The Tyranny of Pop Music

[jean]

Of course I understand it.

The Magritte painting of a pipe reproduces certain aspects of the original object, but not others. I think you said earlier that you cannot use it for the purpose for which the original object was intended - you cannot, for example, pick it up, put tobacco in it and smoke it.

It fails as an analogy in the case of the recording/reproduction of an aural stimulus because it does not attempt to reproduce significant aspects of the 'original'. But the listener in the first case we're considering expects to hear some approximation to what they would have heard had they been somewhere in the hall while the concert was taking place.

In other words, they expect to be able to do everything that the original object was intended to make it possible for them to do if they were in its presence. They can't see it of course, unless the recording is on DVD. But that isn't usually considered crucial.

Arguably in the case of the creation of an aural stimulus for which there exists no 'original' stimulus, the analogy works better; but these are two different sorts of things.

[MrGongGong]

Of course I understand it.

It reproduces certain aspects of the original object, but not others. I think you said earlier that you cannot use it for the purpose for which the original object was intended - you cannot, for example, pick it up, put tobacco in it and smoke it.

It fails as an analogy in the case of the recording/reproduction of an aural stimulus because it does not attempt to reproduce significant aspects of the 'original', where the listener expects to hear some approximation to what they would have heard had they been somewhere in the hall while the concert was taking place.

Arguably in the case of the creation of an aural stimulus for which there exists no 'original' stimulus, it works better; but these are two different sorts of things.

I don't think you understand it at all in relation to this.

And it perfectly shows how something in one form (picture/recording) isn't the same as the same as another (physical object / live performance) regardless of the intention.

[rauschwerk]

I don't think you understand it at all in relation to this.

If you use an analogy that nobody apparently understands, isn't the best policy to choose another?

[Bryn]

I don't think you understand it at all in relation to this.

And it perfectly shows how something in one form (picture/recording) isn't the same as the same as another (physical object / live performance) regardless of the intention.

Or to put it another way:

[doversoul1]

Well, obviously. If they could see that no performance was taking place (for example) the would know, whatever they were actually hearing.

So how come you mistook a recorded performance as a live performance? Or did you mean it sounded to you as an excellent approximation (not the word I’d use but that’s beside the point) of a live performance? Try telling that to NatBalance.

[MrGongGong]

If you use an analogy that nobody apparently understands, isn't the best policy to choose another?

Well Bryn put the image here so i'd assume one person understands.

"He's got coconuts" ?

[jean]

So how come you mistook a recorded performance as a live performance?

Because on the occasions I'm thinking of, I've walked into a church where they were playing a recording of plainsong (they do this in France a lot) and I have thought I was hearing real monks singing (which does happen, but not so often).

I wouldn't expect to see them straight away, because they'd be up in the choir.

Piped music.

I'm not really happy about it because however real it sounds, I don't like to deprive monks of their livelihood.

[jean]

...it [ie Magritte's painting of a pipe] perfectly shows how something in one form (picture/recording) isn't the same as the same as another (physical object / live performance) regardless of the intention.

I think everyone knows that - it doesn't need showing.

But what we are talking about here isn't sameness, it's verisimilitude - which is much more complicated, and much more interesting.

This all reminds me very much of Derrida and the concept of the original text. But while that may be philosophically of value, it has little to say about the sort of practical problems this thread has been grappling with.

[doversoul1]

Because on the occasions I'm thinking of, I've walked into a church where they were playing a recording of plainsong (they do this in France a lot) and I have thought I was hearing real monks singing (which does happen, but not so often).

I see. It was more to do with the circumstance rather than the quality of the sound itself. That makes sense.

As for the pipe analogy, I assume it was meant for NatBalance who seems to be insisting (in effect) that recorded music should be like a miniature pipe; all its element is reduced in size in exact proportion. It may be smaller than the real pipe but still the same shape and perfectly smoke-able.

[MrGongGong]

I think everyone knows that - it doesn't need showing.
.

I wouldn't be so sure myself

[jean]

I see. It was more to do with the circumstance rather than the quality of the sound itself...

No, it was not one aspect of the experience rather than another - they both combined to convince me.

If the recording I heard in the church had been a poor approximation to the sound of live monks, I would not have been fooled. However, if I'd gone into a supermarket and heard plainsong, I doubt if I would have thought there were any real monks around, however convincing the sound.

As for the pipe analogy...

The 'piped' in my last post wasn't any kind of analogy - it was a reference to the sort of background music this thread started off with, often called 'piped' because it used to be produced and delivered by methods other than recording of a live perfornance:

...whereas piped "muzak" is the outcome of a deliberate and calculated cynical ploy on the part of those who foist it upon its victims...

and

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff427/einealpensinfonie/Untitled_zpszfsin41x.jpg

No reference to Magritte's pipe was intended on this occasion.


.

[jean]

I wouldn't be so sure myself

Try asking them.

[MrGongGong]

Try asking them.

I do often ask these questions
and Natty doesn't appear to have any idea at all

(how about "please"?)

[jean]

Well, you're a fine one to issue lessons in politeness!

You might note that I was making a suggestion rather than a request, so please is neither necessary nor appropriate.

But f you've already asked the question and he's answered it as you say, can you show me where, please? (That was a request.)

[MrGongGong]

Well, you're a fine one to issue lessons in politeness!

#475

Natty doesn't always respond to questions
and (he might struggle with this?) it's NOT all about him