New Yorker piece on audiophiles

[posvibes]

Are you sure this article wasn't written by Patrick Bateman?

 

[CSG]

That digital photography is such a big hobby almost puzzles me. For me I've suffered a similar muting of my interest in photography to that of digital music. Digital music became so common and ubiquitous, on every device, streamed everywhere, on all the time, that it started to devalue music somewhat, in my own experience. Similarly, we are utterly flooded with images these days, everyone has a camera in their pocket, I've got too many digital photos on that device and on my computer I can't even be bothered to organize, the internet is flooding my brain with images all day long, too many to process. So for me it's harder than ever to "notice" a photo in a way that makes me stop and contemplate it.

It was entirely different for me in the days were each photo took real work to realize (I actually took photography/film in University and spent tons of time in the dark room).

I understand what you're saying completely. 21st century overload. But I still stream these days more than anything else even though I have a nice record collection from the old days (when I bought new records) and CD collection. Most all of my streaming is jazz and it's on almost all day as a mood enhancing background.

As to photography, I have to admit that my film cameras mostly sit idly by on display. I develop my own film and have a good scanner but I just can't do darkrooms anymore even though I have access to a good one at our local college.

 

[CSG]

Like Playboy, where I used to buy it for the articles, I used to subscribe to the New Yorker for the cartoons. I don't think I ever read a damn thing in there otherwise. Today, they're too *woke* for me to bother anymore.

 

[rdenney]

That digital photography is such a big hobby almost puzzles me. For me I've suffered a similar muting of my interest in photography to that of digital music. Digital music became so common and ubiquitous, on every device, streamed everywhere, on all the time, that it started to devalue music somewhat, in my own experience. Similarly, we are utterly flooded with images these days, everyone has a camera in their pocket, I've got too many digital photos on that device and on my computer I can't even be bothered to organize, the internet is flooding my brain with images all day long, too many to process. So for me it's harder than ever to "notice" a photo in a way that makes me stop and contemplate it.

It was entirely different for me in the days were each photo took real work to realize (I actually took photography/film in University and spent tons of time in the dark room).

Which is why I play LP records despite their flaws, and CDs despite the trouble of sustaining the players. It’s a listening ritual that establishes intention, which is an important part of the listening experience, for when I’m in the mood to listen in that way.

And even though I also do digital photography in addition to film photography, I approach it in a film-like fashion, with the same sense of intention, by using a large camera that is happiest on a tripod. And then I make prints (or sometimes books).

When operating my stereo (that archaic word), I’m looking at my own photographic prints, made on real paper and mounted in real frames. One must do that on purpose. That the experience is devalued for everyone else makes me sad for them, but it doesn’t diminish my own satisfaction.

Rick “always preferring the three-dimensional experience” Denney

 

[Wes]

Good - you and Matt Hooper just need to throw in a little Susan Sontag and you've got a New Yorker article ready to go.

 

[MattHooper]

Which is why I play LP records despite their flaws, and CDs despite the trouble of sustaining the players. It’s a listening ritual that establishes intention, which is an important part of the listening experience, for when I’m in the mood to listen in that way.

And even though I also do digital photography in addition to film photography, I approach it in a film-like fashion, with the same sense of intention, by using a large camera that is happiest on a tripod. And then I make prints (or sometimes books).

When operating my stereo (that archaic word), I’m looking at my own photographic prints, made on real paper and mounted in real frames. One must do that on purpose. That the experience is devalued for everyone else makes me sad for them, but it doesn’t diminish my own satisfaction.

Rick “always preferring the three-dimensional experience” Denney

That's awesome!

As I say, it's only a personal state of mind. I hugely admire that others still put effort and concentration in to digital life.
(I'm also working all day cutting sound on a DAW, so I can really use a break at the end of the day and "unplug.")

 

[JeffS7444]

That digital photography is such a big hobby almost puzzles me. For me I've suffered a similar muting of my interest in photography to that of digital music. Digital music became so common and ubiquitous, on every device, streamed everywhere, on all the time, that it started to devalue music somewhat, in my own experience. Similarly, we are utterly flooded with images these days, everyone has a camera in their pocket, I've got too many digital photos on that device and on my computer I can't even be bothered to organize, the internet is flooding my brain with images all day long, too many to process. So for me it's harder than ever to "notice" a photo in a way that makes me stop and contemplate it.

Digital technology can be used thoughtfully, with you acting as your own curator, or it can be a never-ending stream of algorithmically-selected content calculated to be just sufficiently tolerable that you won't switch it off! I found Pandora and Spotify boring for this reason, and generally don't bother with content automatically queued up for me by Netflix, YouTube or Amazon.

And lest it be forgotten, you can always delete digital content that you own: It's said that disk space is cheap, but I say it's not cheap enough to merit hanging onto things which will never deliver any real value.

 

[JeffS7444]

If you saw how many cameras and lenses I've acquired, you wouldn't ask that. Of course, there was this Leica M10...
More seriously, I'm fortunate at this stage of life that I can afford certain things I couldn't 30-40 years ago. Problem is, I no longer really want them. Like I've tried to teach my sons, it's better to know you can write a check for a Ferrari far more than it is to actually own one. I think the change happened when I left California in 1994 for Idaho. Retired, in the countryside, and no one left to impress.

I want stuff and probably always will, but this is offset by a growing sense that stuff can be a PITA too. And at least once during a move from one apartment to another, I've thought that if the building and all my stuff went up in flames due to no fault of my own, and insurance gave me a decent payout, I'd be celebrating the Easiest Move Ever.

 

[CSG]

I want stuff and probably always will, but this is offset by a growing sense that stuff can be a PITA too. And at least once during a move from one apartment to another, I've thought that if the building and all my stuff went up in flames due to no fault of my own, and insurance gave me a decent payout, I'd be celebrating the Easiest Move Ever.

You're lucky you don't live in my world. We have two home of about 2200-2300 sq ft. We have a total of 8 sofas and love seats, 2 king size beds, 2 queen size beds, and 4 twin beds. Then there are the books, the guitars and amps, the records and stereo gear (total of 5 systems between the two homes), and 5 vehicles. I've decided to die in place and let my kids worry about it because, at this stage, it's too overwhelming to contemplate. I once thought I was a minimalist (about 35 years ago anyway...).

 

[rdenney]

Digital technology can be used thoughtfully, with you acting as your own curator, or it can be a never-ending stream of algorithmically-selected content calculated to be just sufficiently tolerable that you won't switch it off! I found Pandora and Spotify boring for this reason, and generally don't bother with content automatically queued up for me by Netflix, YouTube or Amazon.

And lest it be forgotten, you can always delete digital content that you own: It's said that disk space is cheap, but I say it's not cheap enough to merit hanging onto things which will never deliver any real value.

Curation is an important point to me. My own recording collection is not vast by any means, but it is well-selected for my own tastes. I may not be in the mood for something, but nothing I have merits my dislike, so it all provides satisfaction at one time or another.

There are times (often) when I want a stream of stuff I might not have, or open myself up to stuff I don’t know about. That’s what FM radio is for, but only because I’m one of the lucky few who can pull in a good classical station. At least the station is being curated by someone who isn’t trying to get me to buy recordings like the ones I already own.

Rick “preferring curated choices” Denney

 

[CSG]

Which is why I play LP records despite their flaws, and CDs despite the trouble of sustaining the players. It’s a listening ritual that establishes intention, which is an important part of the listening experience, for when I’m in the mood to listen in that way.

And even though I also do digital photography in addition to film photography, I approach it in a film-like fashion, with the same sense of intention, by using a large camera that is happiest on a tripod. And then I make prints (or sometimes books).

When operating my stereo (that archaic word), I’m looking at my own photographic prints, made on real paper and mounted in real frames. One must do that on purpose. That the experience is devalued for everyone else makes me sad for them, but it doesn’t diminish my own satisfaction.

Rick “always preferring the three-dimensional experience” Denney

Just wanted to add that I print digital images on real paper in real frames and it's been a whole lot less time and trouble than when I was in a traditional darkroom. I see film not unlike records because with both, you have an actual source instead of digital files. I have negatives going back 55 years or so and can either print them traditionally or scan and print them.

I took this image with a Fuji X-Pro1 back around 2016 on the south rim of the Grand Canyon, printed and framed it and it hangs in our living room now along with some of my other work. A good eye will notice a little bit of a Leica M4 behind the right edge of the wood frame:

 

[Sal1950]

Digital technology can be used thoughtfully, with you acting as your own curator, or it can be a never-ending stream of algorithmically-selected content calculated to be just sufficiently tolerable that you won't switch it off! I found Pandora and Spotify boring for this reason, and generally don't bother with content automatically queued up for me by Netflix, YouTube or Amazon.

Why would you? I've never used a streamer to pick my play list for me, I'll go there with a album-artist or 2 that I don't have and want to listen to.

I took this image with a Fuji X-Pro1 back around 2016 on the south rim of the Grand Canyon

Dude, it's a nice sharp picture but it's black and white, color film isn't too expensive any more.

 

[BDWoody]

Which is why I play LP records despite their flaws, and CDs despite the trouble of sustaining the players. It’s a listening ritual that establishes intention, which is an important part of the listening experience, for when I’m in the mood to listen in that way.

And even though I also do digital photography in addition to film photography, I approach it in a film-like fashion, with the same sense of intention, by using a large camera that is happiest on a tripod. And then I make prints (or sometimes books).

When operating my stereo (that archaic word), I’m looking at my own photographic prints, made on real paper and mounted in real frames. One must do that on purpose. That the experience is devalued for everyone else makes me sad for them, but it doesn’t diminish my own satisfaction.

Rick “always preferring the three-dimensional experience” Denney

Looks like a nice little corner of the world you've made for yourself there.

 

[q3cpma]

Digital music became so common and ubiquitous, on every device, streamed everywhere, on all the time, that it started to devalue music somewhat, in my own experience.

I'd say it's the exact opposite: now that music listening can be only about music, only the true enthusiasts still put value in it without having to be distracted by a tedious and attention-requiring process.
I mean, otherwise, how would you explain that the so-called purists having access to the thing alone, without any imperfection or distraction, lose their passion?

Same for photography or any other hobby, of course; fiddlers aren't the real hobbyists.

 

[rdenney]

Just wanted to add that I print digital images on real paper in real frames and it's been a whole lot less time and trouble than when I was in a traditional darkroom. I see film not unlike records because with both, you have an actual source instead of digital files. I have negatives going back 55 years or so and can either print them traditionally or scan and print them.

I took this image with a Fuji X-Pro1 back around 2016 on the south rim of the Grand Canyon, printed and framed it and it hangs in our living room now along with some of my other work. A good eye will notice a little bit of a Leica M4 behind the right edge of the wood frame:

Nothing I said suggested that the prints I print were made in a darkroom. I was writing about the digital darkroom starring in the late 90’s.

Even when I use film (and there is no digital solution that offers as large a capture area as a 6x7 or 4x5 camera, despite that my main digital camera is a Pentax 645Z), I scan the negative and use an Epson printer.

I do still own my Omega D enlarger and all the rest of my darkroom equipment, but it’s in mothballs.

But I sustain a film scanning capability for the same reason I sustain vinyl playback capability. I have thousands of negatives and slides. There is no way I’m going to scan them all—that would simply take too long—but I still have plans for them.

Rick “no interest whatsoever in the film-vs.-digital debate” Denney

 

[rdenney]

I'd say it's the exact opposite: now that music listening can be only about music, only the true enthusiasts still put value in it without having to be distracted by a tedious and attention-requiring process.
I mean, otherwise, how would you explain that the so-called purists having access to the thing alone, without any imperfection or distraction, lose their passion?

Same for photography or any other hobby, of course; fiddlers aren't the real hobbyists.

You could say that, but the easier something is, the less value one puts on attaining it, and the more likely they are to take it for granted.

It’s great for those who have already paid dues—a veritable boon to them. But what about those who grow up with the assumption, based on the ease of consuming it, that art is easy? Yes, I know that playback or viewing technology is not itself art. But if consuming art becomes so trivial, won’t that triviality be carried to the consumer’s assumption about its creation?

That has already happened with photography. Music is a level more abstract, but it is not immune to the same effect.

I am NOT saying that art is the result of difficulty. I AM saying that the trivialized consumption of art likely leads to the trivialization of its creation—by consumers. One can equate that with the complaints against recording altogether, and counter that recordings have expanded appreciation rather than diminishing it by making it more available. That’s true, but only because those whose appreciation was expanded still had to invest in it, and came from a belief and understanding that truth was still live performance. But that doesn’t mean one can extrapolate along that line infinitely without consequences.

Both of my nieces are musicians of great ability who must work at other things because professional music performance has become so scarce. Another example: Doctoral graduates in music feel lucky to earn a spot in a premiere military band in the US, where they enter in the enlisted ranks as an E-6. Name any other military profession where the typical schooling includes two post-graduate degrees that does not offer a staff officer rank. If I went into the military as a common engineer, I would start (after basic training) as a second lieutenant—even with no graduate degrees. Consider the financial straits of most professional orchestras. Music as an art has been trivialized already, and trivializing the delivery is surely a contributor to that.

Rick “the view from the summit gains awesome beauty in proportion to the steepness of the climb” Denney

 

[q3cpma]

You could say that, but the easier something is, the less value one puts on attaining it, and the more likely they are to take it for granted.

But music listening isn't a "goal", nor the process of putting a CD on a significative deterrent. Maybe having to choose what you're going to listen has some relevance, though.

It’s great for those who have already paid dues—a veritable boon to them. But what about those who grow up with the assumption, based on the ease of consuming it, that art is easy? Yes, I know that playback or viewing technology is not itself art. But if consuming art becomes so trivial, won’t that triviality be carried to the consumer’s assumption about its creation?
...
I am NOT saying that art is the result of difficulty. I AM saying that the trivialized consumption of art likely leads to the trivialization of its creation—by consumers. One can equate that with the complaints against recording altogether, and counter that recordings have expanded appreciation rather than diminishing it by making it more available.

I think we're not on the same page: my point is that the people for whom music was trivialized by its ease of consumption didn't care that much about music in the first place. I mean, it's basic deduction, isn't it?
To pick a classic example, people who use the ability of digital libraries to shuffle all songs together, including styles that are clearly made to be taken as a complete album are the kind of people you're talking about, but not I.
On the other hand, I go back to the first part of my post: not having to choose music and even search for new material due to streaming platforms probably has some negative consequences; most obvious one being that you only listen to what the platform wants you to listen.

That has already happened with photography. Music is a level more abstract, but it is not immune to the same effect.

I don't agree for exactly the same reason: people who really care about photography and not cameras simply switched to what's best/most convenient (for them) for obvious reasons. What makes it hard to see is that such pure people are rare.

That’s true, but only because those whose appreciation was expanded still had to invest in it, and came from a belief and understanding that truth was still live performance.

That's only true for some genres, and even then, studio performances aren't strictly worse, just different.

 

[Robin L]

I am NOT saying that art is the result of difficulty. I AM saying that the trivialized consumption of art likely leads to the trivialization of its creation—by consumers. One can equate that with the complaints against recording altogether, and counter that recordings have expanded appreciation rather than diminishing it by making it more available. That’s true, but only because those whose appreciation was expanded still had to invest in it, and came from a belief and understanding that truth was still live performance. But that doesn’t mean one can extrapolate along that line infinitely without consequences.

I don't know. Creators gotta create, and the 'appreciation' of an audience's center of attention might not really be the point, might not be the inspiration for the artist. Just saw the "Zappa" documentary. Zappa was in a situation much like Charles Ives, successful enough in one occupation to compose [for a non-existent audience] the music he considered to be his lifework. Like Ives, Zappa is more highly regarded for his concert music in his afterlife then when he was making money.

And then there's Wendy Carlos and Colin Nancarrow, two artists who musical performances were in no way "live performances", and whose influence has landed in the musical vernacular of our time. Playing with a modern performing keyboard is an experience where small and easy physical motions can produced chains of arpeggiated sequences played in some simulacrum of a recognizable instrument or group of instruments, a French Horn, a string section, or a chorus. One can overdub these "performances" [or sequence them] until the result is just about anything you want, all in the comfort of one's pajamas. Like that background music for the new mini-series on Netflix. It's the current "normal".

The further we wander into the uncanny valley, the more uncanny everything gets.

 

[rdenney]

...I don't agree for exactly the same reason: people who really care about photography and not cameras simply switched to what's best/most convenient (for them) for obvious reasons. What makes it hard to see is that such pure people are rare...

Yes, but there are lots of people who care about photography who use large-format cameras for which there is no digital replacement. Larger formats use longer focal lengths for the same field of view and that has visual (and measurable) consequences. There are also the image-management features of large-format cameras, which can be emulated in software to some extent but at the expense of usable resolution. I would only use film for nostalgic reasons myself if an affordable (true) 4x5” digital back that would mount in my Sinar camera and be portable and robust for field use became available. But I don’t think that would be that much easier to use than film. It would be more convenient. Like Ansel Adams, I prefer time in the field with the camera and the subject to time in the “darkroom”.

Not all photography genres are fully served by current digital offerings, though I often make do out of necessity. I love the images I get from my big digital Pentax just as much as I love the way the camera works in my hands, but there are things it will not do. My own genre depends on working slowly and with as much deep consideration as I can muster. Many other genres demand facile speed and extreme portability. I would hate for those other genres, however popular they are at the moment, to de-equip those like mine.

Question (and back to music): Would I buy a software-driven electronic tuba in place of my real acoustic tuba if they made one that sounded the same and was easier to play? This is a serious question. Many movie and TV scores are already recorded using digital samples and software.

Next question: It appears to me that live music struggles to find an audience. Assuming this is true, is this good or bad for music? There will always be music, of course, but there may not always be professional musicians. I agree that some music is intended to be studio creation for artistic reasons, but what about the music that isn’t?

Rick “questions with no answers” Denney

 

[rdenney]

I don't know. Creators gotta create, and the 'appreciation' of an audience's center of attention might not really be the point, might not be the inspiration for the artist. Just saw the "Zappa" documentary. Zappa was in a situation much like Charles Ives, successful enough in one occupation to compose for a non-existent audience the music he considered to be his lifework. Like Ives, Zappa is more highly regarded for his concert music in his afterlife then when he was making money.

And then there's Wendy Carlos and Colin Nancarrow, two artists who musical performances were in no way "live performances", and whose influence has landed in the musical vernacular of our time. Playing with a modern performing keyboard is an experience where small and easy physical motions can produced chains of arpeggiated sequences played in some simulacrum of a recognizable instrument or group of instruments, a French Horn, a string section, or a chorus. One can overdub these "performances" [or sequence them] until the result is just about anything you want, all in the comfort of one's pajamas. Like that background music for the new mini-series on Netflix. It's the current "normal".

The further we wander into the uncanny valley, the more uncanny everything gets.

I was thumbing out a response as you typed this.

All of what you wrote seems true to me.

But is it a good thing? I foresee the death of (for example) live orchestral performance that pays the bills, and only some of that is explained by the culture of those performances. But this is too big an issue for this thread, and I’m not sure I can sustain it in any case.

The awe that someone like, say, Rick Wakeman or Emmanuel Ax creates requires, it seems to me, the ability to see their fingers moving on the keys, precisely because what they do can be created in a sequencer—slowly and without the same virtuosity.

Rick “not arguing in any way against the validity of studio creations” Denney