TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred]
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »

Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred]

We all know that DJing, production and general listening experience will increase one's hearing quality, meaning you can hear certain details better or pick up on other frequencies that were previously unheard.

Secondly, I think we can all agree on the fact that pretty much no one starts off with great taste in music. Most of us listened to cheesy, commercial shit in our early years before we really started digging deeper.

Thus I came up with a little theory on my way home today. I was listening to a deep, hypnotic prog track which I remember disliking some years ago. The reason I didn't like it was because I thought it excessively monotonous and bland, but tonight I was completely enthralled by the subtle elements present and their gentle progression.

You may well chalk this down to hearing the song on a different/better sound system that complements the song better, but I'm convinced it was because my ears have improved dramatically over the years and I'm now able to appreciate more subtle sounds that would have been all but invisible to me in my early days, hence the song sounding plain and monotonous.

It's almost like a good producer, with their wealth of experience and excellent ears, is producing a movie in colour, seeing things that others aren't, and creating the film without realising that some of their audience is only going to be seeing it in black and white.

This was somewhat of a revelation to me, because as humans I think we all tend to assume that people experience things the same as one another, when in fact there are varying degrees of colour blindness and different levels of hearing. Never before had I considered that people might not like the music I like, not simply because they have different taste to me, but because they're missing out on the portions that make the song enjoyable in the first place.

Thoughts?

My thoughts:
I'm pretty sure after visiting clubs for many years I can't hear some frequencies any more.
In-ear headphones in combination with playing to loud also doesn't really help.

Also I doubt that cheese or commercial stuff for sure are less quality.
But that doesn't mean there is a lot crap among them, as there also is a lot crap which never got popular.

Some producers produced quality years ago and now according to many it's only cheese.

I'm having some mixed feelings. You can look at it from different points of view.

This is an interesting idea i was thinking off as well (actually thinking of starting a thread!). I have doubts though on whether "taste improves" over the years or whether taste just "changes" over the years. The fact that you can appreciate the slight elements of a prog-house track (whilst it may be true to an extend), doesn't mean that you have acquired some form of hyper-musical-perception after the years of listening to this specific kind of music. It just means that because you mainly likely this specific type of music (e.g. prog-house) you have trained your auditory perception to distinquish between(and even appreciate more) all the different elements of that specific type of music (meaning that if you get exposed to a classical symphony or free jazz, and you are not as experienced in classical or jazz, you wouldn't be able to have the same "High auditory capability and aprreication" towards those specific types of music)



IMO, taste doesn't improves. It just changes. Whether it changes to the positive or negative is largely a matter of perspective or culture. People often talk of their taste becoming more "mature", although one canno't objectively justify what is "mature" and what is "not". "Maturity" in EDM can end-up meaning "hype" (e.g. minimal or techno)without necessarily meaning that those forms of music are less complicated than some less mature forms (e.g. psy-trance associated with the hippies and immaturity, in a matter of fact psy-trance is MUCH MORE complicated than a lot of modern techno, a fact that many people hate-including me lol).



In a matter of fact i sometimes think the opposite. That some people who inherently have "high musical perception" can listen to quite complicated stuff during their teenage years only to "dumben-down" their taste to less complicated forms as they grow-up (but ofcourse as you say, you can also get the opposite pattern e.g.from less complicated to more complicated). This statement can be related to scientific evidence which states that ALL human infants are born with perfect pitch, but the majority loses it as they grow-up. It seems that the environmental soundscapes constrains the neurological development of the auditory cortex (the brain region responsible for auditory perception) and since the "environmental soundscape" is a product of culture (and choice), some people would end-up being more sensitive (and possibly appreciate more)to some specific timbres and sounds in relation to others ,without necessarily those timbres and frequencies to be more complicated or more artistic in comparison to others.




There are also some animal studies with higher primates that justify that. Some baby-monkeys were exposed to some specific frequencies. After a period of exposure, implanted micro-electrodes recorded the electrical activity of some neurons of the auditory cortex during an auditiry discrimination task (in which monkeys should discriminate between different frequencies. A success would mean a banana). It was discovered that monkeys were more succesful in discriminating those frequencies that were exposed to when they were young (in comparison to those that were not), and that a larger area of the auditory cortex (brain) was dedicated to the perception of those frequencies (as evidenced by the degree of neuronal activations).



Summing-up we have (also CoR version!).


1) Growing-up doesn't necessarily mean that one will appreciate more complex or "artistic" forms of music. In a matter of fact it can be the other way round. As a result, musical maturity doesn't necessarily mean "improvement", just change.


2) Culture and choice (for multiple reasons) determine musical preferences and the subjective aesthetics of various genres



3) Specific preferences for specific genres can "train" the brain-mind to distinquish, magnify and analyse the structure of sounds of those specific musical genres. As a result, a magnification of perception and aesthetics for those specific sounds occurs.


4) Culture and choice determines the auditory soundscape and produces changes in human auditory perception through 3).



EDIT: As for your situation,for some reasons you ended-up liking some forms of EDM. Because of your extensive exposure to it, you ended-up perceiving its finer structure. As i said before, this fact doesn't necessarily correlate with your taste "improving" or "maturing". It just means that experience has "tuned" your brain to those specific genres of music. "Maturation" is a defferent more subjective entity governed by many factors including culture, personality, emotions and cognitions. It is not objective and doesn't "improve" your taste. It just governs your musical preferences (in that case-prog-house) and then the extended listening to prog-house has made-you "Better" at it. This process is IMO unrelated to the concept of "taste maturation". Don't forget. What you consider mature, can be "immature" to another person


Yeah that was my 3 cents

I think any change that occurs in what we are able to appreciate is NOT physical in the sense it doesn't have to do with the ability to discern new frequencies or anything like that. If anything i think at any particular moment our chemical state plays a role (just as an example, i'm pretty sure most of us appreciate austere extreme metal, minimal techno, abstract jazz, or any "difficult" music, or any music really, better if we go take a jog and a hot shower before listening to it). But most importantly i think the process on a longer time scale is psychological, a complex, ever-growing and changing web of experiences, habituation, associations, creating and understanding contexts, acquiring tastes, training motor functions and countless inexplicable mysteries of our lives as humans.

I don't think it's about physical sensory acuteness, but to do with acuteness of the spirit, or consciousness, the ability to resonate with the faintest levels of a multitude of subtle emotional variants (better known as 'feel the vibe')

i always quote inayat khan:

quote:

The word 'spiritual' does not apply to goodness, or to wonderworking, the power of producing miracles, or to great intellectual power. The whole of life in all its aspects is one single music. The real spiritual attainment is to tune one's self to the harmony of this perfect music. What is it that keeps man back from spiritual attainment? It is the denseness of this material existence, and the fact that he is unconscious of his spiritual being. His limitations prevent the free flow and movement which is the nature and character of life. Take for instance this denseness. There is a rock, and you want to produce sound from it, but it does not give any resonance; it does not answer your desire to produce sound. String or wire on the contrary will give an answer to the tone you want. You strike them and they answer. There are objects, which give resonance; you wish to produce sound in them, and they respond; they make your music complete. And so it is with human nature. One person is heavy and dull; you tell him something but he cannot understand; you speak to him, but he will not hear. He will not respond to music, to beauty, or to art. What is it? It is denseness. There is another person who is ready to appreciate and understand music and poetry, or beauty in any form, in character or in manner. Beauty is appreciated in every form by such a person; and it is this which is the awakening of the soul, which is the living condition of the heart. It is this which is the real spiritual attainment. Spiritual attainment is making the spirit alive, becoming conscious. When man is not conscious of soul and spirit, but only of his material being, he is dense; he is far removed from spirit.

So are the three of you (SMC, nefardec, PETRAN) saying you don't believe in hearing outright improving over time?

I think it's also nesseseary to realise the possability that the brain activity level can improve. I've heard it's done studies on brain acitivty development on adults while reading (that you learn to recruit more/different parts of brain). It wouldn't say anything about taste getting better, but still probably a positive effect that could go for listening aswell.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated So are the three of you (SMC, nefardec, PETRAN) saying you don't believe in hearing outright improving over time?

It depends on if we're talking about hearing as what happens in the ear or as what happens in the brain.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC It depends on if we're talking about hearing as what happens in the ear or as what happens in the brain.

Most likely in the brain, but the result is the same anyway, isn't it? An increased sense of hearing.

it has to be whats going on in the brain - surely actual hearing only degenerates from a certain age (or from listening to enough loud music)?

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Most likely in the brain, but the result is the same anyway, isn't it?

not really, there are an awful lot of other things that go on in the brain that affect 'hearing' as perception. i'll just throw gestalt out there as one example.

but in answer to your other question, i think the ear organ 'sense' of hearing only gets worse with age, while the mind 'perception' of music, consciousness grows and allows for more variety and profundity of emotional experience and understanding.


this presents a number of philosophical and spiritual ramifications, for example, the idea that life is a preparation for death, for the 'after life', the eternal life of the soul. this makes life somewhat of a training ground for the soul, and while we have ears to help us cope with the material world, as we get older and presumably wiser, we also learn how to listen inward, and to behold the soul/spirit essence of music.



but i also wanted to make the point that what you consider as being 'better hearing' may be an illusory or culturally-conditioned concept based on the way we 'ought to hear'.

human tendency is to store sound in memory, as a sort of survival instinct (roar of the sabre tooth tiger, flash of lighting, sound of your wife's voice, etc)

as we get older we accumulate stored sonic images in the mind, which we use to decode anything novel.

however, i think that is is an illusory method of perception - i think true listening is about innocence, freshness, awareness (but not certainty)



here's another metaphor for your OP, domesticated -

imagine as humans we are like the leaves of a tree. in our youth we are one color. when we are exposed to light, a certain frequency of light resonates within us and creates energy, which allows us to grow. as we get older, though, this process changes our chemical makeup, and we begin to change color. as we change color, we cease to absorb the same frequencies of light, and we resonate with different frequencies.

similarly, what resonates with us, 'tickles our fancy' if you will, changes like this.

so in regards to what you said about not hearing content in the first place, i think that may be the case, but it's not a physical change of the ear organ, but rather the internal resonance that changes and begins to absorb 'emotional waves' that were once reflected.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN 1) Growing-up doesn't necessarily mean that one will appreciate more complex or "artistic" forms of music. In a matter of fact it can be the other way round. As a result, musical maturity doesn't necessarily mean "improvement", just change. 2) Culture and choice (for multiple reasons) determine musical preferences and the subjective aesthetics of various genres 3) Specific preferences for specific genres can "train" the brain-mind to distinquish, magnify and analyse the structure of sounds of those specific musical genres. As a result, a magnification of perception and aesthetics for those specific sounds occurs. 4) Culture and choice determines the auditory soundscape and produces changes in human auditory perception through 3).

PETRAN, good post.

I disagree with your use of the word 'maturity', however. I think you can substitute maturity with your choice of word, 'change'. The difference is, that there might be a certain direction of change. Obviously there are cultural conditions in the way, but I'm sure you would agree that it's not the old people making scream-o and psy-trance... I think there is a such thing as maturity, and I think that it affects musical taste. However, I feel that in this contemporary society, there are a more immature people than ever, and that most people are perpetual toddlers (especially spiritually).

I think it's important to analyze the development of musicians rather than non-musicians here, because ordinary listeners may continue to listen to the same thing out of nostalgia, etc, (although artists' development -or should i say 'change' lol- might be affected by financial decisions, etc)

magnification of perception - nice thought. related to what salvador dali calls 'the paranoid critical method', i'm sure. I think this is pretty standard human behavior - everyone sees the world through colored lenses. (or magnifying lenses)

I'm reading a fantastic book right now by R Murray Schaefer called "Soundscapes: The Tuning Of The World", which discusses at length the soundscapes of various cultures and times, and their effect on the psyche.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec not really, there are an awful lot of other things that go on in the brain that affect 'hearing' as perception. i'll just throw gestalt out there as one example. but in answer to your other question, i think the ear organ 'sense' of hearing only gets worse with age, while the mind 'perception' of music, consciousness grows and allows for more variety and profundity of emotional experience and understanding. this presents a number of philosophical and spiritual ramifications, for example, the idea that life is a preparation for death, for the 'after life', the eternal life of the soul. this makes life somewhat of a training ground for the soul, and while we have ears to help us cope with the material world, as we get older and presumably wiser, we also learn how to listen inward, and to behold the soul/spirit essence of music. but i also wanted to make the point that what you consider as being 'better hearing' may be an illusory or culturally-conditioned concept based on the way we 'ought to hear'. human tendency is to store sound in memory, as a sort of survival instinct (roar of the sabre tooth tiger, flash of lighting, sound of your wife's voice, etc) as we get older we accumulate stored sonic images in the mind, which we use to decode anything novel. however, i think that is is an illusory method of perception - i think true listening is about innocence, freshness, awareness (but not certainty) here's another metaphor for your OP, domesticated - imagine as humans we are like the leaves of a tree. in our youth we are one color. when we are exposed to light, a certain frequency of light resonates within us and creates energy, which allows us to grow. as we get older, though, this process changes our chemical makeup, and we begin to change color. as we change color, we cease to absorb the same frequencies of light, and we resonate with different frequencies. similarly, what resonates with us, 'tickles our fancy' if you will, changes like this. so in regards to what you said about not hearing content in the first place, i think that may be the case, but it's not a physical change of the ear organ, but rather the internal resonance that changes and begins to absorb 'emotional waves' that were once reflected.

Why are you turning this into a big meta-physical/philosophical debate? It's a very simple question.

I can't believe you're denying that hearing perception can improve with age. Sure, the ear degenerates, but the mind and therefore the interpretation of the signals received through the ear improves. There's no such thing as this:

"but i also wanted to make the point that what you consider as being 'better hearing' may be an illusory or culturally-conditioned concept based on the way we 'ought to hear'.

I'm not hearing layers in the music that don't exist because society "told" me to; I'm hearing them because a producer with better ears than me fucking put them there!

As a kid I could never hear the difference between a $100 sound system and a $1000 sound system; these days I am far more sensitive to the strengths and weakness of each system I possess (2 pairs of headphones, car system and a pair of studio monitors), and which parts of the song are likely to be amplified or dulled depending on where I'm listening. As I said, in my early years these changes were NEVER apparent to me; everything sounded pretty much the same everywhere, apart from obvious things like really heavy bass. You can't chalk this down to a "changing of my spiritual direction" or the influence on society; I'm hearing things I didn't hear before. The only explanation is that:

a) My ears themselves have improved.

b) My brain/my interpretation of the signals my ears send has improved.

c) Combination of a and b.


Okay, as I can see many of you are going to deny those facts anyway, take them as a hypothetical and continue the discussion as laid out in the original post.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Why are you turning this into a big meta-physical/philosophical debate? It's a very simple question.

firstly of all, there is no debate, secondly, there's no reason talking about perception/psychology can't turn into talking about philosophy. you're the one who said this was a 'serious' thread, unless of course the misspelling was intended to communicate sarcasm for some reason.

there may be other people who would like to talk about these issues as well.

and it may be an over-simplified question, because the answer isn't as simple as it seems you'd like it to be. maybe your cognition of words hasn't 'improved' the same way that your 'hearing perception' has.

quote:

I can't believe you're denying that hearing perception can improve with age.

i'm not. i just don't think there is a universal definition of 'improve' in this context.

quote:

As a kid I could never hear the difference between a $100 sound system and a $1000 sound system; these days I am far more sensitive to the strengths and weakness of each system I possess (2 pairs of headphones, car system and a pair of studio monitors), and which parts of the song are likely to be amplified or dulled depending on where I'm listening. As I said, in my early years these changes were NEVER apparent to me; everything sounded pretty much the same everywhere, apart from obvious things like really heavy bass. You can't chalk this down to a "changing of my spiritual direction" or the influence on society;

ok, you know the reason you didn't hear the difference between the soundsystems?

it's because you couldn't give a shit

this is what i mean when i say 'consciousness'. and consciousness extends as well into the spiritual as it does into the price range of stereo systems, which is why I brought that into the discussion.

my whole point about 'what we ought to hear' was exactly this: until you are told that a stereo system is supposed to accurately reproduce a sound, you have no basis upon which to judge it.


your ears themselves definitely have not improved. i think this is a pretty undisputed experimentally determined fact of nature.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Why are you turning this into a big meta-physical/philosophical debate? It's a very simple question. I can't believe you're denying that hearing perception can improve with age. Sure, the ear degenerates, but the mind and therefore the interpretation of the signals received through the ear improves. There's no such thing as this: "but i also wanted to make the point that what you consider as being 'better hearing' may be an illusory or culturally-conditioned concept based on the way we 'ought to hear'. I'm not hearing layers in the music that don't exist because society "told" me to; I'm hearing them because a producer with better ears than me fucking put them there! As a kid I could never hear the difference between a $100 sound system and a $1000 sound system; these days I am far more sensitive to the strengths and weakness of each system I possess (2 pairs of headphones, car system and a pair of studio monitors), and which parts of the song are likely to be amplified or dulled depending on where I'm listening. As I said, in my early years these changes were NEVER apparent to me; everything sounded pretty much the same everywhere, apart from obvious things like really heavy bass. You can't chalk this down to a "changing of my spiritual direction" or the influence on society; I'm hearing things I didn't hear before. The only explanation is that: a) My ears themselves have improved. b) My brain/my interpretation of the signals my ears send has improved. c) Combination of a and b. Okay, as I can see many of you are going to deny those facts anyway, take them as a hypothetical and continue the discussion as laid out in the original post.

I tend to agree with your interpretation as well. Synaptic plasticity is something that definitely needs to be considered; and, it is something that undoubtedly occurs to allow our brain to change over time. For example, consider taxi drivers. They have enlarged hippocampi (hippocampuses?) because they have spent their lives memorizing street maps. The same phenomena, albeit in a different physical manifestation, can no doubt be seen as people listen to music over the years. We become aware of, and learn certain things within music that changes our perception of it. Like the OP said, he notices things now that he had never been able to before. This is synaptic plasticity in action. Sensory input becomes integrated, and our brain learns to interpret the music in a different way.

Consider also a person learning to play the piano. When he first starts, there is no way he can bang out a quick arpeggio up and down the keys; he simply does not possess the ability to do so. But, a few years down the line, he will be able to do it with ease. What changed to allow him to do this? Different/re-enforced neuronal connections in the cerebellum, etc., via practice. Now relate this to a person listening to music. When he first starts, he hears the things that evolution has geared us to hear. But, over time, he can train his hearing to perceive little nuances previously unnoticed.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec ok, you know the reason you didn't hear the difference between the soundsystems? it's because you couldn't give a shit this is what i mean when i say 'consciousness'. and consciousness extends as well into the spiritual as it does into the price range of stereo systems, which is why I brought that into the discussion. my whole point about 'what we ought to hear' was exactly this: until you are told that a stereo system is supposed to accurately reproduce a sound, you have no basis upon which to judge it. your ears themselves definitely have not improved. i think this is a pretty undisputed experimentally determined fact of nature.

Although I do agree with your consciousness viewpoint, I think you also have to acknowledge the physical changes that occur. Sure, your ears might not change, but your brain is undoubtedly changing. Hearing perception is an ability just like any other - it has to be trained. We are not all born with limitless perceptive abilities that are just limited by our consciousness.

I don't like to use the word "improve," because who is to say one thing sounds "better" than another. But that does not mean that hearing abilities and awareness does not change.

quote:

Originally posted by habman6 Although I do agree with your consciousness viewpoint, I think you also have to acknowledge the physical changes that occur. Sure, your ears might not change, but your brain is undoubtedly changing. Hearing perception is an ability just like any other - it has to be trained. We are not all born with limitless perceptive abilities that are just limited by our consciousness. I don't like to use the word "improve," because who is to say one thing sounds "better" than another. But that does not mean that hearing abilities and awareness does not change.

no, you're misunderstanding me.

I do agree that the brain changes.

I don't agree that the ears change.


and as a corollary point, the change of the brain is subjective - ie, 'improvement' may be improvement in one regard, but could also be stratification, or pigeonholing, or close-minded in another

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec no, you're misunderstanding me. I do agree that the brain changes. I don't agree that the ears change. and as a corollary point, the change of the brain is subjective - ie, 'improvement' may be improvement in one regard, but could also be stratification, or pigeonholing, or close-minded in another

Ah, indeed I misunderstood.

Good points lol.

I've often noticed this myself. Years ago, when I was listening to Trance and just getting into the whole "swing" of things, I knew that the name Digweed was popular but had no clue about him. So, I picked up Stark Raving Mad and Bedrock.

Hated them. Absolutely hated them. They were slow, dull and just outright boring and repetitive. How could anybody like this?

Then, as you said, my tastes and perceptions changed. I eventually came across those CDs again and figured, "Eh, I remember not liking this too much, but why?" I put Bedrock in and was floored. It was fucking brilliant. The subtlety of everything, the stellar mixing, the flow, all of it. Even Stark Raving Mad was absolutely wonderful. I knew then exactly what it was that kept me from understanding the CDs; I didn't get it. I hadn't been around long enough to understand the concepts behind the music outside of Trance, to understand how even the most subtle change in a track can leave you floored. I didn't know how to get lost in the flow. All I wanted in the first place was "shit that was going to give me some energy and dance." I didn't know any better.

And honestly, it's funny to follow the progression of most people that post here. Most people who post here regularly used to be heavily into Trance (hell, Clovis used to whore Ferry Corsten like nobody's business). Now look at what genres seem to dominate the topics around here...

I remember watching a documentary about music, and a music historian claimed that people in the Middle Ages were more tone deaf than they are today. Certain chords were never used because they sounded tuneless to most people.

I think the same has happened to me. Once I had real trouble distinguishing notes. Now, especially as I've started fiddling about with writing melodies, I can discern different tones much more easily. When I was 11 years old and Ministry of Sound adverts came on TV I used to think every supersaw trance anthem was tuneless cack. Now I think they're blazing fires of melody.

The synaptic explanation makes a lot of sense to me. It's also one of the reasons why I think the idea of inherent intelligence as put forth by the IQ test is ridiculous. If I sat solving logical problems all day I'd be better at IQ tests than if I hadn't. The same goes with music. If you spend years listening closely to music you will develop the ability to hear it better.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this presents a number of philosophical and spiritual ramifications, for example, the idea that life is a preparation for death, for the 'after life', the eternal life of the soul. this makes life somewhat of a training ground for the soul, and while we have ears to help us cope with the material world, as we get older and presumably wiser, we also learn how to listen inward, and to behold the soul/spirit essence of music.

If our mind and its skills, abilities and perception is facilitated by physical changes in a corporeal thing like the brain, it makes me less inclined to believe in a soul. For me, something dictated by the shape and growth of a chunk of protein is not transcendental.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I've often noticed this myself. Years ago, when I was listening to Trance and just getting into the whole "swing" of things, I knew that the name Digweed was popular but had no clue about him. So, I picked up Stark Raving Mad and Bedrock. Hated them. Absolutely hated them. They were slow, dull and just outright boring and repetitive. How could anybody like this? Then, as you said, my tastes and perceptions changed. I eventually came across those CDs again and figured, "Eh, I remember not liking this too much, but why?" I put Bedrock in and was floored. It was fucking brilliant. The subtlety of everything, the stellar mixing, the flow, all of it. Even Stark Raving Mad was absolutely wonderful. I knew then exactly what it was that kept me from understanding the CDs; I didn't get it. I hadn't been around long enough to understand the concepts behind the music outside of Trance, to understand how even the most subtle change in a track can leave you floored. I didn't know how to get lost in the flow. All I wanted in the first place was "shit that was going to give me some energy and dance." I didn't know any better. And honestly, it's funny to follow the progression of most people that post here. Most people who post here regularly used to be heavily into Trance (hell, Clovis used to whore Ferry Corsten like nobody's business). Now look at what genres seem to dominate the topics around here...

I identify with this sentiment too, and massively, but you seem to be talking more so just about your tastes shifting, where my original post was more about your sense of perception changing and your taste modifying as a result. Perhaps they're the same thing anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If our mind and its skills, abilities and perception is facilitated by physical changes in a corporeal thing like the brain, it makes me less inclined to believe in a soul. For me, something dictated by the shape and growth of a chunk of protein is not transcendental.

that assumes that the changes are physical. what are ideas made of? ultimately if all ideas are matter, then all matter is an idea, so what gives you the idea that it matters?

here is the paragraph i left out of my previous quotation;

quote:

What is spirit and what is matter? The difference between spirit and matter is like the difference between water and ice: frozen water is ice and melted ice is water. It is spirit in its denseness which we call matter; it is matter in its fineness which may be called spirit. Once a materialist said to me, 'I do not believe in any spirit or soul or hereafter. I believe in eternal matter.' I said to him, 'Your belief is not very different from mine, only that which you call eternal matter I call spirit; it is a difference in terms. There is nothing to dispute about because we both believe in eternity; and so long as we meet in eternity, what difference does it make, if the one calls it matter, and the other calls it spirit? It is one life from beginning to end.'

Re: Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred]

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Thus I came up with a little theory on my way home today. I was listening to a deep, hypnotic prog track which I remember disliking some years ago. The reason I didn't like it was because I thought it excessively monotonous and bland, but tonight I was completely enthralled by the subtle elements present and their gentle progression. You may well chalk this down to hearing the song on a different/better sound system that complements the song better, but I'm convinced it was because my ears have improved dramatically over the years and I'm now able to appreciate more subtle sounds that would have been all but invisible to me in my early days, hence the song sounding plain and monotonous.

Bascially through experience you've learnt how to listen to EDM better. Quite often when I'm in the car with my girlfriend listening to my music, I'll be raving about this song and how it's got so much groove and all that she can hear is the one thing over and over again. She just doesn't know how to listen to EDM.

I think given the type of music we are all generally exposed to when we are young, think your seasame street songs. Very easy, simple songs with little going on bar vocals & melody (which match).

Then most children hear pop songs which are somewhat more complicated but still place a great emphasis on the vocals & often, matching melody.

Then you listen to a prog track where, I believe, the emphasised point or focal point of the track is constantly changing and is often quite subtle. It's more like the focus point of the track is the change of focus. Compare this to a song by say Britney Spears, where you are more spoon fed what to listen to, at any given point in time, during the song.

Now the process of being able to listen to this type of EDM is learned over time and most people, myself included, started listening to a lot less complicated types of EDM. I started off listening to techno from the Wetmusik guys. Mixing was done abruptly, focus points being shifted obviously and music was lacking a lot of subtlety. I shifted in to trance stuff as it was more interesting to me and eventually I've gotten bored of trance and I'm now in to progressive house on the deeper front.

Gradually the music I've listened to has become more complicated and subtle and I can appreciate it. I've learnt how to listen to long prog tracks! My girlfriend can't do this as she always tries to focus on the one point.

Re: Re: Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred]

quote:

Originally posted by m1kest4r Bascially through experience you've learnt how to listen to EDM better. Quite often when I'm in the car with my girlfriend listening to my music, I'll be raving about this song and how it's got so much groove and all that she can hear is the one thing over and over again. She just doesn't know how to listen to EDM.

The effect is not exclusive to electronic music, or indeed, music at all. I can hear ambient office noise, appliance hum, dogs barking and all kinds of noise far more clearly and precisely than I was able to a few years ago.

Re: Re: Re: Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred]

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated The effect is not exclusive to electronic music, or indeed, music at all. I can hear ambient office noise, appliance hum, dogs barking and all kinds of noise far more clearly and precisely than I was able to a few years ago.

Its just because you are focusing on it.

The more you are focusing on sounds the more your ears opens up and your brain gets more perception on sounds.

But it is not because you are physically hearing things better its just the brains ability to pick up more details in sound, and distinguishing them better.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.