TurquoiseB wrote: I haven't listened to the Beatles in years, and
probably won't much in the future. Bad mix, dude.
Edg: Turq, I was raised listening to 78 RPM, scratchy records, with
poor speakers, and I never once thought the music was all that
impaired on its journey to me. At the time, who knew fidelity?
But your rejection of Beatles music just because today's mix-artistry
is better seems, well, elitist. Not to mention that the Because song
of the Beatles was acapella and so the mixing would have been a pretty
simple thingy. It would be one thing for Paul's base to be too far in
the background, but I'm guessing that Paul's voice was, in this
particular song, mixed to be equal in volume to the other voices.
It's one thing to say a recorded piece is low fidelity, but it's
another to reject music because of it's embodiment. Do you not listen
to any oldies but goodies?
I hear the amateurishness of the early production standards, but I
still tap my foot in time with Running Bear loved Little White Dove.
This issue is generalized, methinks, when folks also don't listen to
the truth of a religious lecture, but instead carp about the speaker's
voice, delivery, vocabulary, bad grammar, whatever. When I read ANY
scriptures, it is so simple for me to hear the core truths while at
the same time seeing how much the truth may not be faithfully
reflected in other dogma or actions of the religion itself. Thou
shall not kill -- except terrorists, their families, and anyone else
who happens to be near the bomb we drop on the terrorist. I can read
this and still say, Ah, we agree that killing is bad. Their exception
to the rule is incorrect though. Something like that.
Hear the Beatles, forget the mix. Fortyish years ago, I saw Leonard
Bernstein give one of his live concerts for children that was entirely
about the music of the Beatles -- he saw core truths about their
musical creativity that, to him, rivaled the artistry of Bach etc. He
never mentioned tinny treble-favoring speakers and such.
Plato knew this too -- the music of the spheres, ideals, and all that.
Euclid knew there was no such thing as an actual straight line, but
he built up all of geometry despite the scratchiness of his compass
and straight edge.
All day long, I'm singing aloud or in my head, and I don't know half
the words or remember all the notes, but I'm still singing and not too
concerned about being happy with the experience despite my low fidelities.
Same deal with seeing the sacred in life. I'm a scratchy 78 RPM,
tinny sinner, but I'm still able to hear the ideal good being sung by
my intellect.
Finally, seeing folks here struggle with ego vs. I seems to
involve this same concept. It's one thing to say that how a truth is
expressed is unpalatably embodied or illogical, but can't we all hear
that there is something beyond ALL THIS SCRATCHYNESS that is perfect
and that a meat robot can whistle this tune in its head?
It doesn't matter much to me if the Advaitan point of view regarding
self-ego-I-consciousness is precisely delineated here, but it does
matter very much that, it seems, most of us do actually know the song
we're all trying to sing! That gives me a lot of comfort.
That said, I'd suggest piano lessons by Ramana Maharshi for anyone.
Edg
