So, a reviewer just said something I need to talk about.
I will not mention the reviewer, nor the specific equipment being reviewed, but this statement was made, talking about sax and strings: "the strings had real body, and it sounded like real strings being played". The tonality of the instruments was what he/she was talking about. I get this. The tone, the spatiality of the instruments, the stage that was presented. All well and good. What about the engagement between the listener and the musician. I have stated so many times here, ad nauseam, that the most important aspect of music listening, for me (and not enough with other listeners) is the "playing of the instruments". The artistry of the musician behind those strings. I just don’t get it. When I listen to Jeff Beck (RIP), using him as an example, what I am attracted to, FIRST & FOREMOST, is his PLAYING. Reviewers talk about "sound". Most people here talk about "sound". I spend more time now on other sites, that speak about the music playing and, the compositions. For whatever reasons, I seem to be realizing, that A’gon members, as so many reviewers, talk about sound. They very rarely mention MY most important aspect of listening. The musicianship and the compositions. Another rant from me. What are your thoughts on this? How do you listen? What do you listen for/to? What does your system convey to you? I know I am out of line again, but........My best to everyone. Always, MrD.
No, @audphile1 , you don't. But it is altogether possible that the more you spend the more you want out of it, and if you own a system that cost less than some of the power cords you referenced on a recent previous thread, you may have different priorities and different expectations. |
Being a musician and audiophile and general techie with an electronics background with some visual artistic endeavors...lol...I like ALL aspects of it. But I often wonder about too how some probably really get away from what would seem to be the end to the means...hearing music you love reproduced as realistically as possible. |
I go for the “connection “. Are the musicians speaking (not just playing) with their instruments? With their voice and words? It’s great to have a high end system, but, for me, it’s all about the MUSIC, not just the sound. |
The thing I like most about music is that it can express things that we don’t have other ways of expressing. You could talk to me all day about a Beethoven Symphony, for instance, but until I hear it I’ll have no idea what you are talking about. Once I hear it maybe some of what you said will make sense, but it won’t have said what the music itself communicated. As for individual expression of the performers, I’m not as much in to that. The music seems robust, in terms of who plays it and what instrument quality, what system it is reproduced on. It’s otherwise uncommunicable message can come across through any musician of reasonable skill to hit the right notes on time. I’m not saying that I’m listening to music right, and other are wrong. There’s nothing better or worse about focusing on the talent of the musician, or the excellence of the system. I take note of exceptional talent, and exceptionally good sounding playback equipment. I think it has worth. But it doesn’t come first for me. Strangely, I can often get more deeply drawn in to a piece while I’m struggling to learn to play it, or listening to someone else trying to learn it. I used to lay on the floor while my sister practiced piano, mesmerized by the development of the piece as she got better and better each time through. |
