Do we - audiophiles - like music?

 

[mironathetin]

Here is the reason, why I spend money for equipment.
 
There are many events that I did not visit live. Like the 25th Anniversary Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame Concert. I could have gone to NY for the weekend. Most likely the flight cross Atlantic would have been cheaper than the ticket. But then, you know only that is was good after it is over. And it has been written before: either you are in the front row and need to protect your hearing or you need binoculars to identify the performers - where is the fun in either of that?
 
Then there are events, where I couldn't go: Woodstock - I was 4, Neil Diamond in the Greek Theater in LA (7), Maria Callas singing Tosca in Milano, 1953. Günther Wand conducting Bruckner 4 in Cologne in 1978. Walter Giesking playing Beethovens 5th Piano Concert in Berlin 1944 during a British air-raid with the German FLAG fire in the background - you get the point.
 
If you want any of these outstanding events in a way as if you were there - with the jaw dropping because of the brilliance of all these performances - you need very very good equipment and excellent mastering of the recording. A 500$ Stereo will not help to make you experience the quality of this music. I wholeheartedly understand, why young people often don't get classical. It is the age in part. But the most important point is the absence of quality of their equipment. Listen to Maria Callas with a first class equipment and you get the impression to stand just one step beside her on stage.
That can be breathtaking. 
Bad equipment, on the other hand, may let your teeth ache (at best).