Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Max,

if you do admit an existence of “higher order language” then why you disagree that “a serious playback might generate a “very serious semantics”? An exposure to a “very serious playback” is an experience and we human tend to react to own sparks of experiences. Also why do you feel that when I said a “serious semantics” I necessary meant what commonly understood as a “better audio jargon”?

You see, there is a connection between a “seriousness of playback” and the seriousness of Music presented within a given playback. When I was talking about a listener’s exposure to a “serious Playback” I implied a certain stress (by a content) of the person’s sensations. This stress within any creative individual arouses the person’s associative viewing and abstract thinking. A “very serious semantics” quite likely be an outcome of those events (in fact it happen always but not all people are accustomed to listen and to “milk” themselves). With audio those stressful events even more “strange” because those events reproduced artificially and by all means by very untypical, semi-barbarian methods…

PS: BTW, the Lehnitsky’s brochure on sound evaluation is not bad first step. Lehnitsky with all his limitations of being a “narcissistic and paranoid radical conformist” presented in his little book a quite fruitful strategic direction. The important thing while reading his book is do not take it all literally (practically his “stricturism”) and do not buy into his revolutionary “aparatchik” attitude. However, the book pitches a few good concepts of audio evaluations. BTW, I absolutely disagree with the book and with some Lehnitsky’s articles that try to build a “new vocabulary” for sound evaluations – this was completely foolish intention. If you give to a “dead person” a collection of the words that Maria Tsvetaeva or Robert Frost used then the person still will end up with a “dead semantics”…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site