Apartment Audiophile: A ‘subjective’ review of D&D 8c speakers for pop, electronic and rock music fans (link)

[Blaspheme]

Because they have decided they like it.

I'd ask how/why they formed their preferences, but see below about derailing.

Alright I'm getting out of here before I get in trouble in this thread, too.

Haha fair enough !!

 

[echopraxia]

I expect this disagreement won't be progressed or resolved. You are still talking about the artist's intention. I like the idealism, but lean toward realism.

If you can dictate to a living artist and tell them (despite any protest from them) that they are wrong about their own intentions, and your interpretation of their intentions is in fact more correct than their own actual intentions -- well, then I can just as well dictate to you (despite any protest from you) that your intentions in participating in this thread are to derail the conversation in bad faith, and no matter what you say, you can't make your self-identified intentions more correct than my interpretation

But yeah, if this isn't immediately obvious to you then you're probably right that this philosophical thread will not likely be resolved here, so probably best to branch that conversation out elsewhere so as not to derail this thread.

 

[Blaspheme]

If you can dictate to a living artist and tell them (despite any protest from them) that they are wrong about their own intentions, and your interpretation of their intentions is in fact more correct than their own actual intentions -- well, then I can just as well dictate to you (despite any protest from you) that your intentions in participating in this thread are to derail the conversation

But yeah, if this isn't immediately obvious to you then you're probably right that this philosophical thread will not likely be resolved here, so probably best to branch that conversation out elsewhere so as not to derail this thread.

The OP drew attention to their review, and you raised the point of disagreement. Which I found interesting enough to comment on.

In parting (from this tangent) note that it doesn't mean that the artist is "wrong" about their intentions at all, rather that those intentions are only an element of what determines the received meaning of the work. To use your example, I could not intend to derail, but based on the responses of others, actually derail. Who would be correct? Anyway I'm not going to keep banging on about it.

 

[echopraxia]

The OP drew attention to their review, and you raised the point of disagreement. Which I found interesting enough to comment on.

I don't actually think you intended to derail; I was just illustrating how dangerous and obviously wrong it is to claim anyone can interpret the intentions of an artist more accurately than the artist can explain for themself.

In parting (from this tangent) note that it doesn't mean that the artist is "wrong" about their intentions at all, rather that those intentions are only an element of what determines the received meaning of the work. To use your example, I could not intend to derail, but based on the responses of others, actually derail. Who would be correct? Anyway I'm not going to keep banging on about it.

Yes, that's why I referred to "intentions", not "meaning" or "influence" or a dozen other words which can be defined so vaguely as to mean just about anything you want them to

That said, I still would argue that an artist's choice to use or to not use dynamic range compression has almost nothing to do with oppression vs privilege, even beyond just the scope of intentions or artistic messaging. If you can find a way to define 'oppression' such that it applies to the loudness wars (and you truthfully don't see that as an absurd exercise in language games, or a humorous parody of postmodernism-gone-wrong), then I can just as well write a postmodern interpretation that demonstrates how you are oppressing me right now. And now everyone is offending and oppressing everyone else, everyone loses, we never reach consensus, and now humanity has regressed back to tribalism. Congratulations, mission accomplished? Ahh, maybe this was your intention, after all

 

[dfuller]

Interpretive theories aside, dynamic range compression is generally applied because the musicians who recorded the music demand it from the mastering engineer. In many cases, they literally sit in the mastering studio admiring the fancy speakers during the session and ask the mastering engineer to make it louder, please.

You know who does not ask for dynamic range compression but has to deal with it anyway? Classical musicians. Classical recordings are not mastered with compression, but if you hear them on the radio, they've nearly always been run through a compressor so that they are listenable in a noisy car.

This line of inquiry is useful only for college papers.

I'm not sure this is accurate. It's not the musicians. It's the A&R reps.

As for classical vs popular music, classical music has a much larger dynamic range than the vast majority of pop (and I use that as a broad term), so limiting before artifacts become audible is very limited. Plus, the recording methods between classical and, well, basically everything else, are very different from one another. Classical is largely recorded in a documentary fashion (i.e. you want to record the symphony as you'd hear it in the concert hall or sound stage), whereas rock/pop/rap/edm/r&b/jazz use recording as part of the art form (i.e. you want to capture the best version of the song, "as you hear it in the room" be damned).

 

[Blaspheme]

I don't actually think you intended to derail; I was just illustrating how dangerous and obviously wrong it is to claim anyone can interpret the intentions of an artist more accurately than the artist can explain for themself.

Yes, that's why I referred to "intentions", not "meaning" or "influence" or a dozen other words which can be defined so vaguely as to mean just about anything you want them to

That said, I still would argue that an artist's choice to use or to not use dynamic range compression has almost nothing to do with oppression vs privilege, even beyond just the scope of intentions or artistic messaging. If you can find a way to define 'oppression' such that it applies to the loudness wars (and you truthfully don't see that as an absurd exercise in language games, or a humorous parody of postmodernism-gone-wrong), then I can just as well write a postmodern interpretation that demonstrates how you are oppressing me right now. And now everyone is offending and oppressing everyone else, everyone loses, we never reach consensus, and now humanity has regressed back to tribalism. Congratulations, mission accomplished? Ahh, maybe this was your intention, after all

If you are saying the artist's intentions are the artist's intentions, then yes, they usually are. The quote from the OP you took issue with was philosophy and aesthetics—which the artist's intentions contribute to, but don't determine (with respect to their work). But I'm guessing the joke's on me, I checked the meaning of echopraxia. Well played !!