What are we listening to...for...with?


As a long time audio enthusiast and former professional musician (double reeds) I'm interested in hearing opinions on a couple of related observations.

First obbo: A few years ago I had the privilege of visiting with the principal conductor of one of the major US symphonies--one of the biggest of the biggies. I was doubly blessed that among the guests was the music director of another orchestra in the same league. Between them, these guys probably account for a hundred or more recordings. I found my host relaxing by listening to his home equipment--an Aiwa all-in-one-box system that sounded to me like a miniature car crusher hard at work. When I questioned him, his offhand reply was, "Oh, I know what it is supposed to sound like." I pressed further: "So then are you listening for performance practice or interpretation or what?" "Nah," he replied, "I'm just enjoying the music." At which point the other internationally famous conductor chimed in to say that his home system was 30 year old HH Scott....

Second obbo: A few nights ago, I went to a friend's for an evening of listening. His system is primarily Krell electronics and a pair of Vienna Mahlers. Among other things, we heard the Slatkin/St. Louis/Telarc recording of the Vaughn Williams Fantasia on a Theme of Tallis, Barber Adagio for Strings, etc. Conversation ranged over several topics including Telarc engineering, "Krell sound," cables (what else?), and the suitability of the Mahlers for orchestral music. Finally I said, "Isn't anybody bothered by the crappy playing and conducting on this disc?" Blank looks all around. Finally, one friend, an oratorio singer, ventured, "Well, the strings WERE a bit out of tune on the Barber." Out of tune? They sounded like cats screwing on a tin roof! Slatkin failed to totally realize Grainger's luscious harmonies on the Tune from County Derry, and the playing throughout was tentative, almost hesitant.

My question for you folks: Are these observations two sides of a common coin? Do some of us listen only to the sound and others only to the music? Are these common phenomena? What's going on?
bishopwill

Showing 1 response by bobj

I read the many thoughtful responses to Bishopwill’s intelligent question with interest. I agree with Bomarc’s comment that sound and music are two different hobbies, high-end audio and music appreciation. But the two are related.

An analogy in my experience is bird watching. I go bird watching with a friend who is far more knowledgeable than I about birds. His appreciation of the experience is in some respects greater. I bring a pair of Swarovski EL 8x42 binoculars and a TeleVue 85 mm spotting scope, while my friend has a pair of Bushnell binoculars. In audio terms, that is like comparing the absolute best tube preamp and SET amp (I will not venture to guess what that is) with an inexpensive receiver. With greater knowledge of the birds, my appreciation of the experience grows. However, I also appreciate the instrument though which I observe the birds, and the optical clarity of the image. The instrument itself is to me also a thing of beauty. It enables me better to experience the beauty and awe of what I am observing, and contributes to the overall experience.

I have a love of acoustic jazz. Much of the music I listen to was recorded between 1926 and 1959. I can appreciate a poorly recorded Charlie Parker session, because of the innovation and creativity of the music, its historical context, and the unique excellence of his art. However, the experience is much more enjoyable if the recording is of high quality, and the stereo system produces a more engaging natural sound. Part of the experience also is an appreciation of the instrument, in this case the stereo system, and of the assemblage of the system, which itself can be considered an art form. All of this contributes to the overall experience.

The sound and the music complement each other. In my view, a greater appreciation of each enhances the appreciation of both.

Best regards,