By "active listening" I mean listening to music without doing anything else, no reading or working or talking.
I find that I rarely do any active listening these days. I used to do it when I was much younger.
Do you do it? More or less than when you were younger? If it changed, why do you think it did?
----
I'm just reading a collection of essays by William Gibson (Distrust That Particular Flavor), and the very latest bit I read today was about how Gibson really don't care about the fidelity of the equipment and channel by which he listens to music, he thinks the music is there even by the worst channel.
I think there's a danger of "knowing too much" for enjoyment of something. For example, because I photograph, I notice if the highlights are blown in a photo, and it may spoil the enjoyment for me. But for somebody who know nothing about the technical aspects, it may be a wonderful picture which he gets great enjoyment from.
12 comments:
I am a beginner at meditation and to concentrate 100% to music wearing earphones, paying attention to the different instruments may not be the most efficient way to meditate but it works for me and has the extra benefits of really appreciate complexity of the music and sure is more fun.
Peace,
When I was younger I listened to music all the time, and especially when I had nothing to do I did really pay attention to it. Now in my 50's I do schedule a time and have the discipline to sit down and actively listen. I also make an effort to attend concerts. I think music was made to be heard live and in a reasonable hall or outdoors.
Is it "actively listening" if you're dancing at the same time? :D
Music sampled in 44.1 KHz and played back through poor quality D/A, let alone if passed through an MP3/AAC lossy compression coded, is not worthy of active listening. Or in fact listening in any manner.
These days about the only time I listen to music is when going to a concert or opera.
Russ, Hmmm, I guess that would be a different activity.
---
Funny enough, I'm just reading a collection of essays by William Gibson, and the very latest bit I read today was about how Gibson really don't care about the fidelity of the equipment and channel by which he listens to music, he thinks the music is there even by the worst channel.
Timo, I hope you'll pardon me for this evaluative comment, but it seems to me that you are very, very disenchanted with digital... well, just about anything digital, really. It seems that you believe that anything digitized is a step back in quality and relevance, and even that digital creation blocks creativity.
I won't debate that belief, it may well be true for all I know.
So I wonder, perhaps the way for you would be to work with something entirely analogue? I mean this in the broadest meaning possible, work or hobby, any activity which may interest you.
Of course, for all I know you may already be doing so.
Eolake:
<<<<< I find that I rarely do any active listening these days. I used to do it when I was much younger. >>>>
Why do you think this happened to you? Why you changed?
I'm uncertain, which is part of why I posted this.
I think my interest in music has lessened some, but I'm not sure why.
Also, there is so much more readily available entertainment these days, I have 100 hours recorded on my Tivo at least, a shelf of DVDs I haven't watched yet, and access to iTunes where I can buy the newest seasons of TV shows, apparently well before they come on disc.
Some changes in "nervous energy" may also be related, but again I'm not sure how.
It could also be that as a teen, much music was an entirely new experience, which is much rarer these days.
... but it seems to me that you are very, very disenchanted with digital... well, just about anything digital, ...
Not at all. I work with digital all the time. I have also worked for thousands of hours with analog tape in recording studios so I know both formats intimately.
Quality wise, for audio, linearly encoded sound sampled at 192 KHz is for all practical purposes as good as analog.
The audio CD sampling format (44.1 KHz with 12 bits in use at most) is comparable to the first 1 Mpix digital cameras of the 1990s. MP3 is the same but with a lens that is full of grease and dirt.
Okay, I hear you.
Funny then that it seems people in general are happy with CD quality (DVD audio failed), while the camera megapixel race continues unabated by practicality.
Funny then that it seems people in general are happy with CD quality
People were also happy with the Edison phonogram. The press reported that its sound is indistinguishable from the original live sound. Read about psychoacoustics.
But the program material also some to play here. If you used your digicam to only shoot synthetic patterns with an extremely limited color gamut, you would see little point in the heavier more hi-fidelty cameras.
In other words, cameras are used to capture organic phenomena, whereas today's music is almost entirely inorganic. Even when today's music features the human voice, it is usually deliberately distorted using synthetic processes.
Russ, I think dancing to music is a very active way of listening to it ! :))
Otherwise, listening to music while watching its videoclip would not be an active way of listening to it.
Post a Comment