detlof: excellent thread! and from a shrink, no less. (you accomplished, BTW, what i set out to do in my reckless youth, and i envy you for your accomplishments. i, alas became a lawyer, saving not souls or minds but perhaps, now and then, a portfolio or, even more rarely, a mans, a woman's or a family's honor.) perhaps you relate somehow to "analyze this" ? let me at least believe that this is so, until i am dissuaded to the contrary.
there are, as my compatriots have already noted, as many answers to your query as there are among us. it would be easy, more-or-less, if we were to cling to HP's vision of "the absolute sound." the big problem is that nearly nothing's recorded nowadays without an amplified "boost" or a digital enhancement. i go to live concerts, lots of 'em. but i gain little from those experiences but for those heavenly times when i can hear what a 21st century conductor decides what an 18th century composer must have thought, and i usually agree. since i am less capable of entering the mind of mozart or brahms, or even john lennon, than my learned heirs of music, I accept for the most part the truth of their vision.
"musicality," thus becomes that which we feel is "real," through our ears, our skin, our experience and our desire. it is this subjective view of subjectivity that makes our hobby exciting and valuable to those among us who would otherwise doubt the lack of empirical "realism." for me, at least, we must distrust objectivity in this realm, much the same way as spies create a mythos of believability by rationally rejecting the most unbelievable hypotheses.
i don't wanna get off on a rant here, but, IMHO, the drive to find the musical variety of sounds is no less important among us than the search of arthurian knights for the holy grail. monty python reminded us of the folly of this quest, tho i doubt we'll be knocked off course voluntarily 'til we encounter our own knights who say nih." -kelly
there are, as my compatriots have already noted, as many answers to your query as there are among us. it would be easy, more-or-less, if we were to cling to HP's vision of "the absolute sound." the big problem is that nearly nothing's recorded nowadays without an amplified "boost" or a digital enhancement. i go to live concerts, lots of 'em. but i gain little from those experiences but for those heavenly times when i can hear what a 21st century conductor decides what an 18th century composer must have thought, and i usually agree. since i am less capable of entering the mind of mozart or brahms, or even john lennon, than my learned heirs of music, I accept for the most part the truth of their vision.
"musicality," thus becomes that which we feel is "real," through our ears, our skin, our experience and our desire. it is this subjective view of subjectivity that makes our hobby exciting and valuable to those among us who would otherwise doubt the lack of empirical "realism." for me, at least, we must distrust objectivity in this realm, much the same way as spies create a mythos of believability by rationally rejecting the most unbelievable hypotheses.
i don't wanna get off on a rant here, but, IMHO, the drive to find the musical variety of sounds is no less important among us than the search of arthurian knights for the holy grail. monty python reminded us of the folly of this quest, tho i doubt we'll be knocked off course voluntarily 'til we encounter our own knights who say nih." -kelly