"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it.
You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you
have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have
tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a
different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video
while listening to music.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.

Except it wasn't my question.