The Mighty Musical Observations Thread

[Dr. Medulla]

scrolling through a listed out media library has never been conducive to the alchemical process of being struck by inspiration on what I want to hear next.

Whether it's paper books or actual dvd's or lp's/cd's, I've never understood the romance of a tactile relationship with media. Clearly there's something to it given how many people are ardent about it, but I really don't get it. My pleasure comes in the listening/reading/watching, not handling it.

[Insert italicized IMCT catchphrase here]

I mean, I could tell you what it is for me, but I'm sure you've heard it all before from other tactile people.

The weird thing is that the tactile people (is that a band name or too indie?) seem to think I'm anti-paper or any other physical medium. I have plenty of paper books and all that. I have a preference for virtual for convenience, but I'm not as rigid as the tactile people who argue with me. It's just a strange thing to me. I'm utilitarian, not a romantic, so whatever works.

[Kory]

scrolling through a listed out media library has never been conducive to the alchemical process of being struck by inspiration on what I want to hear next.

Whether it's paper books or actual dvd's or lp's/cd's, I've never understood the romance of a tactile relationship with media. Clearly there's something to it given how many people are ardent about it, but I really don't get it. My pleasure comes in the listening/reading/watching, not handling it.

[Insert italicized IMCT catchphrase here]

I mean, I could tell you what it is for me, but I'm sure you've heard it all before from other tactile people.

The weird thing is that the tactile people (is that a band name or too indie?) seem to think I'm anti-paper or any other physical medium. I have plenty of paper books and all that. I have a preference for virtual for convenience, but I'm not as rigid as the tactile people who argue with me. It's just a strange thing to me. I'm utilitarian, not a romantic, so whatever works.

That is weird. I certainly don't care what anyone else does, I just find that I don't retain information as well with digital reading for some reason.

[revbob]

scrolling through a listed out media library has never been conducive to the alchemical process of being struck by inspiration on what I want to hear next.

Whether it's paper books or actual dvd's or lp's/cd's, I've never understood the romance of a tactile relationship with media. Clearly there's something to it given how many people are ardent about it, but I really don't get it. My pleasure comes in the listening/reading/watching, not handling it.

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

[Dr. Medulla]

I certainly don't care what anyone else does, I just find that I don't retain information as well with digital reading for some reason.

There have been studies that suggest that, too. Me, I use the highlighting function on ebooks and embed my comments. When I have to do write-ups, it makes it super-duper easy over paper.

[Dr. Medulla]

scrolling through a listed out media library has never been conducive to the alchemical process of being struck by inspiration on what I want to hear next.

Whether it's paper books or actual dvd's or lp's/cd's, I've never understood the romance of a tactile relationship with media. Clearly there's something to it given how many people are ardent about it, but I really don't get it. My pleasure comes in the listening/reading/watching, not handling it.

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

But how? I like Flex's use of the word alchemical because for as often as hear these kinds of arguments, I just don't see where it happens. I don't want to elevate my own experiences here as some kind of proof, but I don't think I've become more passive in my listening or have devaluated cover art since moving my music to a hard drive and an iPod. It stands to reason, doesn't it, that radio —similarly non-physical and remote—should have had a limited impact on people's ears, yet how many rock songs have been written about the miracle and magic of radio? Something doesn't add up.

[revbob]

I certainly don't care what anyone else does, I just find that I don't retain information as well with digital reading for some reason.

There have been studies that suggest that, too. Me, I use the highlighting function on ebooks and embed my comments. When I have to do write-ups, it makes it super-duper easy over paper.

Yeah ne too.

[Flex]

I don't like the warmth of vinyl that Doc mentions above. I prefer absolute clarity where I can get it, which I think is obscured by that warmth, and also by pops, hisses, and crackle that you'll get with vinyl too. Plus CDs have more dynamic range by a wide margin, which is great for classical and jazz (and reggae if you like big bass). Not so much for older stuff obviously, but newer releases can make use of it.

Yeah, in an absolute sense the dynamic range capabilities of digital outstrips analog (and, as you say, jazz and especially classical are usually mastered to take full advantage) but in practice how often does that happen, especially with rock? My understanding is that albums with DR of like under 7 need to be specifically mastered for vinyl so the stylus can track and so you can end up with "loudness war" albums being slightly remastered for vinyl with better dynamic range than what was put out on CD.

As to pops, hiss and crackle, yeah that can make the record sound worse but so can a skip-causing scratch on CD. I have a bunch of CDs from high school that won't rip or play cleanly because they're too beat to shit.

Addendum: Again, to be clear, I'm with you on the merits of CD. Most of my music listening these days is from CD.

[revbob]

scrolling through a listed out media library has never been conducive to the alchemical process of being struck by inspiration on what I want to hear next.

Whether it's paper books or actual dvd's or lp's/cd's, I've never understood the romance of a tactile relationship with media. Clearly there's something to it given how many people are ardent about it, but I really don't get it. My pleasure comes in the listening/reading/watching, not handling it.

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

But how? I like Flex's use of the word alchemical because for as often as hear these kinds of arguments, I just don't see where it happens. I don't want to elevate my own experiences here as some kind of proof, but I don't think I've become more passive in my listening or have devaluated cover art since moving my music to a hard drive and an iPod. It stands to reason, doesn't it, that radio —similarly non-physical and remote—should have had a limited impact on people's ears, yet how many rock songs have been written about the miracle and magic of radio? Something doesn't add up.

This is gonna require a lot of typing and Im no Ratty (nor Doc ).
Times like this I wish we were all chatting around a fire drinking beers or something.

In the end I can only speak from personal experience.

I think that the process of seeking out and either buying or trading a cassette copy of an album (pre-cd) with others had you more invested in the experience. When I can fire up my computer and download gigs of music in a short period of time the value of the music is lessened. It costs me next to nothing (electricity and internet costs). When you dont invest something time, money, resources people will attribute less value to what they acquire. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

And again going back to personal experience when I would buy a record Id make the time to listen. I would checkout the art, read the credits etc and skipping tracks was harder and you had to flip a record, sure I would listen as I read or studied as well as just listened but I feel it required more presence of mind. It is rare now where I just am listening to music and nothing else.

On to radio. There's different aspects to it. One, its basically advertising, a way to expose people to music, a song was/is in that context an ad. That was always the main reason I listened to the radio. There also used to be an art to radio and listeners would develop a connection with a DJ. They were like the cool friend who always had these great records before anyone else.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

But how? I like Flex's use of the word alchemical because for as often as hear these kinds of arguments, I just don't see where it happens. I don't want to elevate my own experiences here as some kind of proof, but I don't think I've become more passive in my listening or have devaluated cover art since moving my music to a hard drive and an iPod. It stands to reason, doesn't it, that radio —similarly non-physical and remote—should have had a limited impact on people's ears, yet how many rock songs have been written about the miracle and magic of radio? Something doesn't add up.

This is gonna require a lot of typing and Im no Ratty (nor Doc ).
Times like this I wish we were all chatting around a fire drinking beers or something.

In the end I can only speak from personal experience.

I think that the process of seeking out and either buying or trading a cassette copy of an album (pre-cd) with others had you more invested in the experience. When I can fire up my computer and download gigs of music in a short period of time the value of the music is lessened. It costs me next to nothing (electricity and internet costs). When you dont invest something time, money, resources people will attribute less value to what they acquire. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

And again going back to personal experience when I would buy a record Id make the time to listen. I would checkout the art, read the credits etc and skipping tracks was harder and you had to flip a record, sure I would listen as I read or studied as well as just listened but I feel it required more presence of mind. It is rare now where I just am listening to music and nothing else.

You make the same argument that Simon Reynolds does in his book Retromania. He complains that music is too easy now, whether to listen or to find. It should require effort. The amount of effort, whether plopping a hunk of plastic on the turntable or locating that obscure mix of "White Riot" that was released in Argentina, will dictate how much you get out of hearing it. I just don't care for the argument because it seems, however indirectly, to be an economic argument. That the more you spend (perhaps literally) equals the pleasure you receive. It's quantification. Yet it also seems to be a romanticization of effort.

That kind of argument also seems to echo a bit of what the supreme Marxist grouch Theodor Adorno said about popular music encouraging distracted listening. He argued for the avant garde because you had to focus on it otherwise it meant nothing, whereas popular music was so formulaic that you didn't have to pay attention—it did the listening for you. I'm a lot more optimistic about our consciousness and our ability to perceive things even in a "distracted" state.

None of this is to disparage what you're saying—you're on the side of some notable figures here—but it seems to me like it has a more jaundiced view of people's capacities than I care to go.

On to radio. There's different aspects to it. One, its basically advertising, a way to expose people to music, a song was/is in that context an ad. That was always the main reason I listened to the radio. There also used to be an art to radio and listeners would develop a connection with a DJ. They were like the cool friend who always had these great records before anyone else.

Sure it's an ad, but it's selling itself not zit cream or tampons. Do you like this song by the Beach Boys? Go buy this record yourself! The context seems more like a mix tape to me (albeit with ads for zit cream and tampons interspersed). The dj thing is valid, but doesn't that say it's not about ads then—it's about one cool friend telling you about a song you might like? I mean, I like that idea a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an early form of streaming.

[Heston]

Where can I hear this Argentinian remix of White Riot?

[Dr. Medulla]

Where can I hear this Argentinian remix of White Riot?

Simon Reynolds says you need to scour every used record shop and Sally Ann to find it. Only then will what you hear have value. Go, go young man!

[Flex]

I'm utilitarian, not a romantic, so whatever works.

i'm digital streaming on the streets, physical media in the sheets... ladies

[gkbill]

scrolling through a listed out media library has never been conducive to the alchemical process of being struck by inspiration on what I want to hear next.

Whether it's paper books or actual dvd's or lp's/cd's, I've never understood the romance of a tactile relationship with media. Clearly there's something to it given how many people are ardent about it, but I really don't get it. My pleasure comes in the listening/reading/watching, not handling it.

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

But how? I like Flex's use of the word alchemical because for as often as hear these kinds of arguments, I just don't see where it happens. I don't want to elevate my own experiences here as some kind of proof, but I don't think I've become more passive in my listening or have devaluated cover art since moving my music to a hard drive and an iPod. It stands to reason, doesn't it, that radio —similarly non-physical and remote—should have had a limited impact on people's ears, yet how many rock songs have been written about the miracle and magic of radio? Something doesn't add up.

Hello,

The removal of the physical handling of the item (record, cd) is the removal of a sense. Listening becomes only auditory - you don't hold the record or cd, you don't read the linear notes (okay, you could read them online...). I'll grant you the physical senses involved are involved minimally but are there nonetheless. Good music incorporates the physical senses - that's why we dance! As to your point about radio, I would think most would prefer to listen via their own decision rather than the radio programmer (I rarely listen to radio as I don't want someone else picking the music). If I do listen to radio or something else, it's only to look for new music. If I hear something I like, I pursue it and obtain my own copy.

[gkbill]

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

But how? I like Flex's use of the word alchemical because for as often as hear these kinds of arguments, I just don't see where it happens. I don't want to elevate my own experiences here as some kind of proof, but I don't think I've become more passive in my listening or have devaluated cover art since moving my music to a hard drive and an iPod. It stands to reason, doesn't it, that radio —similarly non-physical and remote—should have had a limited impact on people's ears, yet how many rock songs have been written about the miracle and magic of radio? Something doesn't add up.

This is gonna require a lot of typing and Im no Ratty (nor Doc ).
Times like this I wish we were all chatting around a fire drinking beers or something.

In the end I can only speak from personal experience.

I think that the process of seeking out and either buying or trading a cassette copy of an album (pre-cd) with others had you more invested in the experience. When I can fire up my computer and download gigs of music in a short period of time the value of the music is lessened. It costs me next to nothing (electricity and internet costs). When you dont invest something time, money, resources people will attribute less value to what they acquire. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

And again going back to personal experience when I would buy a record Id make the time to listen. I would checkout the art, read the credits etc and skipping tracks was harder and you had to flip a record, sure I would listen as I read or studied as well as just listened but I feel it required more presence of mind. It is rare now where I just am listening to music and nothing else.

You make the same argument that Simon Reynolds does in his book Retromania. He complains that music is too easy now, whether to listen or to find. It should require effort. The amount of effort, whether plopping a hunk of plastic on the turntable or locating that obscure mix of "White Riot" that was released in Argentina, will dictate how much you get out of hearing it. I just don't care for the argument because it seems, however indirectly, to be an economic argument. That the more you spend (perhaps literally) equals the pleasure you receive. It's quantification. Yet it also seems to be a romanticization of effort.

That kind of argument also seems to echo a bit of what the supreme Marxist grouch Theodor Adorno said about popular music encouraging distracted listening. He argued for the avant garde because you had to focus on it otherwise it meant nothing, whereas popular music was so formulaic that you didn't have to pay attention—it did the listening for you. I'm a lot more optimistic about our consciousness and our ability to perceive things even in a "distracted" state.

None of this is to disparage what you're saying—you're on the side of some notable figures here—but it seems to me like it has a more jaundiced view of people's capacities than I care to go.

On to radio. There's different aspects to it. One, its basically advertising, a way to expose people to music, a song was/is in that context an ad. That was always the main reason I listened to the radio. There also used to be an art to radio and listeners would develop a connection with a DJ. They were like the cool friend who always had these great records before anyone else.

Sure it's an ad, but it's selling itself not zit cream or tampons. Do you like this song by the Beach Boys? Go buy this record yourself! The context seems more like a mix tape to me (albeit with ads for zit cream and tampons interspersed). The dj thing is valid, but doesn't that say it's not about ads then—it's about one cool friend telling you about a song you might like? I mean, I like that idea a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an early form of streaming.

Hello,

I really enjoyed "Marxist grouch". Does anyone else get this?

[revbob]

I think the loss of the physical has led to the devaluation of the music/art itself as well as the importance roll cover art can play. I also think it lessens the overall experience of listening to music and in some ways making the whole experience more passive.

But how? I like Flex's use of the word alchemical because for as often as hear these kinds of arguments, I just don't see where it happens. I don't want to elevate my own experiences here as some kind of proof, but I don't think I've become more passive in my listening or have devaluated cover art since moving my music to a hard drive and an iPod. It stands to reason, doesn't it, that radio —similarly non-physical and remote—should have had a limited impact on people's ears, yet how many rock songs have been written about the miracle and magic of radio? Something doesn't add up.

This is gonna require a lot of typing and Im no Ratty (nor Doc ).
Times like this I wish we were all chatting around a fire drinking beers or something.

In the end I can only speak from personal experience.

I think that the process of seeking out and either buying or trading a cassette copy of an album (pre-cd) with others had you more invested in the experience. When I can fire up my computer and download gigs of music in a short period of time the value of the music is lessened. It costs me next to nothing (electricity and internet costs). When you dont invest something time, money, resources people will attribute less value to what they acquire. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

And again going back to personal experience when I would buy a record Id make the time to listen. I would checkout the art, read the credits etc and skipping tracks was harder and you had to flip a record, sure I would listen as I read or studied as well as just listened but I feel it required more presence of mind. It is rare now where I just am listening to music and nothing else.

You make the same argument that Simon Reynolds does in his book Retromania. He complains that music is too easy now, whether to listen or to find. It should require effort. The amount of effort, whether plopping a hunk of plastic on the turntable or locating that obscure mix of "White Riot" that was released in Argentina, will dictate how much you get out of hearing it. I just don't care for the argument because it seems, however indirectly, to be an economic argument. That the more you spend (perhaps literally) equals the pleasure you receive. It's quantification. Yet it also seems to be a romanticization of effort.

That kind of argument also seems to echo a bit of what the supreme Marxist grouch Theodor Adorno said about popular music encouraging distracted listening. He argued for the avant garde because you had to focus on it otherwise it meant nothing, whereas popular music was so formulaic that you didn't have to pay attention—it did the listening for you. I'm a lot more optimistic about our consciousness and our ability to perceive things even in a "distracted" state.

None of this is to disparage what you're saying—you're on the side of some notable figures here—but it seems to me like it has a more jaundiced view of people's capacities than I care to go.

On to radio. There's different aspects to it. One, its basically advertising, a way to expose people to music, a song was/is in that context an ad. That was always the main reason I listened to the radio. There also used to be an art to radio and listeners would develop a connection with a DJ. They were like the cool friend who always had these great records before anyone else.

Sure it's an ad, but it's selling itself not zit cream or tampons. Do you like this song by the Beach Boys? Go buy this record yourself! The context seems more like a mix tape to me (albeit with ads for zit cream and tampons interspersed). The dj thing is valid, but doesn't that say it's not about ads then—it's about one cool friend telling you about a song you might like? I mean, I like that idea a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an early form of streaming.

LOL, I have no idea who these people are that Im in company with but Im guessing I wouldn't like them.

In the end Im not speaking in black and white terms. And I dont want to assign a pure $ value to the music/art either but for lack of a better term there are things that people value and no you don't need to scour the earth or spend crazy sums of money to find the value in something but generally speaking I think when people come by something easily it tends to have less value. Deja vu but Im pretty sure we've gone back n forth on this before

I think you get where Im going with this and Im falling asleep as Im trying to type this. Again I dont normally get into extended discussions on here because I hate typing so damn much.