I think Eldon has a point. Music as art and entertainment. Audio as art and entertainment. A few examples:
1. A Schubert piano piece is played at a concert. That musical piece is art(as defined aesthetically by music critics/historians). However the performance is poor due to
bad playing or the room might be poor acoustically. The
piano piece is still art but the entertainment value is not very high.
2.A grunge group is playing at some hole in the wall. The
music is not particularly artful(again aesthetically valued), but everbody is dancing, having a great time. No art but very high marks for entertainment value.
3.A 1944 recording of Bruckner's 8th Symphony in Berlin by the Berlin Philharmonic with Furtgangler conducting. By musical standards very much art(the people that were there say this was one of the great performances of all time).
But with a great system like Confedboy's Avalons and kilowatt Boulder amps the 2db dynamic range and tape hiss
galore would make this probably a very painful experience,
not very entertaining indeed!! An not art by audio standards
either.
4. A famous singer/pianist records some pop songs, the
recording has fabulous soundstage/imaging cues, clarity,
you name it, the recording has it. Is it musically, art,
as defined by aesthetics probably not. But by audio
standards it is both art and entertainment.
What's the point:Audio is an art form itself and does not necessarily need music as art to make it so. Harry Pearson
proves that point, his musical lists are almost entirely
void of music that I would consider as art, again as defined
by aesthetical values. However as Audio as art the recordings he chooses are very much art and therefore
audio becomes ipso facto art. Comments???
1. A Schubert piano piece is played at a concert. That musical piece is art(as defined aesthetically by music critics/historians). However the performance is poor due to
bad playing or the room might be poor acoustically. The
piano piece is still art but the entertainment value is not very high.
2.A grunge group is playing at some hole in the wall. The
music is not particularly artful(again aesthetically valued), but everbody is dancing, having a great time. No art but very high marks for entertainment value.
3.A 1944 recording of Bruckner's 8th Symphony in Berlin by the Berlin Philharmonic with Furtgangler conducting. By musical standards very much art(the people that were there say this was one of the great performances of all time).
But with a great system like Confedboy's Avalons and kilowatt Boulder amps the 2db dynamic range and tape hiss
galore would make this probably a very painful experience,
not very entertaining indeed!! An not art by audio standards
either.
4. A famous singer/pianist records some pop songs, the
recording has fabulous soundstage/imaging cues, clarity,
you name it, the recording has it. Is it musically, art,
as defined by aesthetics probably not. But by audio
standards it is both art and entertainment.
What's the point:Audio is an art form itself and does not necessarily need music as art to make it so. Harry Pearson
proves that point, his musical lists are almost entirely
void of music that I would consider as art, again as defined
by aesthetical values. However as Audio as art the recordings he chooses are very much art and therefore
audio becomes ipso facto art. Comments???