The Tyranny of Pop Music

[jean]

I would humbly suggest...

I too would humbly suggest...

There's nothing humble about it.

There are the elements of a useful discussion here, and it doesn't require a knowledge of phenomenology (or semiotics).

But it's never going to happen if all anyone does is mine other posters' posts for something to sneer at.

[Tony Halstead]

There's nothing humble about it.

There are the elements of a useful discussion here, and it doesn't require a knowledge of phenomenology (or semiotics).

But it's never going to happen if all anyone does is mine other posters' posts for something to sneer at.

Hear, Hear, Jean!

[MrGongGong]

There's nothing humble about it.

There are the elements of a useful discussion here, and it doesn't require a knowledge of phenomenology (or semiotics).

But it's never going to happen if all anyone does is mine other posters' posts for something to sneer at.

Without an understanding of the existence of semiotics then....

Never mind, carry on with your textural analysis

There is an interesting discussion BUT that really isn't on the cards if the main protagonist insists that they don't have to consider anything other than what they think they know.

(the lemon is in play)

[doversoul1]

There's nothing humble about it.

There are the elements of a useful discussion here, and it doesn't require a knowledge of phenomenology (or semiotics).

But it's never going to happen if all anyone does is mine other posters' posts for something to sneer at.

I don’t see why someone like NatBalance who is interested in and keen on talking about things being natural and reality can be given a few pointers to get out of his own shell of thinking. He doesn’t need to go any further than a mere introduction into different ways of looking at and thinking about things. Unless he (or anybody for that matter) is willing to learn so that he can think beyond his own ideas, the elements of a useful discussion will stay as elements, as it has done on this and other thread of his about similar subject. No development. As I said before, it is none of my business but it seems such a pity that NatBalance is ignoring so much that he could learn.

As for sneering, I thought very carefully about what he had being saying and posted to point out some points he could think about, and I got;

Wow, well done

[David-G]

One thing that Nat seems unwilling or unable to grasp is perhaps best illustrated by the differences in dynamic expectation between sitting in a room of, say, 9m × 5m and listening to a broadcast or recording of Florent Schmitt's Piano Quintet and sitting in the same room listening to a string quartet and pianist actually playing it.

You will have to forgive me - I am about 50 pages behind in this thread, and cannot possibly catch up. But this intrigued me. What differences in dynamic expectation would you expect? And does this observation specifically pertain to Florent Schmitt, with whom, I am afraid you will have to forgive me again, I am unfamiliar?

[NatBalance]

Thanks Jean and Tony

By the way, don’t bother to reply to my post 589. I’d just as well have written it in Japanese.

[cloughie]

You will have to forgive me - I am about 50 pages behind in this thread, and cannot possibly catch up. But this intrigued me. What differences in dynamic expectation would you expect? And does this observation specifically pertain to Florent Schmitt, with whom, I am afraid you will have to forgive me again, I am unfamiliar?

I urge you to listen to FS's Tragedie de Salome - absolutely wonderful. If you like the complete Daphnis and Chloe you'll more than probably like this.

[ahinton]

You will have to forgive me - I am about 50 pages behind in this thread, and cannot possibly catch up. But this intrigued me. What differences in dynamic expectation would you expect? And does this observation specifically pertain to Florent Schmitt, with whom, I am afraid you will have to forgive me again, I am unfamiliar?

I only picked the Schmitt as an example, it being a big-boned and full-blooded symphonic chamber work if ever there was one (it's dedicated to Fauré); I suspect taht the listener would not likely turn up his/her sound equipment to the same valoum as would be produced by the ensemble in the room, so to speak.

[jean]

I only picked the Schmitt as an example, it being a big-boned and full-blooded symphonic chamber work if ever there was one (it's dedicated to Fauré); I suspect that the listener would not likely turn up his/her sound equipment to the same volume as would be produced by the ensemble in the room, so to speak.

But (as I've said before) the illusion I am after isn't the players in my living room with me, it's me in a suitable performance space along with the performers.

What might best produce that illusion is certainly open to discussion, though it probably varies from person to person - OH and I certainly disagree about appropriate volume levels, though that may be because she is more concerned about the neighbours than I am.

And since I am here, I will reiterate that natural isn't the right word for what we are or might be talking about. And also add that though ontology is a venerable area of philosophical enquiry, it's not necessary to have a thorough grounding in it before being permitted to discuss what one might find realistic.

...There is an interesting discussion BUT that really isn't on the cards if the main protagonist insists that they don't have to consider anything other than what they think they know...

I haven't noticied that any participants have been particularly ready to do that.

(And perhaps you should tell us what you mean by really.)

.

[MrGongGong]

But (as I've said before) the illusion you're after isn't the players in your living room with you, it's you in a suitable performance space along with the performers.

Just because YOU (and some other folks) might be after that illusion I wouldn't assume that everyone else in the universe is also always after it.

BUT, if this was (as it sometimes is) what one was after, WHERE would you like to have the illusion of being?
There's a growing trend in some rock music for having an audience on the stage with the band.

If you went to this

http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/explore/films/85/re-rite_be_the_orchestra

you would have had the illusion of being in the middle of the ensemble (you could even sit next to Mr Black and pick up a few tips Tony )

There are many ways to approach these things.

I haven't noticied that any participants have been particularly ready to do that.

I have (but really have better things to do than to pick over the bits where Natty says he doesn't need to know anything about acoustics, compression, the broadcast process, phase etc etc

[jean]

There are many ways to approach these things.

Yes, of course there are - but we're not talking properly about any of them.

The minute anyone sets out what it is they want of the illusion of listening to any particular sort of live performance, instead of allowing any discussion of that, you dismiss it and go on to list other sorts of performance for which other sorts of illusion might be appropriate. So what? We all know that.

I was replying to a specific point of ah's about how one might best reproduce the experience of listening to a live performance of a (particular) string quintet. I've edited my post now to make it clearer that that's what I would want.

Conveying the experience of being on stage with a rock band would need to be thought about differently. I would not deny that for a moment, but neither do I think your introducing such an example invalidates what I said to ah.

.

[ahinton]

But (as I've said before) the illusion you're after isn't the players in your living room with you, it's you in a suitable performance space along with the performers.

I wasn't referring to an "illusion" - and OK, maybe a room a little larger than what I mentioned, but it's still only a piano quintet after all!

And since I am here, I will reiterate that natural isn't the right word for what we are or might be talking about. And also add that though ontology is a venerable area of philosophical enquiry, it's not necessary to have a thorough grounding in it before being permitted to discuss what one might find realistic.

Agreed.

[doversoul1]

And since I am here, I will reiterate that natural isn't the right word for what we are or might be talking about.

Do I get this right that by this you mean you agree with the use of the word ‘natural’ in this discussion?

If that is the case, it is the right word as long as the person using it can define what s/he means.

And also add that though ontology is a venerable area of philosophical enquiry, it's not necessary to have a thorough grounding in it before being permitted to discuss what one might find realistic.

If you are referring to my post, I made it clear that all NatBalance (in this case) needs to do is to find out that there are many ways of looking at ideas like reality or natural. Unless he wants to talk about the subject from the point of ontology, semiotics, etc, which I don’t believe he does.

[jean]

Do I get this right that by this you mean you agree with the use of the word ‘natural’ in this discussion?

No. I am reiterating what I said earlier, that 'natural isn't the right word for what we are or might be talking about.'

I made it clear that all NatBalance (in this case) needs to do is to find out that there are many ways of looking at ideas like reality or natural.

Or avoid the words.

And it is quite possible (paradoxical as it may seem) to have an ordinary everyday understanding of realism and realistic without bothering too much about what reality may be.

You do appear to me to be telling Nat that he is not qualified to have this sort of understanding unless he's boned up on the philosophy.

[MrGongGong]

No. I am reiterating what I said earlier, that 'natural isn't the right word for what we are or might be talking about.'

.

It clearly isn't the right word
But I don't think he agrees with you (nor do the folks that Bryn linked to) and I don't see him wanting a change of name.