BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum

AMR exactly points out what I mean...

AnDrOiD wrote:I care much for sound quality, but I couldn't care less about what synths are used.

That's a question about how interested in synths you are.

AMR wrote:Audiopohiles have really top-end expensive audio gear and listening rooms.
They pick on recording imperfections (audio, bad mics, bad mix, bad preamps, bad stereo image, etc) and gear/media imperfections (errors, distortion, etc).

Absolutely agreed. They can also notice different "colors" in the same track or same
part of a trackplayed with different cables to the speakers. That's why an Audiophile can
spend 1000's of euros just to find the right cables with the right kind of material in their
cords etc. But how can you be an audiophile if you doesn't allready are a music lover??
I just see an audiophile as a more "extreme step" for a music lover to take. That's why
I found the question rather funny I must say.
Personal approach...
But if JeeGee was talking about caring for the sounds in a composition (critical listener or creator) rather than the composition itself or vice versa, I would say I'm a little of both.

I'm very interested in new expensive hi-fidelity stuff (allthoug I doesn't efford
the "Highest class") that will make "the experience" of good music much bigger.
I care very much about the type of sound choises in a track, but if the composition
itself is to repetitive or just enoying in some way for my musical ears I get tired of it
very fast just to pick it up again after some time if there was something in the composition
that I actually liked.

Sometimes I use to look at my workmates [at the factory where I work] when a new
song is played on the radio. We all have ear protections with a built-in radio and just
as an experiment I use to notice how they react if it's a new track with many synth/
computerized sound effects involved compare to little synth/computerized sound effects with
more ordinary drum, bass, guitar and song. Oftenly (those who have the radio on in
their ear phones) people have to tap on something, move their hands, their feets
or the head to the rythm if there is more electronic sound effects in a new song.
We seem to "catch it up" or somehow "starts to" like it much faster (Depeche Mode's
Playing The Angel singles is just one example). But over all the track will last longer
if it has a strong composition. If it's to repetitive/enoying the radio going off-mode quite fast.
If it is a good or catchy lyric we can even start to sing for ourselfs (you can read lips)
if there is a minute or two to spare.

AMR wrote: Audiopohiles have really top-end expensive audio gear and listening rooms.

Yeah, I agree, but I think the point is that they buy it all because of real need, because for them it's a huge difference, not just the need to show off or something. Of course all of us will hear the difference between music listened using cheap CD-player and very expensive equipment, but it's something more when being an audiophile, maybe like a level from which most listeners won't see the difference in quality and audiophile still can "get something more"...really hard to explain in English what I mean now

I mean - you're born as an audioplhile or you would never be a one. I understand it as a gift, not as something you can achieve. There can be people with huge musicall talent and great ear for it, but not all of them are audiophiles.
Of course I may be wrong

In fact it's all a case of definition.

AMR wrote: They pick on recording imperfections (audio, bad mics, bad mix, bad preamps, bad stereo image, etc) and gear/media imperfections (errors, distortion, etc).

Exactly.

AMR wrote:As far as electronic music, it's not the fact that we don't "care" about melody, we do as much as others. The thing is that the electronic sounds, even simple ones, contain melody in themselves.

I didn't mean that electronic musicians care less about the melody...you misunderstood me there (or maybe more probable - I failed to express myself ). I just didn't agree with the definition of audiophile as a person who concentrates on sound.

Well, an audiophile is, to me, someone who goes like "whoooaaa... that nearfield monitor doesn't respond very well between 300 and 365 Hz, cause that plastic mug you're holding causes unwanted reflections in an angle between... etc blahblah"

That's not what I mean, maybe I should not have mentioned the term 'audiophile' in the subject line...

I mean - do we care more about sounds than music?

It's like saying "that and that sequence wouldn't have sounded half as good if another sound was used" or "that and that song would've sound so much better if the right reverberation/sound programming was applied"

Do we care more about the groove, the feel, the atmosphere, an individual sound, rather than a mainstream listener would like a song for it's lyrics (no matter who would sing it, or how it would have been recorded) or something else...?

I thought I was pretty clear...

Ah yes, so it is clear, I am sometimes what you call "audiophile".
I always listen to a music twice.

The first time I try to be more into the material.
The second time I enjoy it as it is.

I'm both!!!

But in the end, it does not matter. As long as we enjoy the music we listen to.

Vieon wrote:But in the end, it does not matter. As long as we enjoy the music we listen to.

You are missing the point.

I am a bit of both, I guess. Because I can be really into a sertain sound or a sertain noice. But I also love real great lyrics and such as some people call mainstream. But I do not like the MTV lyrics, they are so bling-bling hip-hop to me and I hate that thing!

Love Leelene

Liking lyrics is not mainstream, not at all. Very well written lyrics can be very enjoyable and satisfying. It was just to point out my opinion...

GeeJee wrote:

Vieon wrote:But in the end, it does not matter. As long as we enjoy the music we listen to.

You are missing the point.

Well, yes, we do mind about the "texture" of the sound emsemble a lot more than "ordenary" people.

Mind you producers use this term in hip-hop too. Texture, but they need more "holes" in the mix the make the hop sound... sound... er... hip.

Jarre's "hit's" are always the more "texture simple" songs where the melody/percussion stands out more than what's rapping it... he broke that rule with C'est La Vie, it's all very complex (and distracting) behind the vocals (or the vocals are distracting, you choose).

And of course, Jarre show's off electronics to a point everyone has to say "cool" (I remember the impact of the huge MagFields 1 in CiC, the spatial Oxygene 1, the aquatic Equinoxe 3 (great melody) as texture pure songs and Oxy2 (great textures), Equi4 and MF2 as melodic hooks I could not drive out of my ears)... the "laser shoots" were (and probably still are) my favourite effects, although I love the portamentos when done good (albeit: not randomly), and the keyboard dinamic filtered rundown's like MF1 and Equi5 are wonderfully satisfying and the Equi5 like "candle lights". Forget it, I love it all.

And Jarre keeps textures always on, to keep you exploring... some people just wanna get to the point (drums and voice) and texture may pass them by (not on good stereos though, only on restaurant, the street, the market, the airport, and so on).

Man do I digress...

Kind Regards,
AMR
http://www.alvaromrocha.com

The question posed by Geejee, seemed simple to me at first: ofcourse I like the song first and then explore what it is that makes that song great (the individual sounds used). But thinking more about it, my thoughts move towards what makes our mind tick when hearing music, what comes first: the chicken (the sound) or the egg (the music). It's tricky to me: does (in our minds) sound give birth to music, or is music born out of sound. And where lies the emphasis. Well...I think the human mind likes structure, and all music(like) compositions that are out there have (subliminal) structure because they're made by humans. We pick up on that, so...we have the "song" in our heads and from that safe haven we can allow ourselves to dig into sounds.

But I'm not sure

If your a listener as well as a Musically minded person its hard to listen to something without analyzing it sound wise or compostionally,again thats like expecting a Carpenter to look at someone elses wordwork and look at it without wondering how it was made or constructed,its part and parcel of the occupation to break things down subjectively...


I can listen to music and break it down to how this was done or that was done, or hear certain elements but i can also listen as an outsider thats totally alien to Musical construction or synthesis.I'm glad i have the ability to be able to step inside the Musical bubble,but sometimes wish i could listen more naively without criticism but its hard to break that chain,I wouldnt consider myself an Audiophile,more Inquisitive and appreciative or music,I understand the power and emotion in music not only musically but with sound also and allow myself to feel music as well as just hear it,many people dont fully understand the real emotion of Music and how it can be so healing if you allow yourself to be submerged in its qualities.


To me Jarres music is for the more concerning Music appreciattive person,with instrumental compositions,you have to listen harder to understand it as theres no actual story board format of lyrics to allow the listener to understand what the music is about

with Instrumentals the music is considered the Main element whereby you HAVE to listen to it,but with lyrical content,that is considered more upfront and so you dont have to listen to the Musical content as much so it becomes secondary to the lyrics,more people can associate with Lyrics than Music alone,thats why i feel that Jarres music is like a fine wine,only the few who choose to taste it properly can fully appreciatte its taste.......