film or music

First let me say that I also spend quite a bit on video. I have a large dvd library and a couple of years ago bought a home theatre receiver and 5.1 speakers. Looking to buy a 32 inch lcd t.v. as well. That said I am listening to music at a way higher proportion lately. Ever since buying an Aragon amp and recently the PS Audio p-300 power plant, listening is all I do. Zar

If you want to get scientific about it, one could argue that the sense of sight has four cranial nerves devoted to it, whereas the sense of hearing has only 1. While it's true that only one of the four craninal nerves devoted to vision actually transmits visual information to the occipital lobe of the brain, (the others innervate the small muscles of the eye) vision is arguably the most important sense. Does all this really matter? Not really becuase it all boils down to the emotional experience.

Music will always get my vote. I guess that's why I have a dedicated music system and no home theater.;)

the visual medium is more intense than that of sound.

I'll say! Especially when Eva Mendez or Natalie Portman are in the picture.

its an entirely different experience....its like comparing listening to music to reading a book.

Many Marshall McLuhan interviews on "hot" vs. "cool" media are available by searching Google.

Here's a quickie:

Marshall McLuhan, in the 1964 book "Understanding Media" (the "Medium is the Message" book) [MCLUHAN] spoke of "hot" and "cool" media. Contrary to what you'd probably expect that to mean, television, film, billboards, print ads, music videos are classified as "hot" media. They are complete and finite (and not interactive) and what you get is all there is to get. You can make it bigger or smaller, but that doesn't change the amount or nature of the content. The most you can get out of it is what was put into it. "Cool media" is stuff like books, music (without video) non-representational painting, architecture, or basically any experience (but not just the "fine" arts, cooking for example, or nature) any experience where the "consumer" must supply his/her imagination for the media experience to be complete. A simple example would be you are reading a book, and the author describes people and places, but it still requires your imagination to make it a complete experience for yourself.

So, to respond to your post, McLuhan considered that "cool" media provided the more compelling experience, since no one can ever experience it the same way twice. "Hot" media on the other hand, gives the same experience over and over again -- and no matter how wonderful or stimulating, eventually you can't find anything new in it.

the visual medium is more intense than that of sound.

music is more abstract than watching human beings relate to each other.

it is easier to identify and empathize with another human being than it it is to experience emotion when listening to music.

there are many types of music which don't elicit emotional responses.

if you had to give up your sight or your hearing, which would you give up first ?

the "eyes" have it over the ears. it is much easier to live
with a loss of hearing than a loss of sight.

i'm a filmmaker and my answer is, without a doubt, music. if i could make music, i would.

interesting thread, though. film can raise questions and sometimes provide answers. music cannot. why do i answer 'music?' someone please explain.

good music, no doubt. The acid test for me is - how many movies can you watch over, and over, and over again, and get as much or more enjoyment from than you did the first time?