No, have not heard for myself Neal Young's new Pono audio player, but I like the idea behind it. For the sake of time (or rather my limited available right now) I won't go in to too much, but I did wanna just quickly make some comments. (Likely complete with typos and grammatical errors.)
Forgetting the cost of Pono (about $100 more than an iPod Touch) and the comparatively smaller number of tracks currently available (only about 600K) the notion of better fidelity has been haunting the digital age pretty much since its inception.
There's a lot of talk for studio folks about recording higher resolutions, but the final products always seem wind up as far lower res mp3s. And in some ways that's ok. If nothing else the mp3 has increased accessibility to a far larger library of music than before. And piggy backing on to that is the reality that in many ways, in today's world, being heard at all, even at lower res, is far better than no one hearing you at all. It's a trade off. I'll leave the philosophical discussion for another time as to if it's worth it or not. (It's an important discussion, but not one there is time for just now...) Anyway....
I remember the birth of the CD. The loss of "warmth" and "depth" of sound. The loss of full sized album covers. The "sterility." And so on...
And things have changed. Compression has gotten better. And our eases have gotten worse in some ways. We now tolerate the lower fidelity to the point of many of us not even really aware of what it's lower than, not even aware of the original baseline, yet we cannot handle the slightest "pitchy-ness." The irony of the loss of art in the whole matter is both ironic and sad. But also for another discussion.
My point is simply that weather Pono succeeds in the market or not, it's a step in the right direction. It's attempting to restore the feel of the listening experience to what it once was. How can that possibly be bad. And, if it does work, as Neal claims, then it's totally worth the extra money.
Now if we could just get people to actually buy albums again in full instead of almost always ala cart. Now that would really be something amazing for us to return to.
Here the origin lost i just saw today about Pono:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/neil-youngs-pono-music-system-almost-ready-to-rock-in-100182858224.html
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Saturday, October 11, 2014
There Are Only Two Kinds Of Music...and "Good and Bad" Are Not Them...
So, a few days ago I asked for comments on this notion and promised to share my own thoughts on the subject. I should start by saying the rather obvious - that this is just my sense of this, NOT any kind of claim to being "right." Anyway....
This subject was actually brought up by one of my ASU Music Education Interns, as we were talking about the creative process of my students and how I go about evaluating their overall progress towards creating effective music. (Note that the term "effective" is in itself a troubling term, but I digress...) Anyway, my intern mentioned that an ASU professor - key here is one who, at least on the surface, might seem like an ultra-traditionalist (a very incorrect label I personally feel, and my intern wholeheartedly agreed) - made the comment that the two types of music are "honest and dishonest." The reference was in terms of a musician's interpretation of a piece in performance, but I feel it applies far more universally, and having nothing do to with genre, instrumentation, technology usage or anything else that in may ways is all just superficial to me. (Another commentary for another time..)
In any case, this was one of those "aha!" moments for me. One of those times we all have on occasion where we think, "wow! I wish I had thought of that! That is brilliant!" And so this idea of "honest and dishonest" music really got me thinking about the whole process of music and creativity and what constitutes an honest process and what makes up one that is false.
The flaw, if I can use that word for it, in the "good and bad" line of thinking is that it ultimately is 100% subjective. That's not to say that it is not an important distinction, it very much is important, but as I thought about it, I realized that "good and bad" can never be perfectly aligned for anyone other than the individual experiencing the music. It's just too circumstantial. Too wrapped up in variables that can only apply to one person perfectly and to all others imperfectly. Too subject to the moment, moods and other countless elements. Too inconsistent.
But "honest and dishonest," have none of those issues. Honest and Dishonest is all about the creative process. Really, they have nothing to do with the listener. As a listener we are still free to interpret, still free to like or dislike something based on whatever personal experiences and preferences we have have. But that is not he same as the creative process.
The process is not good or bad. It simply is. And if that is true then the question is really about whether or not the process is genuine. Honest or dishonest. This has nothing to do with the actual result. Nothing to do with the resulting sound. Just the intent of whomever created the sound.
Sure, we want the result to "work." To reach and impact and effect the listener in a way that matches our intent, but if for any reason it does not, that does not mean we were dishonest with the process, just ineffective. "Effective" is the "good v bad" concept. It is rooted in result, and is 100%, as I said open to interpretation. How often does one person have a different taste or preference with regard to music? Or movies? Or books? Or art? Or food? Or fashion? Or on and on and on and on? All. The. Time.
But the intent is what really matters. How people interpret is on them. Certainly in today's world there are countless ways people can be influenced towards a particular interpretation, but that is still on them to react to those influences. It does not change the intent -the honesty (or not, I suppose) of that intent. That's what matters. In fact, as I continue to explore this concept, I suspect that the honest process more often yields the interpretation of "good" anyway.
And for those still struggling to "make it" - to break through - keep your process honest. In the end I am certain that is all that really matters.
Certainly, there is far more to this, and I am just starting to get me head around it, but I can already tell it is have a significantly positive impact on my own process and that makes it all the more fascinating, interesting, and worth it.
This subject was actually brought up by one of my ASU Music Education Interns, as we were talking about the creative process of my students and how I go about evaluating their overall progress towards creating effective music. (Note that the term "effective" is in itself a troubling term, but I digress...) Anyway, my intern mentioned that an ASU professor - key here is one who, at least on the surface, might seem like an ultra-traditionalist (a very incorrect label I personally feel, and my intern wholeheartedly agreed) - made the comment that the two types of music are "honest and dishonest." The reference was in terms of a musician's interpretation of a piece in performance, but I feel it applies far more universally, and having nothing do to with genre, instrumentation, technology usage or anything else that in may ways is all just superficial to me. (Another commentary for another time..)
In any case, this was one of those "aha!" moments for me. One of those times we all have on occasion where we think, "wow! I wish I had thought of that! That is brilliant!" And so this idea of "honest and dishonest" music really got me thinking about the whole process of music and creativity and what constitutes an honest process and what makes up one that is false.
The flaw, if I can use that word for it, in the "good and bad" line of thinking is that it ultimately is 100% subjective. That's not to say that it is not an important distinction, it very much is important, but as I thought about it, I realized that "good and bad" can never be perfectly aligned for anyone other than the individual experiencing the music. It's just too circumstantial. Too wrapped up in variables that can only apply to one person perfectly and to all others imperfectly. Too subject to the moment, moods and other countless elements. Too inconsistent.
But "honest and dishonest," have none of those issues. Honest and Dishonest is all about the creative process. Really, they have nothing to do with the listener. As a listener we are still free to interpret, still free to like or dislike something based on whatever personal experiences and preferences we have have. But that is not he same as the creative process.
The process is not good or bad. It simply is. And if that is true then the question is really about whether or not the process is genuine. Honest or dishonest. This has nothing to do with the actual result. Nothing to do with the resulting sound. Just the intent of whomever created the sound.
Sure, we want the result to "work." To reach and impact and effect the listener in a way that matches our intent, but if for any reason it does not, that does not mean we were dishonest with the process, just ineffective. "Effective" is the "good v bad" concept. It is rooted in result, and is 100%, as I said open to interpretation. How often does one person have a different taste or preference with regard to music? Or movies? Or books? Or art? Or food? Or fashion? Or on and on and on and on? All. The. Time.
But the intent is what really matters. How people interpret is on them. Certainly in today's world there are countless ways people can be influenced towards a particular interpretation, but that is still on them to react to those influences. It does not change the intent -the honesty (or not, I suppose) of that intent. That's what matters. In fact, as I continue to explore this concept, I suspect that the honest process more often yields the interpretation of "good" anyway.
And for those still struggling to "make it" - to break through - keep your process honest. In the end I am certain that is all that really matters.
Certainly, there is far more to this, and I am just starting to get me head around it, but I can already tell it is have a significantly positive impact on my own process and that makes it all the more fascinating, interesting, and worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)