Video, Audio, the Public En Masse and Music Education

[Vbrook]

Hi,

 

Here's my observation, in a nutshell: people who notice slight differences in video quality are revered. People who notice slight differences in audio quality are generally seen as somewhat delusional, or as a liar, or both.

 

I've come to this conclusion slowly, by reading articles and newsgroups. Consistently, reviews of video quality are much more rigourous than reviews of audio quality in general publications. In newsgroups dealing with a/v, posts from individuals with sensitive ears are treated dismissively, while detailed investigations of video quality are the norm. Where people can't discern better video quality, they are enamoured by those who can. Where people can't discern better audio quality, they dismiss those who can.

 

This is a generalisation, obviously, but I think it holds.

 

Why this situation? I think one big reason is bad music education, a topic I've grown increasingly interested in. Notice average people, after watching an average film, talk about the movie. They talk about plots, subplots, dialogue, the setting, the production, the acting, and so on. When it comes to music, however, the average person has practically NO VOCABULARY NOR ANY ANALYTICAL TOOLS to talk about what they heard. This is true in the US and in many other countries, I think. They literally cannot talk about music in any meaningful way that approaches their ability to talk about film. That's bad.

 

Underlying, I think this also has implications in the "music stealing" debate. Music isn't something most people know how to value. They may enjoy it---or not---but, they can't put a more complex personal value on it. Music is an entertaining boom, boom, boom, they see a rock band jumping about on stage, and then in photos partying the days and nights away. That's music, to a lot of people. It's not a culturally important thing. Lyrics are, maybe. But then the lyrics are often celebrated because they are so poetic. They're not celebrated because they're so musical.

 

Just my two penneth...

 

Any thoughts?

[Hard Truth]

I defintely agree that people lack the vocabulary to discuss music intelligently, this includes most pop/rock music critics.

In my 1999 essay the problem with rock critics I discussed my frustration with the fact that rock critics were unable to understand the new electronic music

 

"These post-rock genres require a whole new way of listening to music. Melody and harmonic structure are relatively unimportant. The musician's technical abilities and personality are almost irrelevant. The important quality is the artist's ability to develop interesting sonic textures by combining and layering found, played and synthesized sounds, rhythms and music. However, it is not surprising that using time-tested compositional techniques to balance continuity with variety is still effective.

 

Music critics in the mainstream media and established "lifestyle" publications have mostly been clueless in understanding this musical shift. Their over-emphasis on lyrics and musician's personality has rendered them unable to appreciate significant artists whose work is primarily instrumental, while causing them to drool all over mediocre verbally-oriented artists such as, say, Liz Phair. This also explains why Beck, with his folk-rock roots, is the only post-rock artist to get a significant amount of attention from these old-school critics. Of course this blind faith in the cult of personality and the never-ending quest for a "New Dylan," "New Sex Pistols" or even a "New Madonna" is encouraged by the corporations that sell us the music since it makes their marketing efforts that much easier.

 

Music writers too often lack the understanding and vocabulary necessary to adequately describe the new music and technology. They should take a few tips from classical and jazz writers and learn how to create written descriptions of sounds rather than simply express their first-impression attitudes towards the music. They also need to make the effort to learn about the tools that artists are using. It's time for publications dominated by these old-school critics to make room for more open-minded writers capable of understanding and describing innovative new music, not just musical personalities. It's not impossible to describe and evaluate instrumentally-based new music, I've seen it done well, most consistently in musician-oriented publications."

[rasputin1963]

Hi, Here's my observation, in a nutshell: people who notice slight differences in video quality are revered. People who notice slight differences in audio quality are generally seen as somewhat delusional, or as a liar, or both. Any thoughts?

 

Are you ready for the truth? Have you studied NLP, or Neuro-Linguistic Programming?

 

The fact is, all of us here with sensitive, discriminating ears are rara avi (rare birds). The vast majority of the population is Kinesthetic first (they tend to feel things, taste things); the next largest group in the human population is the Visual people (their primary means of understanding the universe is through their eyes). lastly, you have us gifted individuals who are primarily Auditory...

 

The Auditory person:

• Understands music good

• Hears subtle variations in sound

• Notices the tone in which words are spoken, and can become pleased or infuriated by the various tones people use in any given day (regardless of the actual words used).

• Becomes more irritated by seemingly inconsequential sounds, like the chirping of a bird, a whirring ceiling fan, or the continual passing of Harley-Davidsons.

• Tends to use verbs derived from the world of sound, such as: "Does that sound good to you?" "Yeah, sounds like a plan." "Yeah, I hear what you're sayin', loud 'n' clear." "The name rings a bell."

Fact is, most of the public evaluates musical acts NOT on how they sound.... but on how they look. They can't help it. This is why, in the world of pop & jazz, you'll hear musicians talk about "musician's musicians". (ie., musicians prized by other Auditory types).

 

This is why, if you are booked to play a party at a very rich person's house, you may be surprised when the hostess wants to bitch and moan over your price; then when you get to her mansion, you see it's full of all kinds of visual tchotchkes and topiary and obscene Pop art paintings and vintage autos and arboretums and objets d'art which are superfluous but cost a lot of money. You start thinking: Man, she can afford this {censored} but she can't afford ME?? Most of the very rich are Visuals. (Don't take my word for it, do your own footwork).

 

I've used this example before, but, this is why you can go into a dingy Austin coffee-shop frequented by burnt-out flower children... The poor old guitarist is there, playing for whatever tips he can get, but on the wall are abstract paintings that look like a chimp rendered them in feces.... selling for $500---$1000. [where is the fairness here?] For better or for worse, the lay public tend to value things they can see and hold.

 

Most of the world is Visual and Kinesthetic. They don't hear what we Auditory Types hear... unless they really buckle down and try to. And even then...

[Hard Truth]

The lack of public education re. music is also why most people can not accept music that is frightening, disturbing, dramatic or tense, even though they have no trouble with accepting these same qualities in a movie.

 

On the other hand, some of the extreme audiophiles with their voodoo theories, gullibility and retro-worship hurt the credibility of people with discerning ears.

[nat whilk II]

Music seems to me to be very similar to language - an audible sequence of sounds with a very complex and subtle structure that communicates "meaning" through a shared set of associations, memories, conventions, etc etc etc

 

So, like language, you don't have to be particulary sensitive to its subtleties to learn it and use it. It is learned, but at such a deep and early level that it seems innate and obvious.

 

And like language, some people make art with it, and those people understand (to a varying extent) the structures and history and subtleties.

 

Language is learned at such a deep and early level that it seems just an innate given thing to most people, not something they learned at their mother's knee. To a certain extent, some of our musical ear-training is learned in the same way - so early, deep, and subconscious, that it seems almost a random part of our makeup, like our DNA.

 

Some musicians want to keep those deep musical patterns they learned so unconsciously, in that dark, deep place, so they can bring it out intuitively. Other musicians want to dive in with their intellects into those structures and subtleties and figure out what makes them tick.

 

The "unconscious" musicians can fall into the trap of thinking they are being creative when all their are doing is aping musical structures they just don't remember having learned at some point.

 

The "conscious" musician can fall into the trap of substituting their intellectual explanation of music for music itself, and create music that doesn't speak to the deep inner person, but only articulates their own objective intellectual structures.

 

The greatest musicians synthesize the two approaches in an uncanny fashion.

 

So sez me....

 

nat whilk ii

[Vbrook]

Hi,

 

I had some laptop probs----didn't abandon the thread I started.

 

I agree with everything posted, and there's so many dimensions to the issue.

 

About the music journalism/criticism I would postulate that there are a lot of good writers out there (even freelancing for lifestyle mags) that get censored or edited-to-hell by the publishers. But not all. I have a free subscription to one those mags---Maxim or Blender I don't know---and in a recent issue, someone asked the music columnist about the "odd time signatures" that they read about somewhere in relation to a band. The response started as "Geek out alert." What followed was a poor, two-sentence description, concluded by, "it's something musicians do when they're trying to be artsy".

 

A great example of music journalism I recently came across was a review of Good Vibrations in the "Class Track" section of I think Sound on Sound. True, it was written for a musician-audience, but nothing in it was overly technical; and, what technical elements there were, were totally explained. I've shown it to non-musicians to read, and they've all liked it. It was a story about how the track was conceived and put together, with historical context. Personally, I hadn't given much thought to the song in a long time, but after reading the article I was inspired to give it a listen and wound up hearing it in a whole new light. In this, I found the article a powerful example of good music journalism.

 

With regard to NLP, I have a friend who's a practitioner, so I'm familiar with it in a broad sense, but not in a detailed way. I liked the breakdown of archetypes. Although, while it's true that no everyone's primary perspective mechanism is sound, a lot them still enjoy music in a pure sense---they're just not musicians. Point taken though, as it seems to me that auditory types are definitely in the minority.

 

I feel the art gallery example with all my heart, as I've in the distant past done music at gallery showings. The music was more a part of the "ambiance" than the art, which is a shame. On the one hand, a painting is a unique thing that a person owns---no one else has it---but, lots of people own the same CD. But on the other hand, it's a wrong comparison, because music operates under a different value system. It's more like food. You pay for your personal experience and enjoyment of it, and you don't care if someone else is eating the same thing.

 

Music is similar to language in some ways, but I think it's fundamentally very different went it comes to analysing a work. Reading a book, you'd string the words together, comprehend, then react----basically in that order. If you don't know the words, you can't get anywhere. Not too different with a painting: you first understand the representation----bare trees, brown colours, autumn----then you react to it, melancholy. Music is reverse. You react, then you reflect on the actual structure and representation. The analytical---and educational---approach should therefore be very different.

 

Cheers

[veracohr]

Here's a thought: perhaps music doesn't have the value to some people as it does to us because it can be in the background. You can drive, wash dishes, read, do almost anything while listening to music, so it becomes part of the scenery. Like a wall hanging--nice if you take the time to pay attention to it, but usually it's just 'there'.

 

Video, on the other hand, you pretty much have to put all your attention on it. Unless it's some sort of psychedelic, evolving colorscape, video can't really be in the background without being distracting. So the average person may be able to tell more difference between relative video quality because they are used to paying closer attention to video. And humans are very visual in general.

[Lee Flier]

Here's a thought: perhaps music doesn't have the value to some people as it does to us because it can be in the background. You can drive, wash dishes, read, do almost anything while listening to music, so it becomes part of the scenery. Like a wall hanging--nice if you take the time to pay attention to it, but usually it's just 'there'.

 

Not to me. I'm definitely one of those "auditory" folks cuz I'm very sensitive to sound, including background noise/music. If I hear music I always have to focus on it, I can't just have it be in the background while I do something else. So either I have it on and am actively listening, or I want to turn it off.

 

Video, on the other hand, you pretty much have to put all your attention on it. Unless it's some sort of psychedelic, evolving colorscape, video can't really be in the background without being distracting. So the average person may be able to tell more difference between relative video quality because they are used to paying closer attention to video.

 

I don't really think so, I see people all the time with the damn TV on in the background when they're not really watching it. Drives me nuts too... maybe because the sound is usually blaring.

 

 

And humans are very visual in general.

 

This much is true.

[Lee Flier]

Here's my observation, in a nutshell: people who notice slight differences in video quality are revered. People who notice slight differences in audio quality are generally seen as somewhat delusional, or as a liar, or both.

 

Funny, I never thought of that but yeah, you're totally right. And I wasn't really aware of the research that rasputin posted, but it makes perfect sense and would explain a lot of things about myself and some of the responses I get from people when I express certain opinions about audio.

[blue2blue]

I think the short shrift a lot of self-ordained "golden ears" types get from audio professionals has far more to do with what is often a manifest lack of technical/scientific understanding on the part of the golden ear combined with outlandish claims, a lack of understanding of objective measurement, and the fact that most of those folks spurn any sort of rigorous testing of even their subjective judgments. (ie, the last thing most of those guys are going to do is a proper double blind test -- and some will even try to erect elaborate if elaborately irrational excuses for why double blind testing isn't worthwhile in separating actual preferences from wishful thinking.)

[Lee Flier]

 

I think the short shrift a lot of self-ordained "golden ears" types get from audio professionals has far more to do with what is often a manifest lack of technical/scientific understanding on the part of the golden ear combined with outlandish claims, a lack of understanding of objective measurement, and the fact that most of those folks spurn any sort of rigorous testing of even their subjective judgments. (ie, the last thing most of those guys are going to do is a proper double blind test -- and some will even try to erect elaborate if elaborately irrational excuses for why double blind testing isn't worthwhile in separating actual preferences from wishful thinking.)

 

 

Oh I dunno - I've participated in some double blind tests and there are still a lot of people who insist I don't "really" hear what I hear. And the "claims" I make aren't even that outrageous compared to many. So there's a lot of defensiveness and denial on the "other side," too.

[veracohr]

I don't really think so, I see people all the time with the damn TV on in the background when they're not really watching it. Drives me nuts too... maybe because the sound is usually blaring.

 

Ah, but they don't put on the TV to have the visuals in the background, they put it on to have the sound in the background.

[kurdy]

 

Underlying, I think this also has implications in the "music stealing" debate. Music isn't something most people know how to value. They may enjoy it---or not---but, they can't put a more complex personal value on it. Music is an entertaining boom, boom, boom, they see a rock band jumping about on stage, and then in photos partying the days and nights away. That's music, to a lot of people. It's not a culturally important thing. Lyrics are, maybe. But then the lyrics are often celebrated because they are so poetic. They're not celebrated because they're so musical. Just my two penneth... Any thoughts?

 

 

That last part is the only part of your argument I don't agree with. It seems to me people generally don't listen to lyrics. If they like the music, then they'll generally want to learn the lyrics so they can sing along, but lyrics aren't the selling point. Of course, the average person doesn't know anything about time signatures and key changes. However, it's like on American Bandstand, when they'd ask a teenager why they liked a certain song, and the teenager would respond "because it's got a good beat and you can dance to it". I think that still holds true today. People just want to be entertained. If lyrics were the most important thing, then they would just read poetry instead.

[kurdy]

 

For better or for worse, the lay public tend to value things they can see and hold.

 

 

Yes, but to be fair, I think the average lay person would react to these paintings the same way you did, in that they would say, "who the hell would pay money for this crap?" That is, if they even notice them at all. The art is meant to create an atmosphere, but I doubt many people at a coffee-shop would be actively analyzing the paintings, unless they are artists themselves. If they hear a song playing that they like, I think they'd be more inclined to notice that.

 

I have a cousin who is an abstract artist, and he often says himself that there is a very limited audience for what he does. There are art enthusiasts who might pay 500+ dollars for a painting, but they are definitely in a small minority. Most people, if they even bother at all, would be content to hang a cheap print of a tree or a lake in their living room, just to make the place look nice.

[rasputin1963]

 

 

 

 

Ha-ha-ha. That's true: from the 1950's through to the 1980's, that was the kids' perennial response, wasn't it? Makes you wonder if they weren't coached beforehand to say just that.

[Duddits]

 

I feel the art gallery example with all my heart, as I've in the distant past done music at gallery showings. The music was more a part of the "ambiance" than the art, which is a shame.

 

 

Isn't that like saying the appetizers at a gallery opening are treated like food in comparison to the art?

 

Or that the art at a concert venue is treated like wallpaper in comparison to the music?

[Duddits]

 

Hi, Here's my observation, in a nutshell: people who notice slight differences in video quality are revered. People who notice slight differences in audio quality are generally seen as somewhat delusional, or as a liar, or both. I've come to this conclusion slowly, by reading articles and newsgroups. Consistently, reviews of video quality are much more rigourous than reviews of audio quality in general publications. In newsgroups dealing with a/v, posts from individuals with sensitive ears are treated dismissively, while detailed investigations of video quality are the norm. Where people can't discern better video quality, they are enamoured by those who can. Where people can't discern better audio quality, they dismiss those who can. This is a generalisation, obviously, but I think it holds. Why this situation? I think one big reason is bad music education, a topic I've grown increasingly interested in.

 

 

Great observation but I disagree with your conclusion. I think it has more to do with evolution than education, rooted in physiology. But great observation!

 

But that doesn't mean humans care less about music, only the quality of the delivery mechanism, as witnessed in the triumph of MP3 over SACD. People will tolerate bad audio quality if they like the music, but are less tolerant of bad video quality, regardless of content.

 

There was a paper at AES that found audience response to audio is more influenced by video quality than audience response to video is influenced by audio quality. In other words, an audience would rate a movie quality as high if the video was good but the audio was poor; however, an audience would rate a movie quality as bad if the video quality was poor and the audio quality was good.

[nat whilk II]

The AES paper - isn't that just stating the obvious? Movies are, duh, primarily visual media and secondarily audio. Foreground and background. Actors and backdrop. Of course people will react more to the visual aspect in that setting.

 

Go to a concert and it's the other way around. People will be influenced more by a crappy, muddy, distorted PA system than by poor stage lighting.

 

But to be honest, I think there's no doubt about it - movies are a more powerful experience simply because more senses are being acted on in an enveloping fashion. The same reason TV trumps radio. Or seeing Shakespeare on stage is more powerful than reading it on the sofa. Or Jennifer Connelly sitting on your lap is more interesting than a picture of Jennifer Connelly on the movie screen.

 

Are people more sensitive and discriminating when it comes to visual than they are to audio? Probably - surely this can be scientifically measured. I think that sounds are perceived as giving us information "about" what's happening, but visual images are perceived as "what's actually happening". Or something like that. Movies echo this idea of tiered layers of perception. The music "cues" us as to what's happening or about to happen. But if we don't visually see what happens, we don't really "know" what happened.

 

I'm always hearing things that other people don't hear. I smell things, too, that go unnoticed to most people around me (for better or worse). But visually I'm pretty oblivious unless I'm in a situation of total visual focus.

 

At the movies, I almost never remember the soundtrack. The visual drives out the audio - I can't multitask the two perceptions with any balance. One or the other, but not both at the same time. And I die for the subtleties of great instrumental performance - the tiniest nuances become for me huge icons of great musical moments. Great musical moments are so personal and "total" to me. I'm just used to only musicians, and musicians of a certain stamp, that seem to react to music similarly. It's just the way it's always been as long as I can remember.

 

nat whilk ii

[Vbrook]

I thought I was set to get a ping when there was a new post to the thread, but it isn't happening.

 

I find the movie issue interesting. The basic judgment that viewers make is: Can I look at the screen and discern all of the visual details that I would see were I there in real life? The key here is, it's not about quality---it's about discernment.

 

It's no different with the audio section of the film. Can I make out the words people are saying? Can I make out where the sound is coming from? If there's music, can I hear the individual instruments, or does it sound like mush?

 

The problem is, it's taken way more technological effort to achieve realistic video than it has realistic audio. And video is still not there. I can put on headphones, close my eyes and listen to binaural recordings that sound very, very real. Yet, video goggles are crap.

 

It's tempting to think that people are (overall) more visually aware than aurally. But I think it just seems that way sometimes, because video is still so far behind audio, in terms of realism. With video, there's so much more to complain about.

 

But music is a different story. Does the album, Aja, sound realistic on my home stereo? What does that even mean?

 

Music and audio are---in a way---two different things. You don't need to be ultra-sensitive to sound in order to appreciate music. I'm sure plenty of colourblind people love movies and analyse them for hours?

 

Great thread.

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are people more sensitive and discriminating when it comes to visual than they are to audio? Probably - surely this can be scientifically measured. At the movies, I almost never remember the soundtrack. The visual drives out the audio - I can't multitask the two perceptions with any balance.