Re: technology and the average listener

[Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>]

John P. Hill wrote:

>> There are times for headphones and car stereos
>> and there are times for...well who has access to the sound systems
>> you're talking about?  For an average listener-- one who is not a
>> specialist or rich audiophile (there I said it!)-- this technology can
>> be not only intimidating and cost prohibitive but it can also loom over
>> the experience because of its social significance.

> Well, if you're tagging me as a "rich audiophile", I really don't qualify,
> but I can probably point you in the right direction to find a few.  

No, I'm not tagging you-- but I assumed by your expertise that you're a
specialist in the music field-- you have access to listen to music on
some really amazing equipment? Other than that I didn't mean anything
personal. Also, some of my best friends are audiophiles!

> I'm a bit perplexed by your last sentence.  How does the "social significance"
> of new technology impede upon one's ability to appreciate the beauty of a
> GG performance?  We've already established that it comes through pretty
> well on a boom box, so if you have one of those, you're in business.

Let me see if I can think of a way to clarify what I meant to say...I
think what I mean is that an appreciation of musical beauty is often
acquired and because such an appreciation is often a matter of
education, there are all kinds of issues that might impede someone from
appreciating a recording other than a lack of "understanding" what
you're hearing. This ties back to various conversations on the list
about the decline in listenership of classical music. I can't help but
think that the hype that surrounds the sale of superior recordings and
advanced play-back technology has something to do with this.  It's got
nothing to do intrinsically with the machines or discs themselves but
with the "social significance" they acquire through marketing. Of course
this doesn't mean that a willing party couldn't enjoy the music in any
format, but my instinct tells me that the marketing of new technology
can color perceptions about who does and who should listen to what kind
of music and on what devices.  What I'm on about doesn't seem completely
clear, I know.  I'll have to think of examples and get back to you.

>> "Classical" music is not only something that has
>> become (in the US) an acquired taste, it also has all kinds of class
>> baggage associated with it.  I might also add that the same applies for
>> the contemporary concert hall experience. 

> I agree, but that has more to do with commerce and the way
> that folks coming up nowadays are conditioned to experience what Frank
> Zappa often refered to as "Music as Wallpaper".  Combine that with short
> attention spans, quick video editing, lack of access to classical music
> and education for most of the general public and you see where that's
> going.

Exactly! I wonder how easy it really is to disassociate music and
technology from the marketing that sold it to you in the first place. 
For people who are in the music business or are collectors, musicians,
fans-- people who have an interest in "serious" music this might be
easier.  I remember being 15 and falling in love with Delibes's Lakme
because I heard a passage it in a movie but I had to screw up my courage
for 20 minutes to walk into a specialty classical store to ask for help
finding a copy.  I didn't feel like I belonged there. I thought people
would think I was stupid.  I bought it on cassette and wore it out but I
wonder if the CD doesn't hold some sense of permanence and status that
might keep people from sampling new music. They're expensive-- and when
they came out were almost double the cost of LPs (for no obvious
reason.) I think the decline in listenership has a lot to do with these
kinds of exclusive images-- the idea that music is an investment-- that
you should *invest* in an archival copy of your favorite sounds.  That
you have to have smarts and by association, money, to be a true
connoisseur.  There's a whole culture of upward mobility surrounding the
classical music industry (an perhaps, to an extent, jazz) that does, in
part, keep people away. I think this is why Gould liked Muzak-- because
at least people heard all kinds of classical music (before Muzak became
so market-specific and classical Muzak became reserved for very
specialized public spaces).  Didn't he say somewhere that Muzak did a
lot to make the idioms of serial music ubiquitous and therefore it
elevated the complexity of common musical language?  I'm not sure how
serious he was being in that essay but I think it's a rich idea worth
exploring.

Thanks for a rich dialogue!

Ok-- others on the list????  I rest my ramblings.

-Mary Jo