4 ms·

Disclaimer: personal opinion and generalizations to follow. Because art. Under the umbrella of art, there are artists, and a subcategory of entertainers/perfor

Disclaimer: personal opinion and generalizations to follow. Because art. Under the umbrella of art, there are artists, and a subcategory of entertainers/performance artists. Music, because of the visceral reactions it elicits, tends to be best experienced in a live setting. The animation and general atmosphere of the crowd brings a lot to the emotional table that is lost elsewhere, including home listening rooms. All this said, i get the idea they are aiming for, but it strikes me as the wrong presentation of the medium. Just as framed oils on canvas have a desired display in galleries that has been refined over centuries, music has a pinnacle presentation, and it does not include headphones.

jat850 12y ago
I'm glad you disclaimed your post as opinion, because I don't agree with it but that's okay (and it's probably not really important to argue my viewpoint either). But I do think that the concept Wutang is pushing here is outlined fairly well in the article - that they want to offer something unique, experiential in a different way, and to foster new thinking and creative concepts. I can't see it being replicated often or ever - it seems to me more like it's an effort to prove a point regarding the value (or devaluation) of music in general. So, in that sense, I'm not sure that it's "wrong" - unless it's intentionally wrong, which it may be.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- LaikaF 12y ago
  I think another big difference, at least for me is control. A lot of venues have the sound up to loud for my liking. I like to enjoy music at a volume that is not physically painful. There's also the fact that a lot of the music I listen to is electronic and sounds very similar live as the recording. At least for smaller acts that aren't DJing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ryanklee 12y ago
> Music, because of the visceral reactions it elicits, tends to be best experienced in a live setting. The animation and general atmosphere of the crowd brings a lot to the emotional table that is lost elsewhere, including home listening rooms. Definitely a generalization, as you caveated. With few exceptions, my appreciation for musical depth is substantially lessened in a live setting. One such exception is a venue with theater seating and an observant audience. The crowd sits and absorbs. I'm not taking chamber orchestra here, either. I mean Will Oldham or Bill Callahan or X-refined-"indie" band. Another is certain kinds of music played live in small bars where everyone is rip roaringly drunk and ecstatic but not focused on the performers, but engaged with the elevated social tenor, which includes dancing, senseless mixing, mingling and disregard for decorum. Random bluegrass works well for this. But largely (read: basically always), I need to consume music in either solitude or in extremely intimate, restricted, established, and empathetic company. Otherwise I can't concentrate on my emotional responses or develop complex relationships with the work! I don't mean that this is Appolonian for me. The contrary is true: it's Dionysian, but that's the kind of thing I can't get when surrounded, socially navigating, self-conscious and worried about the perception of others. Too much, not enough, as they say. My focus is a fragile thing, easily dismantled. (I envy the robust among you!) Anyways, I'm just digressing here, not disagreeing, esp. as you allowed for the fact that you are generalizing a bit. My experience differs vis-à-vis musical appreciation. Certain friends of mine have expressed similar feelings. But is it surprising that relationships to art will be as varied as people and art objects themselves? My guess is that there is at least a baker's dozen worth of people out there who prefer listening to music through barriers we can't understand, and still as many whose appreciation for music and voice and song comes from not hearing it at all.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
johnchristopher 12y ago
> Just as framed oils on canvas have a desired display in galleries that has been refined over centuries, music has a pinnacle presentation, and it does not include headphones. It's actually quite recent (~100 years) to have framed oil on canvas in galleries for people to look at them.

jat850 12y ago

I'm glad you disclaimed your post as opinion, because I don't agree with it but that's okay (and it's probably not really important to argue my viewpoint either). But I do think that the concept Wutang is pushing here is outlined fairly well in the article - that they want to offer something unique, experiential in a different way, and to foster new thinking and creative concepts. I can't see it being replicated often or ever - it seems to me more like it's an effort to prove a point regarding the value (or devaluation) of music in general. So, in that sense, I'm not sure that it's "wrong" - unless it's intentionally wrong, which it may be.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

LaikaF 12y ago
I think another big difference, at least for me is control. A lot of venues have the sound up to loud for my liking. I like to enjoy music at a volume that is not physically painful. There's also the fact that a lot of the music I listen to is electronic and sounds very similar live as the recording. At least for smaller acts that aren't DJing.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ryanklee 12y ago

> Music, because of the visceral reactions it elicits, tends to be best experienced in a live setting. The animation and general atmosphere of the crowd brings a lot to the emotional table that is lost elsewhere, including home listening rooms. Definitely a generalization, as you caveated. With few exceptions, my appreciation for musical depth is substantially lessened in a live setting. One such exception is a venue with theater seating and an observant audience. The crowd sits and absorbs. I'm not taking chamber orchestra here, either. I mean Will Oldham or Bill Callahan or X-refined-"indie" band. Another is certain kinds of music played live in small bars where everyone is rip roaringly drunk and ecstatic but not focused on the performers, but engaged with the elevated social tenor, which includes dancing, senseless mixing, mingling and disregard for decorum. Random bluegrass works well for this. But largely (read: basically always), I need to consume music in either solitude or in extremely intimate, restricted, established, and empathetic company. Otherwise I can't concentrate on my emotional responses or develop complex relationships with the work! I don't mean that this is Appolonian for me. The contrary is true: it's Dionysian, but that's the kind of thing I can't get when surrounded, socially navigating, self-conscious and worried about the perception of others. Too much, not enough, as they say. My focus is a fragile thing, easily dismantled. (I envy the robust among you!) Anyways, I'm just digressing here, not disagreeing, esp. as you allowed for the fact that you are generalizing a bit. My experience differs vis-à-vis musical appreciation. Certain friends of mine have expressed similar feelings. But is it surprising that relationships to art will be as varied as people and art objects themselves? My guess is that there is at least a baker's dozen worth of people out there who prefer listening to music through barriers we can't understand, and still as many whose appreciation for music and voice and song comes from not hearing it at all.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

johnchristopher 12y ago

> Just as framed oils on canvas have a desired display in galleries that has been refined over centuries, music has a pinnacle presentation, and it does not include headphones. It's actually quite recent (~100 years) to have framed oil on canvas in galleries for people to look at them.