Kat <tsarren at alyra.org> writes: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:01:21PM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > > > Interesting in connection to work music. > > > > I've seen a tendency for musicians to have broader tastes in music > > than their listeners, at least. > > I see the same tendancy. To give an example, a pop song that is popular and > also has high musical value can be enjoyed by musicians and non-musicians > alike. Anything ethnic (especially with ethnic instrumentation) that has > musical value isn't going to be nearly as appreciated by your average > layperson as it is by a musician. > > And for musicians to have less > > critical tastes in stereo equipment than non-musicians (I *think* I've > > corrected for the traditional poverty of musicians here, but I could > > be wrong). > > Musicians in general, what with their trained ears, are much more likely to > hear - and appreciate - the differences between a shelftop boom box, an > overmarketed set of Bose speakers (Bose Blows, No Lows... there's a reason > that the high-end audio stores don't carry Bose), and a nice two-channel in > its own room that someone has sunk a couple k into. Musicians who make > their living with their music are less likely to be capable of affording the > hi-fi system, true, but that doesn't mean their tastes are any less critical > than non-musicians or musicians who make their living elsewhere. What I saw was in college, where the serious musicians were on the average in the same financial situation as the rest of us. They had considerably less invested in their stereos, and didn't mind, and didn't particularly think the "better" ones sounded better. My theory is that their ears are good enough that even with the *good* stereos, they're hearing the artifacts anyway, so the difference doesn't much matter to them. I never had a chance to test them on *really good* equipment, which none of us had in college. It might be good enough to get past that, and thus produce a different result. > Speaking personally, if I was in a bad monetary situation, I'd stoop to > eating ramen in order to avoid selling my two-channel if I had to. Having a > system that can reproduce music with sufficient (fillintheblank with words > like clarity, accuracy, and other subjective audiophile terms) is > extraordinarily important to me. I am a musician but not one by profession. Selling used equipment is hopeless for money recovery anyway. So definitely hold onto it :-) > > It makes sense that a muscian might be more likely to be fully engaged > > by the music, hence find it clashes with other things. > > *shrug* I dunno...(I'm taking your definition of 'engaged' as a direct > measurement of devotion of conscious processing power) I can get so engaged > (in the Zone) in it that it doesn't matter what's going on around me, it > isn't going to clash, because I'm barely aware of it (that's one of those > rare times when I am willing to be unaware of my environment). OTOH, I > appreciate a 'clean' listening environment as much as anyone, when it's > available. I suppose I'm much more likely to Zone when I'm playing rather > than just listening. > > If you're saying that music catches our attention easier, well, yes, it > can... if I'm reading and listening to something new and musically > interesting at the same time, I have to make a conscious effort to block out > the music - otherwise I'm going to actively listen and cut my reading speed > by half to do so; I can't just passively listen to it because my brain keeps > saying "New stuff here! Devote more power to process it!" If it's something > I've heard before, it isn't nearly as hard to listen passively. > > To make a generic statement - the better you are at something, the easier it > is to focus on that thing and block out external stuff. Attractive theory, anyway. > > > If anyone else has extra-input needs, I'd be interested in hearing them. > > > > I survived some audio-cassette courses at one point by playing them at > > double-speed on an old cassette recorder (thus playing them at twice > > the original frequency, too). The distortion of the speech added > > enough cognitive work that I didn't get bored having to go through > > them at only *double* the usual data rate. > > Hehe. I wish I could've done that with some of my college prof's. There were > a rare few that I would've liked to slow down... That didn't come up as often, but I was at a school appropriate for my level, whereas the tape courses were for a more general audience. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info