 Romy the Cat wrote: | | rowuk wrote: | | I have well formed thoughts on how much is gear, how much is careful selection of media, the amount of research into the works and performances necessary |
This is what I curious, pretend you have this framework of your reasoning, understanding and a proper balance of actions structure to accomplish your goals. Pretend we have a hundred people like you all this individual goals, methods and means. Now pretend we begin to run obstructions and find patterns between individual people motivations, auctions and interpretation of own needs end results. Kind of application of Jnion analysis in crossing against the conscientious interpretation of listening objectives. Now, we built all this analysis and what do you think we will discover in the end?l |
|
|
I discovered that there is a serious and casual side to every aspect.
I can appreciate many of my musician friends that have the deep research into the composers and their works but bought a Bose surround sound. We still have a lot to talk about. There is little occasion here to manipulate opinion.
I can also appreciate the "media collectors" that actually have goals about what LPs that they buy. Some have large collections of jazz, others old mono records, yet others specific historical collections. We still have a lot to talk about. There is little occasion here to manipulate opinion.
Then there are the gear heads. I must admit that while I recognize what they are doing, in many cases I do not understand how anyone can replace repertory with "gear". I really have nothing to talk about concerning their gear choices. It does not interest me. There is however a huge opportunity to manipulate the gear heads.
Where it truly gets interesting for me is when there is a combination of these aspects, when the music drives the playback and the RESULT becomes the goal. Then in many cases we do not NEED to talk. The result is presented and a "thank you" at the end is more than enough said. There is little occasion here to manipulate opinion. There is a degree of causality resulting in a higher level of music appreciation.
Now, there is another aspect, that of sharing a common understanding what the result can do/does to us. This is an aspect looking for words. It can feed the listener with "purpose", "conviction" but the danger is just like with the religious zealots, one of exclusivity. I believe that when we venture into the realms of purpose and conviction, manipulation often becomes reality - because we really believe and become less tolerant of things that we believe are simply (or not so simply) wrong.
So for me and my convictions, I have discovered that the ability to share is my "calling". Like with my trumpet teachers/professors/mentors freely sharing their convictions and giving me tools to evaluate and work on the things that I can not yet do, I use playback opportunities to share musicology, recording practices, my preferences for repertory and if possible, sharing of the emotional results after the event. If we were to quantify a group of a hundred people that supposedly get it, we would discover that like with fine wine, cigars or even live concerts, that there is maybe acceptance of a measurement procedure, but much disagreement about what those quantifications mean. I believe that a very charismatic person would have to spearhead this effort to get any traction. The outcome is not clear to me.
In the case of my playback, I refer to it as a music machine. It gets out of the way and draws attention to whatever is being played. It relieves me of having to intellectually fill in blanks and thus gives me a more suitable representation of the score/intentions. It is by no measure perfect, but because I achieve my desired result, it causes me no pain and does not currently give me the urge to experiment.
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
|