Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 20:36:51 GMT -5
i.e., if you like what you're hearing, that's what counts! It's like the old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....let me ask, has anyone thought that someone (or maybe most people) don't actually hear the frequency that we are supposed to hear, hence, the difference in opinion, just a thought.... I have no doubt not everyone operates at the same wave length let alone has cultivated senses regardless of having the faculties to be receptive through hearing sources or references as meant to be conveyed. For example, "beauty in the eye of the beholder" is a saying often used to convey subjectivity and opinion. Beauty has challenged thinkers from antiquity. In the arts Latin ars, akin to the Greek techne, which, for the ancients referred to certain skills, as the objective of these “arts” was to make or do things as they ought to be done, recta ratio factibilium. That is, a sense of "oughtness" comes as an aspect of objective beauty. In other facets of life, for example, to the thinker, truth being in the mind of the thinker, would be as beauty is in the mind (eye) of the beholder. In theology [theo=God, Logos=the word about God] the object of study is the Creator [source of beauty] as well as His characteristics and attributes such as the Law Giver of morality. That is, objective beauty compels us to do as ought to be done. Such objective beauty compels one to, say, praise, as one example, and to appreciate the Supreme Artist let alone His brush or canvas, that is, whether the sun set or ocean is seen or heard in creation objective beauty brings about a response sometimes awe. Such art when captured by the artist which exhibits integrity acts in ways or attempts to not take away or to add anything implying that excess and defect destroy the goodness of the object. If art requires skill, discipline, integrity, etc., etc., then beauty needs be cultivated in the eyes of the beholder to reflect the source or reference as perfectly "as is" in replication. Unfortunately, modern society in the areas of art rather than ascending upward to the “Absolute" have instead in the present regressed back to barbarism much to the demise of aesthetics as well as Western values.
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Sept 29, 2020 20:55:05 GMT -5
It's like the old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....let me ask, has anyone thought that someone (or maybe most people) don't actually hear the frequency that we are supposed to hear, hence, the difference in opinion, just a thought.... I have no doubt not everyone operates at the same wave length let alone has cultivated senses regardless of having the faculties to be receptive through hearing sources or references as meant to be conveyed. For example, "beauty in the eye of the beholder" is often a saying often used to convey subjectivity and opinion. Beauty has challenged thinkers from antiquity. In the arts Latin ars, akin to the Greek techne, which, for the ancients, referred to certain skills]] the object of these “arts” was to make or do things as they ought to be done, recta ratio factibilium. That is, a sense of "oughtness" comes as an aspect of beauty. In other facets of life, for example, to the thinker, truth being in the mind of the thinker, would be as beauty is in the mind (eye) of the beholder. In theology [theo=God, Logos=the word about God] the object of study is the Creator [source of beauty] as well as His characteristics and attributes such as the Law Giver of morality. That is, objective beauty compels us to do as ought to be done. Such objective beauty compels one to, say, praise, as one example, and to appreciate the supreme artist's canvas whether the sun set or ocean in creation which brings about an emotional state of awe. Such art when captured by the artist which exhibits integrity acts in attempts to not take away or to add anything implying that excess and defect destroy the goodness of the object. If art require skill, discipline, integrity, etc., etc., then beauty needs be cultivated in the eyes of the beholder to reflect the source or reference as perfectly "as is" [discernment]. Unfortunately, modern society in the areas of art rather than ascending onward and upward to the “Absolute" instead present trends pointing rather towards barbarism and the demise of aesthetics as well as Western values on all fronts. You get my point...you see a piece of art, and you might want to shoot it, but the person next to you might shoot you if you do, the other person might want to pay $2 million for the same piece.....in music, I can have a car drive by me with a music I hate, plus it sounds like crap, but the person driving might be having the time of his/her life...a person might love a $150 pair of speakers, not caring for the $3k pair of speakers...then again the hearing might be so different in almost all of us that make all of us choose....genre makes a difference as well....
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 29, 2020 22:58:02 GMT -5
i.e., if you like what you're hearing, that's what counts! It's like the old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....let me ask, has anyone thought that someone (or maybe most people) don't actually hear the frequency that we are supposed to hear, hence, the difference in opinion, just a thought.... Very true, we all have different ranges in our ability to hear so the same speaker is going to sound different to different people. Just like the way we hear a concert will sound different depending on our hearing range. We can say that even so, the "best" speaker is the one that most faithfully reproduces the original sound even if we have a limited range, but then even with concerts the sound won't be mixed the same. One concert will sound different from the other depending on who the sound engineer is. That's why I think it pretty much boils down to if we like it our own selves or not.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 29, 2020 23:15:59 GMT -5
My oh my - this thread has turned into the Presidential debate! (LOL in a non-political way).
My stand, for the record, is that there DOES exist an objective truth - but we do all perceive it differently. And to defend my viewpoint, I fall back on my usual shared experience:
Walking down a city street you and I hear music from a couple of blocks away. Within milliseconds our brains both decide (accurately, as it turns out) whether the music is live or recorded. There is no doubt in this discernment, and we come to the same conclusion consistently in spite of background traffic noise, building reflections, etc. This isn't a "preference" - we both absolutely know. And although our brains certainly perceive the input differently, we both reach the correct conclusion both immediately and without conscious thought.
THAT's an objective truth. I've had this situation happen more than once and with more than one companion. All of us were right EVERY time.
Boom
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 30, 2020 9:12:22 GMT -5
My oh my - this thread has turned into the Presidential debate! (LOL in a non-political way). My stand, for the record, is that there DOES exist an objective truth - but we do all perceive it differently. And to defend my viewpoint, I fall back on my usual shared experience: Walking down a city street you and I hear music from a couple of blocks away. Within milliseconds our brains both decide (accurately, as it turns out) whether the music is live or recorded. There is no doubt in this discernment, and we come to the same conclusion consistently in spite of background traffic noise, building reflections, etc. This isn't a "preference" - we both absolutely know. And although our brains certainly perceive the input differently, we both reach the correct conclusion both immediately and without conscious thought. THAT's an objective truth. I've had this situation happen more than once and with more than one companion. All of us were right EVERY time. Boom That's not "truth," that's shared perception and mutual interpretation. It's because we are humans, that's how our brains work. The people in your example have similar frames of reference for music, that's all. It does not mean there is some universal truth buried in that music, only that more than one person perceived it and interpreted it similarly. A much more simple example is a stop sign. Most of us when driving perceive the stop sign and follow those instructions without thinking about it. Does that mean the stop sign represents some universal truth? No, it means the stop sign signifies a concept we as drivers have been trained to understand and to take certain actions based upon that understanding. It's Semiotics in action. Someone who lacks experience and training about stop signs will not perceive it the same way nor give it the same meaning.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 30, 2020 9:28:03 GMT -5
Sounds to me like that spurious argument about indians seeing the first Spanish gallion approaching. The argument has been made that since the sight was totally out of their experience, that they didn't see the gallion. BS - They may not have known what it was, but they saw SOMETHING.
Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. The perception of whether music is live or recorded is neither a sign nor a symbol. It's as native to our brains as whether the rustle in the dark behind us is or isn't a saber-toothed tiger, to use a historical antecedent.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 30, 2020 9:37:16 GMT -5
Sounds to me like that spurious argument about indians seeing the first Spanish gallion approaching. The argument has been made that since the sight was totally out of their experience, that they didn't see the gallion. BS - They may not have known what it was, but they saw SOMETHING. Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. The perception of whether music is live or recorded is neither a sign nor a symbol. It's as native to our brains as whether the rustle in the dark behind us is or isn't a saber-toothed tiger, to use a historical antecedent. Saying it's not part of Semiotics is incorrect. A sound is a sign just like a visual cue is a sign. Regardless, reaction to music is not at all like reaction to a danger such as a 'sabre tooth tiger." And knowing what the cat sounds LIKE is very much learned. Knowing to RUN is instinct. The only part of reacting to music that might be part of our basic brain function is dancing. Interpreting live VS recorded VS wind blowing through the reeds is learned, and is part of our perceptual framework. A person with no experience of the difference between live or recorded would only hear difference, but will not know how to interpret it until they have learned. Much like your Spanish Galleon example. My ancestors should have known it meant danger, but they had no experience with it. And by the way they weren't "indians."
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 30, 2020 9:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 10:22:20 GMT -5
Sounds to me like that spurious argument about indians seeing the first Spanish gallion approaching. The argument has been made that since the sight was totally out of their experience, that they didn't see the gallion. BS - They may not have known what it was, but they saw SOMETHING. Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. The perception of whether music is live or recorded is neither a sign nor a symbol. It's as native to our brains as whether the rustle in the dark behind us is or isn't a saber-toothed tiger, to use a historical antecedent. Saying it's not part of Semiotics is incorrect. A sound is a sign just like a visual cue is a sign. Regardless, reaction to music is not at all like reaction to a danger such as a 'sabre tooth tiger." And knowing what the cat sounds LIKE is very much learned. Knowing to RUN is instinct. The only part of reacting to music that might be part of our basic brain function is dancing. Interpreting live VS recorded VS wind blowing through the reeds is learned, and is part of our perceptual framework. A person with no experience of the difference between live or recorded would only hear difference, but will not know how to interpret it until they have learned. Much like your Spanish Galleon example. My ancestors should have known it meant danger, but they had no experience with it. And by the way they weren't "indians." Cool, if they are not Indians historical peace treaties are now null. J/king.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 30, 2020 11:09:05 GMT -5
Nor do we need perpetuate historical racism. OK, this discussion is done. Have a good one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 11:30:25 GMT -5
It might be done for some, but some of us (at least yours truly) are still interested in hearing more about Miss Berma Sanchez.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 30, 2020 11:36:03 GMT -5
As Newman said on Seinfeld: "I don't know the woman, but she sounds quite fetching."
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 30, 2020 11:38:36 GMT -5
Not sure how cancelling historic treaties is considered a funny joke.
Anyway...there is a thing called hardwired instincts. Animals have them and so do we. What they are is a completely different matter. For instance a baby is born with the hardwired instinct to hold their breath when dunked underwater or the suckle reflex. Some newborn animals like horses can walk very soon after birth.
In terms of figuring out whether music is real or not from far away....it may not have anything to do with hardwiring or a perfect ability.
First, if you are listening to pre-recorded music, that's being played in public there is a good chance you are listening to something that is dynamically compressed. The voice is equally loud as a string guitar etc. The difference in proportions are obvious.
There may be many more instruments, a lot synthesized, in different proportions compared to a typical live performances. Also the performance and timing may be more perfect compared to a live recording. Whereas a live performance may have a far away poorly miced vocal that cuts in and out, sounds hollow, a voice that may sing poorly, overload the mic, or instruments overpowering one another (drums overpowering the acoustic guitar or vocals).
So I don't think it's not so much a hardwired instinct to distinguish recorded music vs live. But the differences in the recorded music's production values and the limitations of playing live. Because live sound is different from recorded sound.
I am consistently fooled by the ringing of a door bell, phone, speaker, or car driving by noise on my speakers. So it is not necessarily a hardwired instinct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 11:41:15 GMT -5
The elusive Ms. Sanchez was a skilled guitarist, owned the first Martin guitar I'd ever seen or heard, was a creative song writer, and a quick-witted lyricist (she invented "Muff the tragic *bleep*" sung to the tune of "Puff, the magic dragon" extemporaneously in front of an audience during a performance). She was also quite fetching and smart enough to deflect my clumsy teenaged amorous advances with both grace and compassion. I lost track of her after high school and have regretted doing so ever since. Hope she has a great life! Sounds like young Miss Sanchez would probably fret (pun intended) any time young Mister Young would get near her neck or that of the Martin or is his memory faulty and it was really a Paul Ford Gibson? Sorry, but the rest of this thread is boring the hell out of me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 11:47:58 GMT -5
My oh my - this thread has turned into the Presidential debate! (LOL in a non-political way). My stand, for the record, is that there DOES exist an objective truth - but we do all perceive it differently. And to defend my viewpoint, I fall back on my usual shared experience: Walking down a city street you and I hear music from a couple of blocks away. Within milliseconds our brains both decide (accurately, as it turns out) whether the music is live or recorded. There is no doubt in this discernment, and we come to the same conclusion consistently in spite of background traffic noise, building reflections, etc. This isn't a "preference" - we both absolutely know. And although our brains certainly perceive the input differently, we both reach the correct conclusion both immediately and without conscious thought. THAT's an objective truth. I've had this situation happen more than once and with more than one companion. All of us were right EVERY time. Boom That's not "truth," that's shared perception and mutual interpretation. It's because we are humans, that's how our brains work. The people in your example have similar frames of reference for music, that's all. It does not mean there is some universal truth buried in that music, only that more than one person perceived it and interpreted it similarly. A much more simple example is a stop sign. Most of us when driving perceive the stop sign and follow those instructions without thinking about it. Does that mean the stop sign represents some universal truth? No, it means the stop sign signifies a concept we as drivers have been trained to understand and to take certain actions based upon that understanding. It's Semiotics in action. Someone who lacks experience and training about stop signs will not perceive it the same way nor give it the same meaning. Interesting, what you're glossing over goes back millenniums. For example, various 'writings' [my hands are tied behind my back in this forum] state man is an image bearer, that is, man has the faculties for which to receive the Absolute, that is, intelligence, logic, reason, wisdom, etc [Logos]. Not suggesting your example is right or wrong but I like your example as conveying that we all have the faculties to know. However, that doesn't mean everyone receives the truth. Quite contrary, a person often spends an entire life suppressing the truth. Especially when the truth is not found in them but rather from an external object as the source or point of reference. We may disagree as to how a person comes to know the correct or wrong action when approaching a stop sign but hopefully they won't pass the drivers test without first passing the state standard for traffic safety. Without any traffic signs, lines, etc., the public roads would be littered with casualties. Law makers exists, therefore, traffic laws exists. Laws bring order to chaos, the laws, signs, lines, etc did not randomly come into existence out of nothing, especially, w/ intended purpose to govern the roadways in which we use to navigate. Then there are those that disagree, they can be found pulled over or crashed along the side of the road next to flashing lights. I agree again, however, the "correct" conclusion is based on varying sources or references. The source of truth a person believes to be true will always be right in their defense. For example, expect the traffic court judge to exercise authority with prejudice and bias towards law, order, and justice. Expect the Catholic to defend the church. Expect the Protestant to defend the Scriptures. Expect the Carnal man to defend his flesh and its appetites. And, so on and so on and so on. So many schools of thought. Almost appearing chaotic at times. I imagine, if all met in a city block it would be chaotic sounding. That is, until the band began playing. Then there's Boom walking along the street a couple of blocks down zeroing in on the music being drawn to the live outdoor imaging. But how will Boom know if he is correct or wrong about the music being live or recorded? So perhaps Boom walks towards the music and meets DYohn along the way. They stand together one block before the source of music and begin debating as to why Boom thinks the music is live or how he knows there really is a concert playing beforehand. By time Boom gets there w/ DYohn, if ever, the music stops because several people object to the lyrics the band was playing. What was chaotic found order momentarily from music. Why were individuals drawn to one place? Thank you for entertaining this, even if it were only for self-amusement. Enjoy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 11:49:53 GMT -5
..... I am consistently fooled by the ringing of a door bell, phone, speaker, or car driving by noise on my speakers on my speakers. So it is not necessarily a hardwired instinct.Yeah me too, man. Many times when the door bell rings I pick up the phone and say hello or mushy mushy. Whenever this happens my wife usually calls me baka.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 11:50:03 GMT -5
Nor do we need perpetuate historical racism. OK, this discussion is done. Have a good one. I didn't mean that in a racist way, DYohn. To clarify, historical treaties clearly identify peoples as Indians. Identity politics aside the documents say Indians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 11:52:51 GMT -5
As Newman said on Seinfeld: "I don't know the woman, but she sounds quite fetching." Ah yes. As Mr. Epstein used to say: Go fetch me another 14 year old.
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on Sept 30, 2020 11:56:06 GMT -5
In my hometown of Palm Springs California the local tribe refers to themselves as: The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 12:01:25 GMT -5
When some of the neighborhood boys and I were about 5 years old so or so we used to play cowboys and Indians. Later when we were about 12 yrs old plus we used to play chase the girls.
|
|