On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:38:51 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Who cares about what the musicians want to impart?

Ever been to a concert?

Yup. What's your point? Where does it say that the only way to get an
emotional response from music is to somehow imbibe whatever it is that the
musician seeks to impart?


This is getting silly. If you really go to concerts with no interest
in emotional involvement with what the composer and musicians are
trying to say, then I'm sorry, but you may as well save your money.

Ever been a musician?


Yup. I played lead guitar in blues bands.


The root of the word is "Idios" which means the self. It means that
the view would be applicable that one person alone.

Which means 'applicable to one person alone'? Idios, or idiosyncratic?

Both - it is th "Idios" bit that carries that meaning.


WHy are you not getting this?

I know what it means - I'm asking you why you think it's unhelpful.

But you just said you didn't know what it means. Make your mind up.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

This is getting silly. If you really go to concerts with no interest
in emotional involvement with what the composer and musicians are
trying to say, then I'm sorry, but you may as well save your money.

Oh, I'm interested in emotional involvement, but any emotions I feel at a
concert, or when listening to reproduced music, are entirely my own. I don't
presume to be inside the heads of those that are creating the music, and I
don't see how they can be inside mine.


Ever been a musician?

Yup. I played lead guitar in blues bands.

Ever felt what the audience felt when you played something? I haven't. When
I play, I feel *my* emotions - and what, or how, I play changes in
accordance with those emotions - each feeds the other. If what I do triggers
the same emotional response in someone else, or if they get some other
response, what difference does it make to me?


Both - it is th "Idios" bit that carries that meaning.

So, you're saying that his idiosyncratic point of view is an unhelpful
paradigm because it applies to him, and him alone? If so, then what is his
"idiosyncratic point of view"?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:02:14 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

This is getting silly. If you really go to concerts with no interest
in emotional involvement with what the composer and musicians are
trying to say, then I'm sorry, but you may as well save your money.

Oh, I'm interested in emotional involvement, but any emotions I feel at a
concert, or when listening to reproduced music, are entirely my own. I don't
presume to be inside the heads of those that are creating the music, and I
don't see how they can be inside mine.

The music is designed to stimulate emotional responses and the
musicians do their best to convey that.

Ever been a musician?

Yup. I played lead guitar in blues bands.

Ever felt what the audience felt when you played something? I haven't. When
I play, I feel *my* emotions - and what, or how, I play changes in
accordance with those emotions - each feeds the other. If what I do triggers
the same emotional response in someone else, or if they get some other
response, what difference does it make to me?

So you are quite happy to see the audience giggling during a sad song?
I think you need to be a bit more connected than that.


Both - it is th "Idios" bit that carries that meaning.

So, you're saying that his idiosyncratic point of view is an unhelpful
paradigm because it applies to him, and him alone? If so, then what is his
"idiosyncratic point of view"?

No, I've been round the circle once - I'm not up for another circuit.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

Oh, I'm interested in emotional involvement, but any emotions I feel
at a concert, or when listening to reproduced music, are entirely my
own. I don't presume to be inside the heads of those that are
creating the music, and I don't see how they can be inside mine.

The music is designed to stimulate emotional responses and the
musicians do their best to convey that.

Good for them. Makes no difference to me. My emotional response will still
be mine, regardless of what the composer intended, or the musician tried to
convey (or even what the improvising musician is feeling as he plays).


So you are quite happy to see the audience giggling during a sad song?
I think you need to be a bit more connected than that.

My point is that, to play at your best, you have to play for yourself. The
musician knows better than anyone when he's in the groove - direct,
instantaneous feedback.


No, I've been round the circle once - I'm not up for another circuit.

I disagree with the notion that putting together a system with totally
different aspirations is an unhelpful paradigm. The aim isn't audiophonic
perfection for its own sake, but some sort of emotional response to music.
The 'accuracy' approach is one that people use to attain the said response,
and it works for many. However, it should be pretty obvious that, if Keith
gets the emotional thing he's after from his kit, then it follows that the
accuracy approach cannot be the only one.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

"Wally" wrote


I disagree with the notion that putting together a system with totally
different aspirations is an unhelpful paradigm. The aim isn't audiophonic
perfection for its own sake, but some sort of emotional response to music.
The 'accuracy' approach is one that people use to attain the said
response,
and it works for many. However, it should be pretty obvious that, if Keith
gets the emotional thing he's after from his kit, then it follows that the
accuracy approach cannot be the only one.


Quite. There's no such thing as true 'accuracy' when you are playing
recorded music in your own home - especially if you play LPs, when even a
cartridge change can result in significant alterations to the 'sound'. After
that, room acoustics and speaker colouration throws everyone else into the
same boat....

I don't try to kid myself about getting 'accuracy' in the 'signal
amplification' sense, I leave that to the designers and manufacturers - I am
only concerned with what I consider to be *natural* and seek to get a sound
that grabs and *keeps* my attention. For instance, one of my main complaints
about CD is nothing to do with what it may sound like but that, invariably,
I lose concentration and 'wander off' when one is playing.

IOW, after the occasional, initial impact of a 'clean and dynamic' sound
from some CDs, I find they quickly become quite *boring* - and the
'unnatural' length of a CD doesn't help....!!

(Like: CDs? Oh, they're fine, but I couldn't possibly manage a whole
one....!! ;-)

Prompts the question: Is there anyone here who can *really* listen to a
whole CD from beginning to end?

(Promps also the thought: Anyone who listens to a record is missing the
point - they should be listening to the *music*!! ;-)