So....is listening a skill?

[Adami]

I get what you're saying.....you're talking about traffic, right?



Really though, here's the issue. The idea of music and intelligence, etc whatever may exist but not be definable. However, pointing to other, unrelated things that exist but are difficult to define does not equate the original argument.

You can't simply remove "definition" from anything just because you're having a hard time defining it, and then point to something else where that applies.

Ya know?

[jammindude]

So how is it different?    I mean, you have something undefinable, but when some people don't know what it is or don't obey the rule we can't define, the word "idiot" gets thrown around by those that claim to "know better" but then others could just claim that "flow of traffic" is a completely subjective term that has no real meaning....

I mean, I fail to see how it's really that much different.   

[Adami]

So how is it different?    I mean, you have something undefinable, but when some people don't know what it is or don't obey the rule we can't define, the word "idiot" gets thrown around by those that claim to "know better" but then others could just claim that "flow of traffic" is a completely subjective term that has no real meaning....

I mean, I fail to see how it's really that much different.

How is music different from traffic? Very very different.

First, traffic is definable. Flow isn't as much.

Music is pretty definable. Intelligence less so.

So what do you mean by intelligence?

[TAC]

Following this thread is a fucking skill!

[jammindude]

So how is it different?    I mean, you have something undefinable, but when some people don't know what it is or don't obey the rule we can't define, the word "idiot" gets thrown around by those that claim to "know better" but then others could just claim that "flow of traffic" is a completely subjective term that has no real meaning....

I mean, I fail to see how it's really that much different.

How is music different from traffic? Very very different.

First, traffic is definable. Flow isn't as much.

Music is pretty definable. Intelligence less so.

So what do you mean by intelligence?

This is why I tried to put a disclaimer at the end of that post.   I knew people would get too hung up and overly focused on the traffic comparison.   But traffic is a McGuffin.   If I thought about it long enough, I could have inserted no less than a dozen other examples of things in every day life that we are not able to define in strict black and white terms....but we don't deny their existence just because we can't strictly define them.

[Adami]

Well that was my entire point. You can't compare random things. They have to be equivalent.


Of course musical intelligence is quantifiable. Just like mass or distance.


See? It doesn't work if I just compare random things. It's assuming from the beginning that the comparison is correct, when we don't know that it is.

[jammindude]

If they are things we seek to define, and yet can't define, and yet we don't deny they exist because we can't define them....then they all share that trait.   That is the commonality that I am trying to highlight.

[Adami]

If they are things we seek to define, and yet can't define, and yet we don't deny they exist because we can't define them....then they all share that trait.   That is the commonality that I am trying to highlight.

We can't define a wibble wobble either. Because I made it up. That doesn't mean it exists just because I can compare it to the flow of traffic.

I am mostly pointing out a flaw in your argument. Not necessarily that whatever we're talking about doesn't exist.




.....what is it we're talking about again?

[jammindude]

*SIGH*   

I think you're just being contrary now.   

[Adami]

*SIGH*   

I think you're just being contrary now.

No I’m not.








 

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

What is the point of this topic?

Not being snarky, I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what we're actually trying to discuss here.

[jammindude]

The more I try and simplify it, the less people understand.   So I'm having an extremely difficult time just trying to define it.   Which I suppose is the point.    Things we take for granted that we can't necessarily define, but that we are sure they exist.    And how I believe that is exactly the same as intelligence relating to music. 

[CrimsonSunrise]

What?   Someone say something??? 

[Stadler]

The more I try and simplify it, the less people understand.   So I'm having an extremely difficult time just trying to define it.   Which I suppose is the point.    Things we take for granted that we can't necessarily define, but that we are sure they exist.    And how I believe that is exactly the same as intelligence relating to music.

Jammin, I'm sorry you're frustrated; I think the topic is a good one, but with all kinds of respect (and you know there's respect there, we go back) I think where I sort of have grief is the idea that "we take for granted that [which] we can't define"... I think even with things we take for granted, we CAN define them.   You used a bunch of other examples, like "traffic"; the lay person may not be able to, but we CAN define traffic.  We can quantify it.   We can model it.  We can forecast it.  We can predict it.   See the discussions we have periodically about the "merger lane".   There's always someone that comes in and says "common sense" or "manners" says to merge early, but almost all science and data says use both lanes to their maximum extent if you want to a) minimize traffic from a merge, b) provide a safer merge, and c) get all cars through  the merge as quickly as possible.  Most of the lack of ability to "define" it is simply that we don't have the vocabulary to do so, much like most of us don't have the vocabulary to understand or define why we piss (beyond the simplistic "to get rid of waste"). 

I think "listening as a skill" has a real answer, but as it applies to "music" it calls on us to question so many things that are intangible and yet important to us that it is a hard problem to confront.   I saw The  Musical Box last night, so I got two hours and 15 minutes of solid Genesis live (including your favorite song, Supper's Ready) and while I was sitting there it was a transcendent experience.  I found I knew every note and every word, even though I haven't really listened to much Genesis in the past couple years.  I was "actively" listening, for sure.  Then  on the ride home I was listening to Alice Cooper, most of which I have  literally never heard even once before.   It was also "active" listening, but in a very different way.   Sitting in my car, by myself, I had no reason to "self-justify", or quantify the difference (or qualitatively compare "Genesis" to "Alice Cooper").   I think - and I'm sorry if I offend anyone here - people have a vested interest in having the music THEY like be something special; no one wants to be part of the great unwashed masses.   "I'm 45!  I listen to prog!   I have pieces of VINYL!   Of COURSE I'm better than that 16 year old that listens to Cardi B on a streaming service!  WTF!   I can't DEFINE why, but I know I am!" 

[jammindude]

Except I never said “traffic” as an isolated word. Instead, I was addressing the common term “flow of traffic” as a concept. Traffic can be defined....but I was never talking about that.

[Podaar]

I'm glad you are enjoying thinking about these things, JD.

[jammindude]

I’m just trying to get people to think beyond linear constructs.

[TioJorge]

Following this thread is a fucking skill!

Not even a joke. 

I’m just trying to get people to think beyond linear constructs.

Why? (And I'm not asking for a nonsensical answer not in relation to the thread like "because I'm a nice guy"; but truly wondering what the point of this is in relation to why you created the thread)
And what does all this actually mean? You keep speaking in these extremely oxymoronic terms like "definable but not defined" and a whole lot of other very vague idioms that end up (at least seemingly, to me) being empty and not really relating to anything that's been said.

I mean really, what's the actual point of the thread aside from the already beaten to death answer of what you just posted above. If the point is just to get people to "think beyond linear constructs" (which as a line on it's own, doesn't really mean much) then there has to be a point beyond that. If that was just the point then you got way too specific in the original post pertaining to listening (and even more so in an aforementioned one that related to music specifically).

Again, apologies if any of that comes off as hostile, I'm not meaning to be but I'm having a very hard time grasping what the thread is meant to do not just for you but what others are meant to discuss...beyond this extremely empty line:

I’m just trying to get people to think beyond linear constructs.

Because to be very frank, that's a glorified phrase that's specific to nothing, explains nothing and ultimately means nothing. It's extremely blurry and sounds fancy but it's totally void. Unless there is a point, which is why people keep asking what the point is, and you keep saying...that line (or something very similar), which explains nothing, and promotes no actual discussion other than people wondering what the fuck is going on.  I feel like the intention is good but so far it's been chickens with their heads cut off.

If I've missed something huge then so be it but I feel like the answer to my post will just be "just think abstractly about it!" 

[gmillerdrake]

You keep speaking in these extremely oxymoronic terms like "definable but not defined" and a whole lot of other very vague idioms that end up (at least seemingly, to me) being empty and not really relating to anything

Sorry to derail this for a moment but THANK YOU Tio!!!! you just constructed the perfect explanation of how I feel about 99% of what I see/read online...social media etc etc. All the "self help".....high brow quotes tacked to these "movements" and social initiatives......these quips and proclamations that are really just a bunch of nonsensical wording tactfully stacked together in a sentence that seems like sage 'advice' but really means jack dookie.


OK....carry on

[Podaar]

.

[ChuckSteak]

Hey, shut up everybody and listen. 

[gmillerdrake]

Listen.......you smell that?

[cramx3]

It's definitely a skill, as well as being able to filter out the BS.

[Adami]

Hey, shut up everybody and listen. 

I DON'T KNOW HOW

[The Walrus]

I think listening is a skill, for many reasons... but there's also different types of listening... Musically? Well, from my years of lessons with my piano professor, one of the biggest things I learned from him was how, exactly, to listen... to pay attention, to listen critically, to 'learn something' from what you're hearing: it's more than just hearing a note played, it's how that note is played, how it plays with another note, all that. The most important part of my warm-ups is to just drop my fingers onto the keys until I achieve 'the sound' - that perfectly balance of striking and bringing out the note, not too loud, not too soft, not too sharp, not too flat.

Many times I would play, especially in my first year or so with him, and it would always sound good to me. But he would comment that it wasn't, and slowly over time, I listened, and he would record me, and as I listened to the music and warm-ups played back, I would learn from them: and eventually I developed the ability to listen to myself playing in real time, adjusting as I play the piece instead of thinking everything sounds great. It's why I have a hard time listening to my old recordings, because I know I wasn't paying attention to the sounds I was making, at least not as much as I should have.

I dunno... I think it is definitely a skill in the context of being a musician, or analyzing a recording. It's also a skill conductors have to have, that is their job, to listen and find the tiniest faults.

With people? Conversation? I'm not a good listener. I don't have the skill to focus, in real time, face-to-face, on someone's problems, whatever they're talking about. I have a very big problem with in person discussion because I am a poor listener. This is why I can't be a sales person, customer support, etc. - they require great social skills, great listening skills, and I can't do that.

[jammindude]

Thank you.

I suppose this is meant to be an exercise in objectivity vs subjectivity and how it can never be fully either one. If it was purely objective, it could be measured. But if it were purely subjective, there is no difference between Mangini and a 2 yr old beating pots and pans with wooden spoons. There IS a line, but it’s not possible to define that line or objectively state where it is. But to deny it exists at all just because no one can measure where it is is silly. There are many things in every day life that we know exist, but can’t explain is absolutely concrete terms.

It’s about not being neither subjective nor objective and yet being both.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Thank you.

I suppose this is meant to be an exercise in objectivity vs subjectivity and how it can never be fully either one. If it was purely objective, it could be measured. But if it were purely subjective, there is no difference between Mangini and a 2 yr old beating pots

What is "it"? The OP talked about listening, but now it seems like you're just talking about music itself.

If "it" is musical skill, sure, I think we could measure that (within reason). Mangini vs. two year old: Obviously Mangini has more skill. The things he's doing are more difficult than the things the pot-banging kid is doing.

If "it" is musical quality, though, then we have a problem. Does more skilled musician = (objectively) better music? Is the sole deciding factor in the absolute quality of music the skill of its creators? I think it's fairly obvious this isn't the case, otherwise the entire world would listen to nothing but Spiral Architect on an endless loop.

There IS a line, but it’s not possible to define that line or objectively state where it is. But to deny it exists at all just because no one can measure where it is is silly.

See, to me this doesn't sound like you're saying it's both subjective and objective. It sounds like you're saying it is objective, you just can't prove it. And I'm assuming the thrust of this entire thing is supposed to get at some music being objectively better than other music, since that's the direction it's taken in the past. Which is an idea I think is very silly.

And, I don't mean offense by this and maybe I'm off base, but it doesn't really seem like you want to discuss this, it just seems like you want to say your opinion and have everyone agree with you.

Then again I could just be completely misunderstanding everything that's going on here. Who knows.

[jammindude]

It’s a philosophical discussion. I have a philosophy. Am I attempting to introduce a new take on an old framework? I suppose that would be true. But philosophy is more fluid that facts. So I’m not trying to state anything as a fact that I’m trying to convince others is absolute.

[Adami]

I think we're all just a little confused. From my insignifcant perspective, the course of thread went like this...


Jammin: Is listening a skill?
Everybody: It is, indeed a skill.
Jammin: Does certain music take more skill to listen to than others?
Everybody: I have no idea what you're asking
Stadler: Something incorrect
Jammin: I'm trying to get you guys to open your minds and move away from linear constructs
Everybody: Huh?

[Lonk]

I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.

[jammindude]

I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.

Yes!!

[Adami]

I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.

Yes!!

That is literally what everyone has said thus far.

[jammindude]

I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.

Yes!!

That is literally what everyone has said thus far.

Yes!  This is the starting point we all agree on.   It's once we start elaborating that the confusion comes in. 

I just said this was a philosophical discussion.   I don't understand why everyone is being so adversarial when I'm just trying to have a philosophical discussion about the blurred lines between what we can define and what we can't...



EDIT - In posting this pic, I'm trying to show that I'm not *REALLY* taking myself that seriously.   But I honestly don't understand why there can't be a joy in waxing philosophical about where the lines may possibly blur between the extremes of objectivity and subjectivity.....between the tactile and the metaphysical....

[jammindude]

........BUT!!!!  Just like Pepe Silvia up there, I *am* claiming that everything that I have said so far is not unrelated.

*It's all connected, man!!*

 

[Podaar]

The Wisdom of Jammin