[OlManRivah]

I didn't realize enjoying music was so complicated......

I think I'll just put on another Chuck Berry.......

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Some seem to be making great efforts to establish that so-called "audiophiles" don't really appreciate music, but instead just want to hear sounds. I don't get it. It's seems quite silly. There are lots of people who have systems that are much better than mine, and that probably provide a good deal more in sound quality than I could ever hope to have. I suspect that most of them truly love music, and probably have their appreciation ehanced because of the quality of their systems. I do not feel the need to rationalize the fact that they have a better system than me by saying that they are just listening to sounds and don't really appreciate music like I do. I also don't consider the fact that they have a better system than me and can also appreciate music as a reflection on my self worth; nor am I bothered that they may have something I do not. I am happy that they can appreciate what they have, and that we can all appreciate music.

Thinking of it that way makes me happy too, but unfortunately the actual situation, in my country, feels a bit discouraging. There are at least a few 'exemplary' cases in some local forum that seem to not do justice to the "audiophile" kind of human being - looks like they're 'influential' too.

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Thinking about music is the best way to grow in your appreciation of it. The people who say "I just like it because I do" end up listening to the same mediocre music all their life. I have a couple of friends like that... But I also have a few friends who know a LOT about music. I love to invite them over and have "Theory Night". We sit around and listen to music and talk about the people who made it, how it influenced other musicians, what makes it unique and what similar stuff is also great until the wee hours. Analyzing music is also critical to my program of horizon broadening... Every year or so, I will take a type of music that I haven't heard much of before and I'll totally immerse myself in it. It doesn't matter if I think I like it or not... once I understand it, I *always* end up liking it. So far, I've done this with German symphonic music, Harlem Jazz, Western Swing, Italian Opera, Post-Bop, 50s Rock n' Roll, Cuban Mambo, Kentucky Folk, French Impressionists, Hawaiian Slack Key Guitar, 50s Pop Vocals, Honky Tonk Country, Russian Classical, 40s Jump Blues, 20s Dance Bands, the operas of Richard Wagner, Big Band Swing, Cowboy music, 50s Exotica and Percussion, West Coast Jazz, etc. Next on the list is Bach. I got the Hanssler complete Bach edition on 175 CDs, and I plan to devour it from end to end. See ya Steve

That sounds great... You get me afraid I'm not that serious with my passion for music.

But even if I should want to be, I couldn't but envy your Theory Nights over here, as of now.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice Perhaps, by spending a long time on a given style, I may learn to appreciate some music I just don't "get". But why do that, when there is already a huge variety of songs out there that I can enjoy?

That's an easy answer! Sturgeon's Law. "90% of everything is garbage."

If you limit yourself to just one type of music, you'll quickly exhaust the 10% and start plowing through the garbage. If you sample a lot of types of music, and listen to advice from those who have trod those paths before, you'll find that there is an ocean of great stuff out there.

The other reason is that music is a language. If you never flex it, you'll be speaking "baby talk" all your life. I started out in high school listening to "kid music". I discovered 30s jazz and I never looked back. Every new kind of music brings new understanding to every previous kind of music that I've explored. I used to think that there wasn't a lot of really good music out there beyond what I had in my CD collection. I now know how ignorant I was.

Of course, it's perfectly acceptible to limit your own tastes. It's your own life. But that doesn't mean that you aren't missing out on some incredible stuff.

See ya
Steve

 

[Andrea]

Though our ways to 'live' music can differ widely according to different dispositions, and I still think that mine is valid.

 

[TooNice]

@PhilS: Hehe - Well, at least we are not discussing politics... So it can't be that bad, right?

@bigshot:
Well, I suppose that the "how far would you go?" is apparent here, as it is present in most activities. I enjoy music enough to sample things I have access to, from my friends, families, what I come accross online and offline (local music - and I used to travel a fair bit). However I wouldn't really go out of my way to find out the more obscure music out there. If I can easily have access to a large sample of <insert music type here>, then I am more likely to sample them. But really, I do feel that some music just "click" with me. Listen once, and I will want to listen again, and again, and find out what else is out there. Some might grow on me over time. Yet some may take too long to grow on me for me to find it "practical".

The 80/20 rules applies to me to some extent. I will most likely listen to a limited type of music (20%), 80% of the time (maybe not 80/20 but just to get the idea across), just out of personal preferences: I may try and like something, but find that I still like something else more and listen it more.

[That said, "new entrants" do not always "lose" to things I am used to, my tastes have changed over time, and I have no doubt that this will carry on.. but I won't force it]

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice "how far would you go?"

You can never have too many good friends or too much good music.

See ya
Steve

 

[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geforcewong Implication #1: Norah Jones music is boring and unengaging. Implication #2: Norah Jones music makes atx sleepy.

Not an implication. I'm flat out saying it. She is boring and her music makes me sleepy as in drifting into a coma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geforcewong So atx says Norah Jones may sound good, but her music is boring. Whether Norah Jones sounds good or not, however, will never be known to atx because he didn't find it worthwhile to buy the cd.

When I said Norah sounds good, it's not a theory. She has a very nice voice (a far cry from Britney spears), although her presentation and interpretation is completely unremarkable-- this is probably why her music is so boring. Norah is literate in music, but she doesn't have a musical mind. Her presentation and interpretation is utterly mechanical, and she sings the way Mariah Carey sings a song--- to hit the notes and the right timing, but nothing more. She's a classic 'book' musician. In contrast, Bon Jovi is probably music illiterate and don't know his way around a piano or even a guitar, but he is a much more talented musician than Norah ever was and is--- his interpretation of each song that he sings is refreshing, and when he sings a song, he doesn't just hit notes, he tells a story (edit: "Bed of Roses," "Someday I'll be Saturday night"). Now that is good music.

Point of all that: good musicians are born, not trained.

That said, whether or not Norah Jones sounds good is irrelevant, because I buy a CD for good music, not good sound. I don't buy CDs that puts me to sleep, even if every instrument that ever existed is used in it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by geforcewong Listening to mp3s of Norah Jones doesn't make an opinion about her music as valid as if you were to go to an actual live concert. The subtleties in a live concert may keep you awake, even if your mp3s don't (keep in mind that mp3s are a quality loss compression format).

That statement just tells me you didn't understand a word I said about sound and music.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx Point of all that: good musicians are born, not trained.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Aside from prodigies, any musician or artisan, benefits greatly from training. Otherwise we wouldn't have a need for Julliard, or Lee Strasberg, or the French Culinary Institute.

 

[geforcewong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx Point of all that: good musicians are born, not trained. That said, whether or not Norah Jones sounds good is irrelevant, because I buy a CD for good music, not good sound. I don't buy CDs that puts me to sleep, even if every instrument that ever existed is used in it.

Like I said earlier, your opinions regarding talent and "good music" are subjective. Your statement about musicians being born and not trained is also quite illogical. Basically your saying people are born with talent and don't need to train to become a master at their art. According to what you said, a musician that goes through professional training is a "book musician". I highly doubt that fans of classical music will agree with you labeling them as "book musicians". Execution of each note is important so that the composition does not sound sloppy and is played with its intended melody. In a symphony or orchestra. Just because music follows mechanical components doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable, it can easily be accompanied by the musician's own interpretation. Surely there are talented musicians who may not have to necessarily practice as much as others and can easily create great music, but not everyone is as gifted and have to practice to achieve a certain level of skill , so please refrain from calling the latter group "a classic book musician".

Can't we all just get along and halt the criticism we have for certain musicians?

 

[bigshot]

There is a little truth in what he says. I work with amazingly creative people, and there is a level of excellence that no amount of practice will take you to. You have to have it in you to start with. Not to say that people are born playing the saxophone or painting watercolors... of course they have to learn. It's just that the spark that sets a phenominal musician apart from a good one is born into them.

See ya
Steve

P.S. Norah Jones is good, but she's no Billie Holiday, Kay Starr, Sarah Vaughan, Keely Smith, Ella Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington, etc. etc. etc.

 

[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker That couldn't be farther from the truth. Aside from prodigies, any musician or artisan, benefits greatly from training. Otherwise we wouldn't have a need for Julliard, or Lee Strasberg, or the French Culinary Institute.

I don't agree. Training improves accuracy, whether its singing or cooking. It fine tunes your technical competence in what you do, nothing more, and so through training, you'll be no more than competent at what you do. That is as far as you go.

Becoming a great chef or a great musician, however, is more than having technical competence, it takes art. You can't train someone to paint something great or create good music. The ability to create is an innate skill. You either have it, or you don't.

For example, training will tell you exactly how much salt to put in your food, so it won't come out too salty or too bland. This doesn't make you a great chef--- it just makes you competent in making whatever food you're preparing. What makes a great chef is the ability to substitute salt with new combination of ingredients so that you end up with a completely unique flavor-- that is where the art comes into play. A person who isn't born to be a chef, will never be able to create a unique new flavor-- the best he can do, is copy existing recipes created by other great chefs.

Mariah Carey and Celine Dion have great voices, but they are just that-- all voice, zero talent. If you ask Mariah Carey to sing "My Heart Will Go On," it will sound exactly the same as Celine's rendition of the song--- this is because Mariah sings like a trained chef--- she only knows one way of singing, one interpretation, nothing more. She's like a chef who doesn't know how to replace salt with a better flavor.

 

[Aliacha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx Mariah Carey and Celine Dion have great voices, but they are just that-- all voice, zero talent.

I dunno, I tried to sing like Mariah yesterday, I had to castrate myself first.

I still sung a bajillion octaves lower than her highest note.

 

[Yellowjacket]

Just thought you guys would like to know I couldn't tell any difference between HD580, 600 and 650. Now I'm thinking maybe I should get HD485 ($80 new vs $120 for used HD580).

Or, I could just stick with my HD280, although open cans would be a nice change.

Maybe some ER6i? They're "closed" like the HD280 though and we all know the best music comes from open cans

 

[geforcewong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx Mariah Carey and Celine Dion have great voices, but they are just that-- all voice, zero talent. If you ask Mariah Carey to sing "My Heart Will Go On," it will sound exactly the same as Celine's rendition of the song--- this is because Mariah sings like a trained chef--- she only knows one way of singing, one interpretation, nothing more. She's like a chef who doesn't know how to replace salt with a better flavor

Your comments absolutely astound me...I mean seriously...Zero talent??? I think you have been personifying yourself as some kind of music elitist in this thread too much. It would ease me if you used "I believe" or "I think" in your statements because your trying to objectify your own personal opinions on who's a good singer and who isn't.