Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music? Hmmmmmmm.

Steve P. wrote:
Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music? Hmmmmmmm.

I've posted thousands of times to rec.music.* and
alt.music.* newsgroups.

But that would hardly impart any authority to me *sound
recording and reproduction*.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

(Steve P.) wrote in message ...
Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music? Hmmmmmmm.

Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I was out in the
other room playing Couperin and Rameau on my harpsichord.

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?* Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

I've posted once or twice on music lists, and lurked occasionally. But
there's a good reason why I don't do mo I have people in my real life
that I can talk to about music. My wife, for instance. Talking to her about
audio is like talking to a brickwall filter.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/

(Steve P.) wrote in message
...
Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music? Hmmmmmmm.

Perhaps rec.music is just too general. Too much to wade through that
doesn't match up with the individual's interests? I don't know--I've never
been there. Does that mean that, even though I'm a working musician, I
somehow don't live up?

And while I agree with the inferred point that the equipment should be about
reproducing music, that doesn't mean that we can't appreciate equipment for
its own sake as well, does it? Some things are just designed and built
better than others. I think it's pretty cool when I see one of those
things--even better when I own one.

Bill Balmer

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?Â* Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

From: Stewart Pinkerton =20
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?=C2=A0 Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--=20

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong b=
ut
interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be as cut=
and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art ex=
ist
independent of taste.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music??? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong but
interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be as cut and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art exist
independent of taste.


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music is 'good'
or 'bad'.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/23/2004 4:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music??? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong but
interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be as cut
and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art
exist
independent of taste.


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music is
'good'
or 'bad'.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy









That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior. Music that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about rhythm. Music that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other is
objectively inferior. There are so many objective standards in music and other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in engineering but they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:47:56 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?ÂÂ* Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong but
interesting. There are objective standards in art.

Not in the Tate Modern, there aren't....................

They may not be as cut and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art exist
independent of taste.

Define 'bad art'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/23/2004 7:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: XqrCc.97732$Sw.63216@attbi_s51

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:47:56 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?ÂÂÂÂ* Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong but
interesting. There are objective standards in art.

Not in the Tate Modern, there aren't....................

They may not be as cut and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art exist
independent of taste.

Define 'bad art'.

--
William Heung, Plan Nine from outerspace, Cats. John Wayne playing Atilla the
Hun. Bill Shatner reading lyrics. ;-)

First lets define art

Main Entry: fine art
Function: noun
Date: 1767
1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
creation of beautiful objects — usually used in plural b : objects of fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill

I think we can include theater and cinema maybe even literature, no?

Beauty.

1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit :

Bad art is the above done badly so as to fall short or fail. The above examples
while funny are legitimate examples of bad art.

More to the point though. There are objective standards in art. The difference
between the Mona Lisa and the finger paintings found in your garden variety
nursery school are not just a matter of taste. One can spend a life time
learning these standards.

S888Wheel wrote:

Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music is
'good'
or 'bad'.

That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior. Music
that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about rhythm. Music
that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other is
objectively inferior. There are so many objective standards in music and
other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in engineering but
they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.

Actually, there are no such objective standards in music, and musicologists
do not even agree on what is music and what is not. Everything you describe
as "objectively inferior" above I have heard in concert halls. You might not
like it, but music it is. For starters, you might want to pull out your
Grove and look up "aleatory."

In his book, "What to Listen for in Jazz," Barry Kernfeld tells the
following story. A few of his fellow music professors at Yale were planning
an Intro to Music course, and were looking for examples of challenging music
they could use to illustrate the distinction between music and noise.
Kernfeld suggested John Coltrane's "Ascension."

They came back to him later that day and told him that they couldn't use
"Ascension" as an example because, after listening to it, they decided that
it really was noise.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.cli...ave/direct/01/

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04...
On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?ÂÂ* Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.

Art may be in the eye (ear) of the beholder. I can, but won't argue
re. the validity of musicology and music criticism. That aside, I
find it ironic that so many audiophiles I have met, seem to care more
about equipment than they do about music. Please don't misconstrue my
comments; I sincerely applaud all audiophiles who are in it, first and
foremost, for the music.
I just don't understand how those who have only tangential interest in
music can debate about high fideility equipment so authoritatively,
without a solid frame of reference. I don't want to offend anybody,
but without such frame of reference, opinions regarding the relative
merits of high-fidelity equipment, seem quite dubious to me. I would
give much more credence to the opinions of someone who could
discriminate the timbral differences between a Steinway and a
Bosendorfer, an Amati and a Strad, or a Stratocaster and a Les Paul.
I've even met a few 'audiophiles' who probably couldn't distinguish
between a saxaphone and a clarinet in a double-blind ABX test.

Support the performing arts.

Regards to all,
Steve

Steve P. wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04...
On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music????? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.

Art may be in the eye (ear) of the beholder. I can, but won't argue
re. the validity of musicology and music criticism. That aside, I
find it ironic that so many audiophiles I have met, seem to care more
about equipment than they do about music. Please don't misconstrue my
comments; I sincerely applaud all audiophiles who are in it, first and
foremost, for the music.
I just don't understand how those who have only tangential interest in
music can debate about high fideility equipment so authoritatively,
without a solid frame of reference.

On what basis are you to judge how 'tangential' anyone's interest in music
is?

Are you privy to the record collections, musical training, and
leisure activity logs of participants in audio discussion groups?

I don't want to offend anybody,
but without such frame of reference, opinions regarding the relative
merits of high-fidelity equipment, seem quite dubious to me.

Without the sorts of frames of reference I've mentioned, your worries
seem dubious as well.

I would
give much more credence to the opinions of someone who could
discriminate the timbral differences between a Steinway and a
Bosendorfer, an Amati and a Strad, or a Stratocaster and a Les Paul.

By you logic, I could ask if those people were perhpas more
interested in *instruments* than music.

I've even met a few 'audiophiles' who probably couldn't distinguish
between a saxaphone and a clarinet in a double-blind ABX test.

I'm sure there's drummers who couldn't do that either. ;

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/23/2004 4:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music??? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong but
interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be as cut
and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art
exist
independent of taste.


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music is
'good'
or 'bad'.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy









That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.

No, it's *subjectively* inferior. An artist might desire the effect
of random off-keyness. A listener might like the effect.


Music that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music.

Aleatoric music is not music? I thought that chestnut was laid to rest
decades ago.


How about rhythm. Music that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other is
objectively inferior.

*How* out of synch? No human players are as in synch as a digital
composition can be. Yet, perfectly 'in synch' rhythm tracks are often
considered 'cold' sounding compared to the elastic, imperfect timekeeping
of human players.


There are so many objective standards in music and other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in engineering but they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.

With a number of different ideas as to what constitutes 'standards'. The
'standards; of orchestral play are not those of rock.

Aesthetic standards and 'rules' of performance are not *objective*
measures of 'goodness' or 'badness'.



--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

I'd just like to make a comment on the title of this thread. In audio as a
hobby it's mostly about the "equipment." If it were about the music than why
would anyone settle for reproduced music (or even written) music when it could
be performed or enjoyed while listening to it being performed by real
musicians.

Reproduced music is just a cheaper and more convenient form. I enjoy it all the
time but I don't try to convince myself that the equipment isn't the major part
of the form.

(Steve P.) wrote:




Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04...
On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music?ÀšÃ‚Â* Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.

Art may be in the eye (ear) of the beholder. I can, but won't argue
re. the validity of musicology and music criticism. That aside, I
find it ironic that so many audiophiles I have met, seem to care more
about equipment than they do about music. Please don't misconstrue my
comments; I sincerely applaud all audiophiles who are in it, first and
foremost, for the music.
I just don't understand how those who have only tangential interest in
music can debate about high fideility equipment so authoritatively,
without a solid frame of reference. I don't want to offend anybody,
but without such frame of reference, opinions regarding the relative
merits of high-fidelity equipment, seem quite dubious to me. I would
give much more credence to the opinions of someone who could
discriminate the timbral differences between a Steinway and a
Bosendorfer, an Amati and a Strad, or a Stratocaster and a Les Paul.
I've even met a few 'audiophiles' who probably couldn't distinguish
between a saxaphone and a clarinet in a double-blind ABX test.

Support the performing arts.

Regards to all,
Steve

I think that realistic reproduction of sound is what the hobby should be
'about.' While music is certainly the most used and available program type I
think its a little pretentious to limit it to such. Some of the most difficult
of prgram sources to properly reproduce are environmental sounds that have
nothing at all to do with "music."

I'm a little peeved that my enjoyment of the sound of loons calling on a
secluded lake or a natural recording of a small stream or the sound of steam
locomotives or radial engined aircraft are considered somehow "less" important
because they are NOT music.

Sound is sound. Timbrally and dynamically natural reproduction of recorded
sound is my focus.

But just because I'm going to Orchestra Hall tonight to see K.D.Lang with the
DSO (and will certainly obtain her new album if this performance seems to merit
it) doesn't make the musical pursuit any more important than someone capturing
or appreciating bird calls.

Are you privy to the record collections, musical training, and
leisure activity logs of participants in audio discussion groups?

No, and please don't take offense if my comments aren't pertinent in
your case. However, I have been privy to the record collections,
musical training and leisure activities of a number of 'audiophiles'
throughout my life. I have found more than a few who proudly proclaim
their expertise in high-fidelity, without much inkling of how musical
instruments sound in a live acoustic.

Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:GNDCc.77558$2i5.72701@attbi_s52...
Steve P. wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04...
On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music????? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.

Art may be in the eye (ear) of the beholder. I can, but won't argue
re. the validity of musicology and music criticism. That aside, I
find it ironic that so many audiophiles I have met, seem to care more
about equipment than they do about music. Please don't misconstrue my
comments; I sincerely applaud all audiophiles who are in it, first and
foremost, for the music.
I just don't understand how those who have only tangential interest in
music can debate about high fideility equipment so authoritatively,
without a solid frame of reference.

On what basis are you to judge how 'tangential' anyone's interest in music
is?


I don't want to offend anybody,
but without such frame of reference, opinions regarding the relative
merits of high-fidelity equipment, seem quite dubious to me.

Without the sorts of frames of reference I've mentioned, your worries
seem dubious as well.

I would
give much more credence to the opinions of someone who could
discriminate the timbral differences between a Steinway and a
Bosendorfer, an Amati and a Strad, or a Stratocaster and a Les Paul.

By you logic, I could ask if those people were perhpas more
interested in *instruments* than music.

I've even met a few 'audiophiles' who probably couldn't distinguish
between a saxaphone and a clarinet in a double-blind ABX test.

I'm sure there's drummers who couldn't do that either. ;

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:flrCc.135368$3x.51624@attbi_s54...
From: Steven Sullivan


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music
is
'good'
or 'bad'.

That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.
Music that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about rhythm.
Music that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other is
objectively inferior. There are so many objective standards in music
and other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in engineering
but they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.


So atonal and polytonal is not music? News to Schoenberg and
Stravinsky. Not to mention polyrhythmic music.

equipment or the music?
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/24/2004 3:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/23/2004 4:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 6/22/2004 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04

On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:

"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music??? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!). My followup
to that viewpoint is that there is nothing quite so parasitic as an
'art critic'. Who the frell are they - or anyone else - to comment on
*my* taste in music? Or indeed my taste in art of any sort.
--

That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
but
interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be as
cut
and
dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective standards in art
exist
independent of taste.


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music is
'good'
or 'bad'.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy









That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.

No, it's *subjectively* inferior.

No, it is objectively inferior. There was no choice made. I specifically cited
what would considered an obvious mistake. A mistake one could easily notice
without even being familiar with the music being played.

An artist might desire the effect
of random off-keyness.

He might. Artists trey things all the time. Sometime it works some times it
doesn't.

A listener might like the effect.

Yes a listener might. Nothing wrong with liking something that is artistically
objectively inferior. I never suggested anyone has to like better art more than
inferior art. I'm sure that many a proud parent does geniunely like thier
childrens finger painting better than any of the classics from the Renaissance.
I certly hope you can see that such finger paintings are objectively inferior.
Art is not arbitrary.



Music that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music.

Aleatoric music is not music? I thought that chestnut was laid to rest
decades ago.


How about rhythm. Music that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other is
objectively inferior.

*How* out of synch?

Not together. Never heard a band play out of sync with each other? It is quite
amusical.

No human players are as in synch as a digital
composition can be. Yet, perfectly 'in synch' rhythm tracks are often
considered 'cold' sounding compared to the elastic, imperfect timekeeping
of human players.

I am talking about clearly out of sync by accident. It is bad.



There are so many objective standards in music and other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in engineering but
they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.

With a number of different ideas as to what constitutes 'standards'. The
'standards; of orchestral play are not those of rock.

Yeah. They each have their own conventions and standards. But hey, if there are
no standards of excellence I guess I am every bit as great a guitar artist as
Steve Howe. (I don't play guiter but I can get one to make noise)


Aesthetic standards and 'rules' of performance are not *objective*
measures of 'goodness' or 'badness'.

But they are objective or do you think the mathematics of musical scales were
just a happy accident? Do you think the common narrative themes amoung the many
cultures in their mythology is just an accident? Do you think the common use of
form and color in the many genres of fine art are just serindipidous
coincidences? Do you think that the great artists of the Renaissance really
weren't any better artists by objective standards than any Joe with paint and a
brush?

From: "josko"
Date: 6/24/2004 7:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: UhMCc.177706$Ly.174320@attbi_s01

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:flrCc.135368$3x.51624@attbi_s54...
From: Steven Sullivan


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of music
is
'good'
or 'bad'.

That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.
Music that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about rhythm.
Music that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other is
objectively inferior. There are so many objective standards in music
and other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in engineering
but they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.


So atonal and polytonal is not music? News to Schoenberg and
Stravinsky. Not to mention polyrhythmic music.



Schoenberg and Stravinsky wrote music with no musical scale? Now that would be
news to Schoenberg and Stravinsky.What does the sheet music look like I wonder?
You think polytonal and polyrhythmic music are just musicians playing off key
and out of sync by accident? You think such music is just random tones and
random beats with no relationship to any form?

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

I'm a little peeved that my enjoyment of the sound of loons calling on a
secluded lake or a natural recording of a small stream or the sound of steam
locomotives or radial engined aircraft are considered somehow "less" important
because they are NOT music.

Ok, for argument's sake, someone who has intimate familiarity with the
sound of steam locomotives in real life, should be able to assess the
fidelity of a reproduced recording of such.

Don't be peeved by the fact that your interest in loon songs makes you
a member of a generally ignored minority. I apologize for having
ignored loon song afficianados. It was politically incorrect of me.
;-)

But just because I'm going to Orchestra Hall tonight to see K.D.Lang with the
DSO (and will certainly obtain her new album if this performance seems to merit
it) doesn't make the musical pursuit any more important than someone capturing
or appreciating bird calls.

I'm sure you, as many others here, frequently enjoy the performing
arts. That doesn't negate my contention, that more than a few
audiophiles do not. BTW, citing your planned attendance at a DSO
concert supports my arguments (perhaps inadvertantly). You would not
bother citing it, if you thought it irrelevant to your 'credentials'
as an audiophile, and to your ability to compare live vs. recorded
sound. That's my main point; In my opinion, attending live
performance does, indeed, solidify your credentials and hone your
abilities. I'm skeptical of the audiophile who has little concept of
what "real" sounds like. I guess I just have to broaden the scope to
include people who spend a lot of time listening to loons in their
natural habitat. ;-)

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:MTXCc.92596$2i5.56545@attbi_s52...
From: "josko"
Date: 6/24/2004 7:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: UhMCc.177706$Ly.174320@attbi_s01

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:flrCc.135368$3x.51624@attbi_s54...
From: Steven Sullivan


Name some objective *standards* for determining that a piece of
music
is
'good'
or 'bad'.

That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively
inferior.
Music that
does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about rhythm.
Music that
is played with musicians accidentally out of sync with each other
is
objectively inferior. There are so many objective standards in
music
and other
arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry as the rules in
engineering
but they
do exist. You will find any number of text books on them.


So atonal and polytonal is not music? News to Schoenberg and
Stravinsky. Not to mention polyrhythmic music.



Schoenberg and Stravinsky wrote music with no musical scale? Now that
would be
news to Schoenberg and Stravinsky.What does the sheet music look like
I wonder?
You think polytonal and polyrhythmic music are just musicians playing
off key
and out of sync by accident? You think such music is just random tones
and
random beats with no relationship to any form?

OK. Schoenberg and Stravinsky are not good examples (even though those
who heard Le Sacre du Printemps at its Parisian premiere would strongly
disagree). OTOH, if you consider a lot of avant-garde music of the 20th
century, and textbooks written by musicologists and critics say that
music is "objectively good", then your criteria for objectively
determining what the bad music is ("randomly off key", "accidentally out
of sync") turn out to be subjective criteria. And they have to be
subjective because they are culturally determined. Hence, what used to
be considered as "noise" (Le Sacre in 1913), later could be considered
as masterpiece (Le Sacre 25 years later).

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/24/2004 3:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I'd just like to make a comment on the title of this thread. In audio as a
hobby it's mostly about the "equipment." If it were about the music than why
would anyone settle for reproduced music (or even written) music when it
could
be performed or enjoyed while listening to it being performed by real
musicians.

I can't get Hendrix or Miles Davis to play live for me these days. Can you? For
some it is about music. Hifi gives us access to music. Better hifi makes that
access more like the real thing, at least with recordings of live acoustic
music.



Reproduced music is just a cheaper and more convenient form.

For a lot of music that we love it is the only access.

I enjoy it all
the
time but I don't try to convince myself that the equipment isn't the major
part
of the form.


Nothing wrong with enjoying equipment for the sake of equipment IMO. It's just
a different form of enjoyment.

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
I'd just like to make a comment on the title of this thread. In audio as a
hobby it's mostly about the "equipment." If it were about the music than why
would anyone settle for reproduced music (or even written) music when it could
be performed or enjoyed while listening to it being performed by real
musicians.

Reproduced music is just a cheaper and more convenient form. I enjoy it all the
time but I don't try to convince myself that the equipment isn't the major part
of the form.

The equipment is a means to an end. As you stated, reproducing sound
is the goal.

If accuracy of reproduction is important, then a benchmark, a frame of
reference is needed in order to rate accuracy. For subjective
evaluation of timbre, freedom from coloration, imaging, etc., that
frame of reference is the source material. Unfamiliarity with the
source material, e.g., what a Stratocaster or a Steinway sounds like,
or for those into sound effects, what a singing loon sounds like,
inherently limits one's ability to judge accuracy. I remain skeptical
of those who authoritively debate means (equipment accuracy) with
little understanding of the end (sound reproduction).

Reproduce (vb): to produce again (as in recreating the original
event).

On the other hand, I will concede that accuracy is not inherently
requisite for everybody's enjoyment. For those who don't worry about
accuracy, most of the postings on this newsgroup are irrelevant; Such
folks don't worry about distortion specifications, dynamic range,
sound staging, etc. They just sit back and enjoy the music (or the
loon song).

S888Wheel wrote:

Yeah. They each have their own conventions and standards. But hey, if there are
no standards of excellence I guess I am every bit as great a guitar artist as
Steve Howe. (I don't play guiter but I can get one to make noise)

And here is the crucial point -- *your* standards of excellence might not
be someone else's. There are people for whom Steve Howe's guitar playing
does *nothing*, while


Aesthetic standards and 'rules' of performance are not *objective*
measures of 'goodness' or 'badness'.

But they are objective or do you think the mathematics of musical scales were
just a happy accident?

Which is besides the point. And are you aware of things like 'just intonation'
versus other forms? Which is the 'right' standard?

Do you think the common narrative themes amoung the many
cultures in their mythology is just an accident?

Again, what's this to do with 'objective standards'?

Do you think the common use of
form and color in the many genres of fine art are just serindipidous
coincidences?

No, but do you think it's immutable, in the way that, say, the
relationship between voltage, current, and resistance is?

Do you think that the great artists of the Renaissance really
weren't any better artists by objective standards than any Joe with paint and a
brush?

Prove to me first that those standards are 'objective' in the
*qualitative* sense.

Here;s an essay question for you, Scott:

Do you consider photography or hyperrealist painting *objectively*
superior to other forms of two-dimensional static visual representation?
If so, in what ways?

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:23:13 GMT, (Steve P.) wrote:

I would
give much more credence to the opinions of someone who could
discriminate the timbral differences between a Steinway and a
Bosendorfer, an Amati and a Strad, or a Stratocaster and a Les Paul.

Surely the whole point of *high-fidelity* music reproduction is that
you *can* make such distinctions, which may not be possible on lesser
equipment.

I've even met a few 'audiophiles' who probably couldn't distinguish
between a saxaphone and a clarinet in a double-blind ABX test.

Ahh, presumably 'high enders' who believe in green pens? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steve P. wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...

I'm a little peeved that my enjoyment of the sound of loons calling on a
secluded lake or a natural recording of a small stream or the sound of
steam
locomotives or radial engined aircraft are considered somehow "less"
important
because they are NOT music.

Ok, for argument's sake, someone who has intimate familiarity with the
sound of steam locomotives in real life, should be able to assess the
fidelity of a reproduced recording of such.

Don't be peeved by the fact that your interest in loon songs makes you
a member of a generally ignored minority. I apologize for having
ignored loon song afficianados. It was politically incorrect of me.
;-)

But just because I'm going to Orchestra Hall tonight to see K.D.Lang with
the
DSO (and will certainly obtain her new album if this performance seems to
merit
it) doesn't make the musical pursuit any more important than someone
capturing
or appreciating bird calls.

I'm sure you, as many others here, frequently enjoy the performing
arts. That doesn't negate my contention, that more than a few
audiophiles do not. BTW, citing your planned attendance at a DSO
concert supports my arguments (perhaps inadvertantly). You would not
bother citing it, if you thought it irrelevant to your 'credentials'
as an audiophile, and to your ability to compare live vs. recorded
sound. That's my main point; In my opinion, attending live
performance does, indeed, solidify your credentials and hone your
abilities. I'm skeptical of the audiophile who has little concept of
what "real" sounds like. I guess I just have to broaden the scope to
include people who spend a lot of time listening to loons in their
natural habitat. ;-)









This could be a new variant of "loonacy" (groan).

I wonder if some of my patients, who sometimes hear voices, would qualify under
this clinical descriptoin. Hopefully, all the voices don't sound the same
under bias controlled conditions.

..

Bruce J. Richman

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Ac_Cc.111045$HG.106001@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

Yeah. They each have their own conventions and standards. But hey, if there
are
no standards of excellence I guess I am every bit as great a guitar artist
as
Steve Howe. (I don't play guiter but I can get one to make noise)

And here is the crucial point -- *your* standards of excellence might not
be someone else's. There are people for whom Steve Howe's guitar playing
does *nothing*, while

1. "nothing" there are people who fail to see *any* artistic merit in anything
Steve Howe has played on guitar? Such people may find merit in the noise I
might make with a guitar?
2. I never said there are no exceptions to any artistic objectie standards.



Aesthetic standards and 'rules' of performance are not *objective*
measures of 'goodness' or 'badness'.

But they are objective or do you think the mathematics of musical scales
were
just a happy accident?

Which is besides the point.

No it is not. There is structure in music. It isn't arbitrary. There is no
structure in the noise I make with a guitar. Trust me on that one.

And are you aware of things like 'just
intonation'
versus other forms? Which is the 'right' standard?

Where did I say that such standards were absolute and universal? I explicity
said otherwise.


Do you think the common narrative themes amoung the many
cultures in their mythology is just an accident?

Again, what's this to do with 'objective standards'?

Such commonality suggests a cause and effect relationship.


Do you think the common use of
form and color in the many genres of fine art are just serindipidous
coincidences?

No, but do you think it's immutable,

No I don't. that doesn't take away all objectivity though. Exceptions to a rule
does not mean there is no rule.

in the way that, say, the
relationship between voltage, current, and resistance is?

That is quite differnt. But lets take another example. Do all people with the
same afliction respond the same way to the same treatment? Is it not true thet
one person's cure can be another person's poison? Does that remove *all*
objectivity from diagnosis and treatment?


Do you think that the great artists of the Renaissance really
weren't any better artists by objective standards than any Joe with paint
and a
brush?

Prove to me first that those standards are 'objective' in the
*qualitative* sense.

Here;s an essay question for you, Scott:

Do you consider photography or hyperrealist painting *objectively*
superior to other forms of two-dimensional static visual representation?
If so, in what ways?

No. But I explicitly said as much before. Do you consider a hyperrealist
painting done by an inept grade school student not objectively inferior to a
hyperrealist painting done by a hyperrrealist master? I deal with realism in my
art. There are *definitely* objective standards there.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:Zq9Cc.78554$Hg2.42972@attbi_s04...
On 18 Jun 2004 17:42:04 GMT, "Bob Marcus" wrote:
"Steve P." wrote:

Who, besides myself, finds it ironic that some people have posted
hundreds, even thousands, of messages to rec.audio groups, but have
never posted a single message to rec.music? Hmmmmmmm.

And vice versa. Think what gawdawful crap they're listening to! :-)

My basic take on this is that music is art (and therefore incapable of
critical debate of any sort), but audio is engineering, and capable of
debate by anyone who understands the subject (surprise!).

I think everyone here probably loves music and is more than willing
to discuss it. But this is the wrong forum! The purpose of newsgroups
is to meet likeminded individuals with similar interests. The musical
interests in this particular group are far more varied than the hardware
interest.

No one discusses stereo equipment in the classical guitar newsgroup,
even when discussing recordings!

Curt Simon