Why do some think "music" (not gear, trading, etc.) is the ultimate end?


A recent thread spurred a debate about the word "audiophile." Again. It went round and round in the usual ways.

What I don't understand is why so many take for granted that loving music is superior to loving gear. Or that gear is always -- and must be -- a mere *means* to music, which is the (supposedly) true end.

But if you stop and think about it, why do we love music? It gives us enjoyment.
Isn't that why people love gear? The enjoyment?
Or even, to push the question, buying, selling, changing gear? That's for enjoyment, no?

So, it raises the difficult question: Why do some think that "music" as an "enjoyment" is better than "gear" or "shopping, buying, selling, trading"?

Not everyone believes this, but it is the most prevalent assumption in these discussions -- that "love of music" is the end-which-cannot-be-questioned. 

So, while music is the largest end I'm personally striving for, I do realize that it's because it brings me enjoyment. But the other facets of the hobby do, too. And I'm starting to realize that ranking them is an exercise but not a revelation of the "one" way everything should sort out. It's all pretty subjective and surely doesn't seem like a basis on which I could criticize someone else's enjoyment, right? 

What do you think? On what grounds do you see it argued that "music" is a *superior* or *ultimate* end? Whether you agree or not, what reasons do you think support that conclusion?
hilde45

Showing 3 responses by millercarbon

That book (Zen, etc) was popular around the time I was in college. Between the motorcycle angle and philosophy it seemed a natural for me, yet I never could get into it. Sometimes with time and experience things change and you find new meaning. But no. Thanks to the excerpt above I'm quite sure I was right to take a pass, and I care less and less for pretentious blather as the years go by. 


I don't know that the music is any more important than the gear- or the other way around. How could it be? As Robert Harley explains in his so excellent it should be required reading The Complete Guide to High End Audio, music is unique among communications in that the medium and the message are inseparable. Music can be written on a page but it is much more than a string of notes. Systems that are better are literally playing different music than lesser systems. 

Everyone knows this. Its one of the most common things people say with a good upgrade, they are hearing new things, things they never noticed before, etc.

Recently four audiophiles drove up from Portland to hear my system. The whole time I'm asking them what do you want to hear? Finally at the end one asked me to play my one special show off the system recording. I was actually kind of flummoxed. If the system is good enough its no longer the system you are showing off. The job of the system is to reproduce music. Not make. Reproduce. The whole idea of showing off like that, well think about it. Its like Arnold posing. He's showing off his muscles. But there is a lot more to Arnold than big muscles. Proved it by becoming a movie star and governor. I could play Bela Fleck Flight of the Cosmic Hippos, show off awesome bass. Not a lot of music content. Might as well be playing test tones. Flex, look at my guns! (Anchorman.)    

Of course music not gear is the ultimate end. How can anyone be so dense as to not see this? The ultimate goal is a system that disappears leaving only the music. Which cannot happen without a really good system. So of course the system is the ultimate end. How can anyone be so dense as to not see this?