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

@rvpiano Know exactly what you mean. I won’t prattle on about this, but Pirsig’s Zen and the Art novel does a good job of explaining why we take these different moments of ourselves and divide them into categories -- such as "left brain/right brain," "objective/subjective," "classical/romantic," etc. You can see the level of emotion in the posts here -- how strongly people are committed to thinking of these aspects as "sides." Frequently, they oppose the other side *or* the collapse of the two sides. In the end, there is a bird’s flight, i.e., experience full of perchings (analysis) and flights (action, passion).

It’s almost like having a split personality for me. One part audiophile the other music lover. When the audiophile takes over I almost cease to listen to the music, concentrate on the sound and lose the musical message. When the music lover is present, the whole package becomes apparent, and I can wallow in the pleasure of both sound and music.

@onhwy61  Love that reply! You're a Pythagorean, at heart, since any score or blueprint could be reduced to mathematical relationships involved. Everything is numbers (and their ratios) and anything beyond that is a mere epiphenomenon.

A musical score, at least to someone who understands them, is a complete and fully realized piece of music.  It's similar to architectural blueprints.  You don't actually have to construct the building to be able to walk through the space.

Much to say about some of the more recent comments, but since the thread has been deemed closed......

Yes, peace, all!

rv, we are in agreement. No need to apologize. Sound and music shape my affections as well; each to different degrees.


hilde45, you asked some questions and I answered them, according to my feelings on the matter. You asked “what do you think?” “on what grounds do you see it argued that music is a superior end?” and “what reasons support that conclusion?”. I gave you honest answers. I’m sorry you didn’t like my answers, or that you feel they are politically incorrect somehow. As I said, we are all free to enjoy this hobby in the manner of our choosing; that is obvious. However, this doesn’t mean that we don’t each have personal opinions on the matter. I made it clear that I love audio, but I find the idea that the gear and even the buying of it is as enjoyable and satisfying as the music....well, odd to say the least. That’s just me. If this is not you, be comfortable in your own skin. I am sorry if this offends you in some way, but remember, it was you that first questioned why some of us feel the way that we do.

@edcyn Seconded and....thread unfollowed! Peace, all!

hilde45 -- 
Your post eloquently brings this discussion to its finish.  By the infinite power vested in me, the august edcyn, I hereby declare this thread closed!

@rvpiano  I totally get where you're coming from. I would just add this comment. Leonardo Da Vinci was an artist and an engineer, a painter and an inventor; the "how" of things and the "feel" of things commingled for him. Their entanglement were the conditions which made him who he was -- and great, to boot. There are countless others who combined imagination and calculation, too. The view that one of these human faculties is "ultimately" more important may be an expression of personal preference, but as an expression of "how things really are," it's baseless. Would we have anything to play on our rigs without music? Of course not. Would we have anything to say without brains? No. But without means to communicate, who knows what we'd think? What would music be without anything to play it on?

This extends past gear to instruments themselves. A harpsichord score without a harpsichord? Nothing. Then came the forte piano and then the fully developed piano. More music was inspired and developed by those instruments because they provided modalities without which certain musical creations couldn't come into being. Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier" was made possible by Bach *and* developments in the technology of the piano. As McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." 

Hey @rvpiano- simple solution....only play music you like that is well recorded, pressed, and sounds great. You’ll have less selection but won’t be unhappy. Listen to the other stuff in the car, and the stuff you can’t get into, sell.

After frogman’s post I feel it very necessary to clarify my stance.
Of course, sound cannot begin to approach the profundity of spirit and soul that the art of music can supply (or any other great art for that matter.) They certainly don’t exist on an equal plain.
And I must apologize if I put that forth as a credo.
What I am saying is that this system “toy” gives me great pleasure in and of it itself.  Often I listen just for the “sound.” I realize that is not ideally why I’m listening.  But I’m seduced by the sensuality of it. And it IS an enjoyment in itself. Unfortunately the content of the music can suffer. I admit it is a big problem for me.  I often can’t get into the soul of the music.  And I’m unhappy about it.  But it just can’t be helped.
So, like it or not, sound and music share my affections

@frogman said:

Now, everyone is free to approach and enjoy this hobby any way that it suits him and judging this is pointless.

Then you go ahead and judge. Ok, so which is it? Is this a non-judgable, everyone is free to believe their own truth about this topic? Or do is  your true for more than just one person (you)? I’m fine with you asserting that this question is relative to each person or asserting that there is an objective truth to the matter -- but which is it? FWIW, I have already laid out a number of opinions on this thread and don’t care to rehearse them, so take a look earlier if you care to see them.

Some people (mostly male when it comes to audio and other mechanical objects) just plain love gear. That gear may have a purpose:

Cars: Driving
Cameras: Taking pictures
Audio: Listening to music
Bikes: Riding

But I think it's completely fair that some people love the stuff more than what the stuff is intended to do. That happens in all of the categories I've listed above...Cars that are only shown, not driven, Bikes that are collected and not ridden, etc. Who am I to judge what others take pleasure in doing.

I am not aware of anyone ever having been brought to tears from staring at a silent pair of speakers.

I always weep  in front of my silent speakers....

But it is after listening to Scriabin or Chet Baker....

Never before.....

@frogman I agree and at the same time have seen someone's face go white from staring at a silent speaker with a whole in the woofer after his son decided to poke a hole in it with his pirates sword!  He was strong...he didn't cry.  He also managed to 'coach his son' on not damaging things while recognizing kids will be kids.

**** The original question is why do some dismiss the love of gear by the tactic of making music an ultimate end. ****

Simple, because for some it IS the ultimate end. “Making music the ultimate end” is not a “tactic” for many music lovers, it is a reflection of appreciation for the depth of the greatness of inspired music making.

Now, everyone is free to approach and enjoy this hobby any way that it suits him and judging this is pointless. Moreover, I am not aware of any preponderance of “dismissal” of the love of gear on the part of those for whom music is the ultimate end. I love my audio toys, but not nearly as much as I love great music; even if on mediocre recordings. I am frankly surprised at the number of posters that have put the gear on an equal or even superior footing to the music.

Inconvenient truths: First, let’s start with the simple fact that without music the gear is useless; unless put on a shelf for viewing only. That simple fact alone puts music on a higher plane than the gear. The music does not need the gear; the gear needs the music. This goes to the heart of why the live music experience is best of all; as problematic as it may be in some respects, but that’s a different story. While acknowledging the great skill and creativity that goes into designing a great piece of gear, to compare this achievement to that reflected in, say, a Bach cantata or Beethoven symphony; or, the spontaneous inspiration behind a great John Coltrane or Jeff Beck solo strikes me as a bit shallow. Moreover, I would bet that most of the great gear designers would agree and would be the first to acknowledge this.

I am not aware of anyone ever having been brought to tears from staring at a silent pair of speakers.

( by luck ) I am with Bill Hart. I own a Browning Superposed Grade V Diana with engraving by Doyen, one of the Master engravers ....it is hunted hard. Some find this shocking, as I am sure the Pheasant do. My Dog on the other hand makes no distinction in favoring the Diana....as long as we go and there are birds...

i will say put some acoustic unamplified music in your life...for intimacy, connection, simplicity, grace, delicacy, force....

Being a former musician this is hard for me to say, but the sound IS as important to me now as is the music.  Unless it’s a historic performance of great merit, I can’t listen to  a mediocre sounding recording without turning it off. And conversely, I might bear a mediocre rendering if it sounds amazing.

@vitto You seem to know yourself well, and that's great. I find that the pleasures are of different sorts -- the difference, e.g. of enjoying a sensual pleasure (such as music or food) vs. enjoying a good puzzle (analyzing sound or doing a crossword). I don't feel a need to rank them, but your point about keeping a balance of them in my life is right on!

Attention to gear and sound can take away from the pleasures of listening to music. 
It brings me great pleasure to analyse sound and enjoy beautiful amplifiers and speakers.
But often, as I concentrate on sound and gear, I find myself overlooking the music. 
It is important to strike a fine balance, always remembering that gear is the means and and music is the end.   
As much as I can enjoy playing with gear, it's the music that really fills my heart with infinite joy.  
Gear will give me great satisfaction, albeit at a different level.
A bit like comparing material and spiritual pleasures.

@sokoogear Threads lead in many directions. It's like a conversation. Tangents sometimes lead interesting places. When they don't, I stop following or skip over, as is your strategy. To each their own. Peace.

@hilde45-time is money and once clicking I go down a rabbit hole for curiosity. Seems as  if you are encouraging the divergence instead of sticking with your OP,  and mahgister is encouraging you with a back and forth.

My $.02, but note that I am still following....but not reading the complete “esoteric” posts.

Thanks and merry christmas edcyn....😌

mahgister -- Love your post.  A true attempt to argue that meaning can indeed exist within a piece of music.

It remind me of my schoolyard teen years, when some objected about listening the words they dont understand or reacted to interest they dont like....My hate of crowd come from these years indeed....

Coming back to the OP matter, gear has no interest to me apart from their contribution to sound quality....
Music is a so deep subject that Stuart Hameroff says with Roger Penrose that the brain is more akin to an orchestra than to a computing device...

I know they are right because in the music the signification and the sound wave body make one complete unity.... This cenesthesy is already the perception of an encompassing reality.... In this sense the music is a multidimensional consciousness potential in the making.... A computation suppose that and his itself only the shadow of a more deep music.....It is not bad poetry when a great mathematician physicist, Michael Berry, call the prime distribution a musical event, not only a mere computational event....

Understanding music is akin to improve our conscious participation in the phenomenas flow in our own body and in the world that are always ONE anyway, and that are made one on another level for the conscious listening experience, and Pirsig outpassing the sterile subject /object customs and barrier is a walk in the right direction indeed....



:)

@sokogear There are many threads of an esoteric nature. No one compelled you to come back to this thread, to read it, to reply to it. You are free to leave, anytime. You clicked on it -- so what? You didn’t pay, you’re not contracted to check back. So don’t.

Many people are naturally philosophical and make philosophical observations all the time. I learn from them and I’m interested in hearing them. There have been some on this thread. You may resent the fact that you’re not inclined that way, but no one is forcing you, so...exit if you’re not interested. To each his/her own.

What is this a philosophy, English or history class? If that was the subject of the OP, I surely would not have clicked in. Come on, I’m sure there are a lot of other forums out there that have readers who all want to hear about this stuff, but I would bet 5% or less Audiogoners do.

Thanks hilde45...

Pirsig is an interesting writer and your recommendation is interesting...

Pirsig was pushing toward something like a more integrated view, a connective, dynamic way of seeing experience rather than pigeonholing ways of seeing.

You are right and it is the reason why i name few of my favorite to walk the same walk....

I only push the many writers i did recommend to go more on the same road, and Dewey was indeed one of the great american thinker with Peirce, and few others....

By the way the best friend of Goethe is a thinker in his own way and express very deep thinking about the polarities in his own way in a very simple and deep book : Schiller "on the aesthetic education of man" a pleasure to read...

Happy holiday to you and all....

@mahgister I also like the aesthetics of John Dewey -- experience-based, interactive. "Classical" and "Romantic" are old labels meant to capture something, but they hardened and set people apart. That's his thrust, I think. Pirsig was pushing toward something like a more integrated view, a connective, dynamic way of seeing experience rather than pigeonholing ways of seeing. Good work done here: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781403974020

And yes! Have a great holiday.

Pretentious blather is in the eye of the beholder. 

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. 

To go way deeper than with Pirsig in the same direction, try Jean Gebser, "the ever present origin" and reading Julian Jaynes and Ernst Cassirer will do the rest of the job....

Classical and romantic, or left brain and right brain are surface manifestation of polarities deeply seated in the dynamic genesis history of consciousness...

Gebser, Cassirer, and Jaynes are all complementary works but perhaps a bit hard to read then i suggest this small book, very astounding one indeed : Owen Barfield, "saving the appearence" and more easy read than the three i recommended already : Iain McGilchrist: "the master and his emissary" will complement Barfield.....After these 2 you are ready for Gebser/Jaynes/Cassirer....

In one small book by the physicist Henri Bortoft, disciple of David Bohm: an explanation of Goethe vision and perception: "taken appearence seriously"... Understanding Goethe the greatest thinker since Plato and easily the more underestimated and difficult to understand anyway, is very helpful even if you read none of the books i suggest....Goethe was a supremum artist and his science understanding had 2 centuries in advance then.....😊

The best Christmas to you and to all.....

We can agree to disagree on what "the point" is of the book. A few key passages point me toward my judgment. 

Pirsig: “A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in term of immediate appearance. If you were to show an engine or a mechanical drawing or electronic schematic to a romantic it is unlikely he would see much of interest in it. Is has no appeal because the reality he sees is its surface. Dull, complex lists of names, lines and numbers. Nothing interesting. But if you were to show the same blueprint of schematic or give the same description to a classical person he might look at it and then become fascinated by it because he sees that within the lines and shapes and symbols is a tremendous richness of underlying form.

The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. “Art” when it is opposed to “Science” is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience. […]

The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason and by laws – which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior. […]

Although surface ugliness is often found in the classic mode of understanding it is not inherent in it. There is a classic esthetic which romantics often miss because of its subtlety. The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned. Its purpose is not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the unknown known. It is not an esthetically free and natural style. It is esthetically restrained. Everything is under control. Its value is measured in terms of the skill with which this control is maintained.

To a romantic this classic mode often appears dull, awkward and ugly, like mechanical maintenance itself. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components and relationships. Nothing is figured out until it’s run through the computer a dozen times. Everything’s got to be measured and proved. Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. the death force.

Within the classic mode, however, the romantic has some appearances of his own. Frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure-seeking. Shallow. Of no substance. Often a parasite who cannot of will not carry his own weight. A real drag on society. By now these battle lines should sound a little familiar.

This is the source of the trouble. Persons tend to think and feel exclusively in one mode or the other and in doing so tend to misunderstand and underestimate what the other mode is all about. But no one is willing to give up the truth as he sees it, and as far as I know, no one now living has any real reconciliation of these truths or modes. There is no paint at which these visions of reality are unified.

And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture – two world growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way, a house divided against itself. No one wants it really – despite what his antagonists in the other dimension might think.”

hilde45 I disagree. The point of Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is that the mechanical aspect worked along with the ride to cement the bond between father and son.  Without the ride, the maintenance, much less the bike, is worthless, as is audio equipment without the music.

For me its about enjoying music that I like to the maximum possible level. If I could listen to every song I play at a concert (in a good venue) with non-animal fans showing up, that's nirvana. Unfortunately, many of my records are by artists that are no longer with us, so it's impossible. Other than that, it's how can I come as close to that experience as possible? Most live albums are not recorded well, but when you find them....BINGO. Otherwise well recorded, mastered and pressed studio albums will have to do. 

To do that you need an excellent stereo and high quality records (some would say streaming or RTR or HiRez DLs or SACDS or whatever, but that's not the point here) to come as close to that experience as possible.

To the hardware fetishists/collectors, insanely obsessed tweakers, record collectors (or should I say investors) who never play or even open them, constant upgradeitis victims with monopoly money to blow (or sadly not like I was in college), or those who listen to the same thing over and over to hear "the wire" and not the music, I'm not going to criticize you. It's a free country (and mostly free world) so whatever floats your boat. BTW, at times I can be all of the above.

I will mention that my son loves music (he is out of college and off the payroll, so he is in control of his finances), and likes a lot of the music that I like +rap, and just got his first hifi system. It's an $8 speaker he bought at Walmart to play music from his iPhone. He asks me why I care so much about the sound - he can hear the music just fine and it worked great when the had a few people over. I recently sold an older amp and preamp I was saving for him because I knew it was hopeless (he knew I had it for him and all he needed was a source box and speakers and didn't care)....If he does ever become interested in music sound quality and wants to spend judiciously, he can go explore some used equipment. And he has someone to help him.

Listening music is a spiritual endeavour, like mathematics or poetry...

Listening music not only give enjoyment, like collecting cadavers when you are a good sniper, or female bodies if you are a pimp,or cars or gear or postal stamps; listening music can and must transform the soul coming from the spirit....

Then audiophile hobby is not essentially collecting gear, not even implementing the rightful controls of the 3 embeddings for any audio system, it is listening music first with the wish to listen to it with the optimal sound experience possible....


Music is more than only pastime enjoyment, it can be also therapeutical, and it can liberate our limited senses and by a cenestesic miracle propel our soul to the spirit world where all our senses merge in an interpenetrating one....



« At the end music is no more incoming waves of sound»- Groucho Marx thinking about the deaf Beethoven

For me it is simple. If I had to choose between hearing the music I love on a less than optimal system, vs having to listen to music that I dislike on a great system, I’d pick the former
every time.

@mahler123
Nice to hear your thinking on this, but that’s not the original question. The original question is why do some dismiss the love of gear by the tactic of making music an ultimate end. Your answer is to a different and much easier question -- but I'm still glad you posed it because it opens more doors.

  I am not sure why the angst over the original question.  For me it is simple.  If I had to choose between hearing the music I love on a less than optimal system, vs having to listen to music that I dislike on a great system, I'd pick the former
every time.  Fortunately I don't have to make that choice, and certainly I enjoy how great gear enhances that music.   Now, if there really are people that appreciate great gear but don't like music, I am not going to stop them, although I would be puzzled by their choice

Mmm, now that's an interesting and compelling comparison....the pursuit of excellence in cooking vs. the reproduction of ones' music...*s*...

One is the daily need for sustenance...basic through luxurious.
The other, a need to feed a different form of hunger that also has its' own span of satiation....;)

Both exhibit a 'range' of means towards their ends:
-Cooking over an open fire, the fare suspended on a green stick....to a 'full boat'  kitchen, with the 'hi-end' stove, fridge, utensils, et al...
-The bedside clock radio 'kick-starting' ones' day through the monoblock amps driving 2001 monolith-scaled speakers, the entire affair rivaling the cost of a very well-appointed Mercedes....*L*

Both fill a need....but existence precedes essence.

One can live without music, after all.  A somewhat bleak future to contemplate in a dystopian someday, but I suspect even the most jaded audiophile stripped of the 'mega-system' would pick up sticks and tap out a rhythm to scratch the itch while bbq'ing the days' catch....

"Life Before the Comet" hits the Top Ten of Fireside Chants....coming to a drum circle near you! *wry chuckle*

It all started out that way, after all....and I find contemplation of When The Music Started.... and Why....interesting on multiple levels...

When did the sound of rocks and sticks with early versions of 'raps' and yowls give way to...perhaps something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRg_8NNPTD8

...sans the amplification, of course....;)

Obviously, the emotional 'drive' to create and experience 'music' has deep roots within the human experience, considering that it's existence is pretty universal....at least, on this tiny rock in the void....

...and the noise kept the wolves away....*G*

All in fun, J

The OP’s question is a very valid one.  Continuing my last post, I realize that occupying so much time and effort on improving your system, it’s practically impossible to ignore it while listening to your music.  It inevitably worms it’s way into your consciousness (or unconscious) rendering concentration on the music only partial.
If you can let that not happen, more power to you.
I can’t!

My eyes are too glazed over to pore over every post here, but it's probably been said many times in this thread that the better the sound quality, the closer we audio nerds get to the music's emotional essence.

The problem of my constant upgrading, is that I may never be able to get back to the point of listening to music PURELY for itself without adulterating it with the scourge of “good sound.”
Very sad.

@asvjerry Thanks for your answer. Something you made me think about is that music is a necessary condition for having audio equipment and skills to use it at all. (This is obvious.) Then again, the need for fuel is a necessary condition of having cooking equipment and skills, too. Recipes, techniques, and the "joy of cooking" are now just assumed as normal parts of the preparation of fuel (nutrition) and someone could say "I love to eat good food but I enjoy preparing it even more" and many wouldn’t bat an eye. What got this thread going for me was the notion that when people say "I love to listen to music but I enjoy the gear and techniques even more" there are more than a few who see the focus away from music as being a sign of something wrong. As I’ve said before in this thread, I’m not saying any particular valuation is right or wrong. I’m more interested in understanding the nearly automatic response (of some) that music is the *only* plausible ultimate value.

If it wasn't for the enjoyment of music, I'd likely not own the stuff I do.

Given that the bulk of it isn't SOTA (the 'purpose-built' computer that links some of it together being the exception), I tinker with my penchant for DIY'ing Walsh speakers, rather than the 'system' as a whole.

In that regard, one could say that's my 'hobby' aspect.
If it wasn't for music, eclectic as my 'tastes' go, I wouldn't bother with any of it.

Listening to music on said system is the primary function of it.  It's been set up to wreak the 'best possible' from it, within the knaves' budget that's driven the collection.  I suspect having the kings' ransom to put towards it would mostly make it appear a tad more acceptable to some elements of the gathered readers here.  But it's 'end function' would remain the same.

I listen to what I enjoy listening to, on equipment that allows for a 'certain level of competance' to do so.

It's quiet @ 'idle'; has no 'quirks' that 'get in the way' of listening to anything I care to listen to, which is what I like to 'do' with it.

The only 'critical listening' performed with it is to see what my diy efforts are yielding.  That's where/when/how it functions as an instrument towards an end.  I can tell when the 'upstream' engineers have been lazy or lax, when compression exists (or not), or the recordings suffer from the existing technology of the time.

But I don't let that get in 'the' or 'my' way of just enjoying listening to the music it reproduces.

There are other concerns in my existence that demand OCD-level attention.  Entertainment is a means of recovery from those activities.

Good thread, BTW.  Not too much negativity so far....;)

Enjoy what you may, J

edcyn,  You are very nice. Point taken!

danvignau -- Yeah, I get a kick out of the '70's music obsession here.  But be nice! Call it "predilection." 

@danvignau  Thanks for clarifying: either "demononic audiophilia" with neurotic music tastes or relatively normal love-of-music.

Someone asked for my raison d'etre for my post, but I can't even find my post:   I said that if music is not the object, one might as well be collecting stamps or watches.  Let me put it more succinctly:  As a psychologist, my highly opinionated reasoning is that some people are so insecure that they are never satisfied, and never will be.  Too many of them (US?) who are possessed demononic Audiophilia, could simply listen to the music, and tryd to learn about more music.  Then, after many years of this music therapy, they could lose some of their hoarding symptoms and insecurity, and then live a relatively normal life.  Unfortunately, from the music list in another post, I believe many of those who are afflicted are neurotically stuck in the 1970's, for example, furiously trying to make their old music sound better, when there is a whole world of music to explore. TeeHee

@danvignau The question asked "on what grounds does one assert that?" Care to elaborate what your reasons for asserting it are?  

If your love of music is not the object, you might as well collect stamps, or watches.