advertisement


"Theorise less, listen more and learn more"

F

Fox

The sound of one hoof clopping
Been meaning to write this but I haven't had time to do this until recently.

I have seen this in Steven's signature for a while now and I have approached it from many different angles and I am still in the dark. I think I know what it says but there is a strong chance I have 'gotten it wrong'.

What does it mean? Not only to Steven who wrote it (or uses it, it may be an unattributed quote, but I have no reference) but to other pfmers.

It's an interesting concept but philosophically its a bit of a minefield for me.

"Theorising less... and learning more" seem mutually incompatible concepts, especially when "listening more" (what does "more" mean here? listening harder? Listening in a certain way? Spending more hours of the day listening?), you see, to me its corollary, I.e. "learning less" is symptomatic of "theorising less" and assuming you are "learning more, because you are listening more" really, IMV requires theorising more (at least in trying to create links between the structure off audio and music, widening ones vocabulary of elaborating on and describing one's musical experience: getting to grips with the structural underpinnings of what it is you are critically learning more blah blah blah and so on...). By "theorising less" you enable a whole load of assumptions to go unchallenged, these get assumed as fact and that allows learning less because you have already stunted your ability to critically assess by theorising less so you cannot learn more.

Augh! Did anyone follow that? It's why I tippy toed around the signature but it's annoying me now. It seems a bit of a logical aberration.

Ok, frankly its a complete dog's dinner in my head right now, maybe the drugs... but what the hay do I know I'm struggling with the philosophical effects of imposing sine waves on crackly field recordings and calling it "composition".

Is "Theorise less, listen more and learn more" simply designed for fracking with one's head? is that it's intended purpose? Is it some sort of post-postmodern statement or meta-ironic comment?

Iz confused.
 
its simple , steven is habitually bombarded by people telling him what he hears aint possible outside his sadly wanting instruments of perception and they rely on scientific theory to prove it . Steven is suggesting , there is an explanatory gap between current science and hifi and accordingly one should stop theorising and listen .

it aint a mantra for life it be a pfm recommendation
 
It's not really theorising, its more to do with rationalising why one should spend more than 30p on a piece of audio equipment?

If you can convince yourself that spending xxx amounts is wasted on yourself as you have read somewhere that your hearing is limited or search for an article written somewhere that all amps/speakers/sources sound the same, that has already given you the sense of being informed and the security that you don't need to part with your cash as you already have "the best".

Is this cognitive dissonance??? is it a case of the fox and grapes??? I dunno, but hifi as a hobby is one that can cost a lot of money so there is no surprise of this behavior from the more frugal members of the forum or even the hifi owning demographic as a whole.
 
Looking forward to Locke vs. Leibniz in a genuine Steel Cage Death Match. It'll be like Max and MasterBlaster, only with nattier duds.

Two men enter, one man leaves. I nominate Fox as Aunty.
 
I'd swallow the "theorise less" mabtra except that Steven is the first to say "I think I hear this difference because..."
If Steven opened his observations with the phrase "It is of course possible that I am imagining the difference but I hear XYZ" then nobody would react. Instead the premise is that because ST can hear something there absolutely must be a physical explanation.

My car is better to drive with the 2 new tyres and exhaust I bought at the weekend. It could be that the new tyres are better, I hope so, or it could be wishful thinking on my part, having spent £300+. Why can't we extend this principle to hifi observations?
 
maxflinn said:
It means ignore science, try out lots of Foo and become knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

But at the end providing the person who tries out alot of Foo enjoys the end result, surely that is what matters?

Who are you to dictate how people approach their interests?

Do you use science to tell someone that they are wasting their money going to Brazil for a holiday when they can enjoy themselves in Center Parcs?
 
Anh said:
But at the end providing the person who tries out alot of Foo enjoys the end result, surely that is what matters?

Who are you to dictate how people approach their interests?

Do you use science to tell someone that they are wasting their money going to Brazil for a holiday when they can enjoy themselves in Center Parcs?
Click to expand...

I'm not dictating anything, I just gave my interpretation of what Steven means.
 
Julf said:
I guess it is appropriate to post the same video link I posted in another thread:

How do we know what's true? - narrated by Stephen Fry

You can trust your ears, and know what you like, but never learn anything. Or you can doubt, question, find out, verify - and learn.
Click to expand...

You are talking as if buying hifi is about learning acoustic and electrical theory, it's about buying some boxes to play music in the way you enjoy it. FFS.

The key of the matter isn't science, wisdom or truth, its about a bunch of middle aged men sitting behind the computer trying to convince themselves not to part any money.
 
7ade3e3y.jpg


Kill me please
I did a stupid thing
Really really f'ing stupid
 
Personally I theorize as much as possible.

I have built a great system in theory.

It's a theoretical system....there are no components. Sounds amazing.

So I guess one could say that I have a literal theoretical system built on theory alone...in a very practical way.

Please employ my method and you will achieve one-ness.

And no, I'm not indicating a leaning one way or another with this nonsense.
 
maxflinn said:
I'm not dictating anything, I just gave my interpretation of what Steven means.
Click to expand...



Believe me, I disagree with a lot of Steven Toy writes about.

People pursuit gratification in audio/music by trying product, they are free to spend their money and time as they so wish.

Your "interpretation" is nothing more than a dig that such people are "ignoring science", so you are in effect dictating that they should use scientific theory above all else in what product and approach they should take when it comes to playing back some music at home.
 
Anh said:
Believe me, I disagree with a lot of Steven Toy writes about.

People pursuit gratification in audio/music by trying product, they are free to spend their money and time as they so wish.

Your "interpretation" is nothing more than a dig that such people are "ignoring science", so you are in effect dictating that they should use scientific theory above all else in what product and approach they should take when it comes to playing back some music at home.
Click to expand...
You're interpreting my interpretation wrongly, and I'm still not dictating :).
 
Markus S said:
It occurs to me that ST and maxflinn are polar opposites. They should never meet or it could lead to
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, Markus, I was thinking earlier that the only person who may be Steven's polar opposite is Serge.

I also think we need more categories rather than just objective & subjective as so many of us are a bit of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top