The thing about objectivists is...
Listening is the essence and central activity of music appreciation. Listening is purely a result of the essential reality of subjectivity, and not that of any "objective reality" which is assumed to exist "out there." The human mind tends to rigidly cling to measurements, pedestrian concepts, and elaborate abstractions in attempt to simplify, subdivide, define, and categorize within the immensity of the realm of the experiential/subjective.
Over-reliance on concrete definitions and ideas serves to attach oneself to a sense of stability and security. The mind secretly hopes this will sufficiently ward off the uneasiness of feeling unsure, or off-balance, about one’s actual degree of comprehension regarding a given topic.
But what is it that is capable of registering sounds, recognition of patterns, recalling memory, and awareness? It’s pure subjectivity. It’s not the brain. That’s only an idea which is based on an entire system of definitions which define other definitions. The mind fortifies the boundaries of its interconnected structure by using circuitously self-reifying definitions.
Consider this: A description of a thing, proposed by the human mind, is only of that which a thing is not. A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.
What is it that is present in the pure silence during the instant just prior to sound waves propagating into the air space of the listening room? What is it which listens?
It’s subjective awareness, devoid of mental content. Your ideas aren’t listening, your experiential awareness is listening.
The more one thinks the same boring ideas one’s been thinking for years, the less one can listen. Subjectivity is the self-existent authority prior to the discernment of any quality, measured quantity, or the detection of that which we term "music". The deeper we can relax and sink into pure, silent subjectivity, the more deeply and purely we can listen and behold. Our subjective awareness becomes purer and less colored, our mind becomes more open and flexible, and experiential reality is seen to be the ever-present continuum which is of the greatest value of all.
@clearthinker Thanks for the response. People toss these words out to describe the quality of a recording, and seemingly more often to describe the music-reproduction-quality of a piece of equipment. Maybe I’m just dim, but I still don’t see how these words have any meaning in this context.
|
"Rhythm and Pace" is a term that's been in use for many, many decades and how you don't see it having any meaning in "this context" is baffling to me, unless you're under, say, 20 years of age, and have no appreciation for what's gone on before you. What you say could be the factors are some of the factors in determining "rhythm and pace". If it comes across more realistically, then it will have that "rhythm and pace." That, and the contradictions in what you describe in your scenario with one system versus another shows that one system is better at it than another and is, therefore, responsible for the difference. "Rhythm and pace" aren't something you can plug into a system. It's the result of the system, in toto. All the best, |
I am not sure… But objectively, one could actually measure that if one choose to do so. |
