I gotta burr under my saddle.

[Paul Warburton]

This has been bothering me for some time and I'm wondering if you can explain?
Many threads and posts in the last few years here, and the fact that even pro musicians are leading me to feel that listening is out and seeing is in.
Apparently we go out now to see shows and we no longer go out to hear sets?
Examples: On my Facebook wall people come in and say things like...."I saw your second show the other night." Ass-hole that I am I ask something like...."What did you see?"
A recent post drove me over the edge here, and it happens all the time. "I saw him" and "his show was great.
Don't get me wrong, I love watching players and I'm big on Youtube....it's wonderful seeing Bird, Pres and Tatum playing but, really, isn't this supposed to be about listening?
You know....hearing?
We aren't in show business are we? Please tell me where I've lost the thread because I'm getting edgy again.
52nd St., NYC back in the olden days: "Hey Bird, saw yer second show last night! You were awesome."

Ughh....

[VinKreepo]

MP3, iPods, Macs, YouTube, CD's, MTv, etc. hae taken care of the hearing... the only reason anyone wants to go to a gig you're doing is because they can see you and maybe hear some of your songs that aren't recording... basically they are seeing live music... otherwie they just hop on myspace music or youtube and listen to all the music they want

[drurb]

Well, PW, you have a point. Hey, look what I said in the Hank Jones thread.

Did I say I "saw" him in person? Nope.

As one who spends his life involved with hearing matters, I'm keenly aware of how loaded the English language is with visual terms. "We'll have to see how it turns out." "It appears to be the case." "He brought the issue into focus." On and on and on... So, I don't generally blame people for using visually loaded terms-- but music? Ah, you'd think that because the experience is so firmly auditory, people would not say things such as "I went to see his show" when referring to a musician. I think it says more about how people use the language than it does about how much they appreciate what they heard. Yeah, but it bugs me too.

Originally Posted by VinKreepo

... the only reason anyone wants to go to a gig you're doing is because they can see you and maybe hear some of your songs that aren't recording... basically they are seeing live music... otherwie they just hop on myspace music or youtube and listen to all the music they want

Sorry, I don't buy this at all.

[Jazzdogg]

I understand the semantic distinction you're making, PeeDub. I can listen to recorded music at home or in the car, but my favorite experience has always been going out to hear live music, especially if I get to see old friends or make new friends in the process. When I was growing up, half of the fun was exchanging smiles and inside glances with Pop and my many "uncles" while they were playing. When I go out to hear live music, I like to have seats with good sightlines; I don't want a seat with an obstructed view, even though the music may sound just as good.

One memorable musical experiences was back in the early eighties when we lived in Denver. We got to hear Sarah Vaughan with a jazz trio in a small venue. It was her birthday, and she came out on stage alone and accompanied herself on piano for her encore. I'm glad we were there to see her as well as hear her because the visual aspect seems to have helped the memories remain vivid, even now.

From a player's perspective, I remember being disappointed several times when friends came to hear me play and I didn't get to see them. To me, "seeing someone" suggests added memories and personal connections that mere listening may not provide; as much as I love it when I get to talk to old friends on the phone, I'd much rather see 'em in person.

Next time I'm in Denver, I hope to come and see you play!

[Don Higdon]

Originally Posted by VinKreepo

MP3, iPods, Macs, YouTube, CD's, MTv, etc. hae taken care of the hearing... the only reason anyone wants to go to a gig you're doing is because they can see you and maybe hear some of your songs that aren't recording... basically they are seeing live music... otherwie they just hop on myspace music or youtube and listen to all the music they want

Originally Posted by drurb

Sorry, I don't buy this at all.

Nor do I. There is no comparison between the two experiences.

Originally Posted by Paul Warburton

This has been bothering me for some time and I'm wondering if you can explain?
Many threads and posts in the last few years here, and the fact that even pro musicians are leading me to feel that listening is out and seeing is in.
Apparently we go out now to see shows and we no longer go out to hear sets?...I'm getting edgy again.

Dub, as verbally precise as I try to be, I'm one of those "see" people, too. My Random House Webster's gives 24 definitions of "see", and our vernacular has further expanded the scope of the word. I love your concern for standards, though.

[D McCartney]

Seems like if there is a lights engineer then it may be a show to see as well as hear. If only sound engineer/s then a show to listen to.

[VinKreepo]

Originally Posted by Don Higdon

Nor do I. There is no comparison between the two experiences.

Dub, as verbally precise as I try to be, I'm one of those "see" people, too. My Random House Webster's gives 24 definitions of "see", and our vernacular has further expanded the scope of the word. I love your concern for standards, though.

You two obviously don't spend a lot of time around young teens... they could care less how you sound live... they like CD quality better. The reason they like seeing a band live is because they get to say they saw some dudes play music in front of their face. No one likes live music youtube tracks, the want the high quality ones without all the cheering and clapping. the music videos are a different story... they a CD tracks with sex and women slapped all over them... that's the reason MTV is so big... you get "great" popular music and women. Don't believe me? Go ask kids. The reason to see a band these days is just that, to see them. The sound quality isn't always as good as a CD track with the new advances in technology.

In live music the nostalgia of being popular by being immersed in the music scene takes over... kids brag about seeing bands, not because they band was great, but because that kid feels like he/she is awesome for seeing a band live

[M0ses]

Originally Posted by VinKreepo

You two obviously don't spend a lot of time around young teens... they could care less how you sound live... they like CD quality better. The reason they like seeing a band live is because they get to say they saw some dudes play music in front of their face. No one likes live music youtube tracks, the want the high quality ones without all the cheering and clapping. the music videos are a different story... they a CD tracks with sex and women slapped all over them... that's the reason MTV is so big... you get "great" popular music and women. Don't believe me? Go ask kids. The reason to see a band these days is just that, to see them. The sound quality isn't always as good as a CD track with the new advances in technology.

In live music the nostalgia of being popular by being immersed in the music scene takes over... kids brag about seeing bands, not because they band was great, but because that kid feels like he/she is awesome for seeing a band live

Who said anything about teens? I'm a teen, and I'm perfectly aware of the fact that probably about 98% of teens wouldn't know how to appreciate real music if you forced it down their throats. The other two percent likes good music, but would rather hear that other junk anyway. Then there's me, who won't take any of that crap. Music as an art form is out. It's not mainstream, and teens as a rule don't care about it. What's happening on MTV is something else. And it's something that you can see just as easily as hear.

And when it comes to a live show, it comes down to a) how trendy the band you saw was and b) how much fun you had moshing.

[VinKreepo]

Originally Posted by M0ses

Who said anything about teens? I'm a teen, and I'm perfectly aware of the fact that probably about 98% of teens wouldn't know how to appreciate real music if you forced it down their throats. The other two percent likes good music, but would rather hear that other junk anyway. Then there's me, who won't take any of that crap. Music as an art form is out. It's not mainstream, and teens as a rule don't care about it. What's happening on MTV is something else. And it's something that you can see just as easily as hear.

And when it comes to a live show, it comes down to a) how trendy the band you saw was and b) how much fun you had moshing.

Case in point... and moshing isn't really aloowed in the bars around here haha

I was referring to teens because they are the upcoming club-goers... the local music scene... and we were talking about where live music is going...

Before, records were relatively expensive (and only a few songs on each) and radio played whatever music it wanted. The only way to hear the music you wanted to hear was by listening to the bands you liked in the local clubs. I was the way to hear good music while hanging with friends. Now clubs have become dating sites and are straying away from the community oriented feel they had before. The music scene is changing.

[M0ses]

Originally Posted by VinKreepo

... and moshing isn't really aloowed in the bars around here haha

Teens aren't, either.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Jazzdogg

I understand the semantic distinction you're making, PeeDub. I can listen to recorded music at home or in the car, but my favorite experience has always been going out to hear live music, especially if I get to see old friends or make new friends in the process. When I was growing up, half of the fun was exchanging smiles and inside glances with Pop and my many "uncles" while they were playing. When I go out to hear live music, I like to have seats with good sightlines; I don't want a seat with an obstructed view, even though the music may sound just as good.

One memorable musical experiences was back in the early eighties when we lived in Denver. We got to hear Sarah Vaughan with a jazz trio in a small venue. It was her birthday, and she came out on stage alone and accompanied herself on piano for her encore. I'm glad we were there to see her as well as hear her because the visual aspect seems to have helped the memories remain vivid, even now.

From a player's perspective, I remember being disappointed several times when friends came to hear me play and I didn't get to see them. To me, "seeing someone" suggests added memories and personal connections that mere listening may not provide; as much as I love it when I get to talk to old friends on the phone, I'd much rather see 'em in person.

Next time I'm in Denver, I hope to come and see you play!

Of course, you're right Jazzdogg. When we experience a live performance it is about hearing and seeing. From my point of hearing (point of view? ), it's more about hearing. It is, after all, music! That's reflected in my own choice of words. I say I went to "hear" this or that musical artist. Then again, I can imagine saying that I went to hear and see Esperanza Spalding.

[Jazzdogg]

Not denying what you say is true for young people attending pop performances and watching videos on TV, nor that the points you're making would be completely appropriate in the context of the electric bass threads of Talkbass.

Not many mosh pits here in the DB enclaves of TalkBass.

[Jazzdogg]

Originally Posted by drurb

Of course, you're right Jazzdogg. When we experience a live performance it is about hearing and seeing. From my point of hearing (point of view? ), it's more about hearing. It is, after all, music! That's reflected in my own choice of words. I say I went to "hear" this or that musical artist. Then again, I can imagine saying that I went to hear and see Esperanza Spalding.

I think I'd go to hear Esperanza Spalding play even if I were deaf.

[salcott]

Like it or not, the visual aspect is part of every performance. I heard and saw James Brown when I was a teenager; the music itself was powerful beyond anything I'd experienced up to that point in my young life, but the sheer force of the man himself is something I'll never forget. It was the same the first time I saw and heard Red Mitchell; I'd been listening to him on recordings for a while. Being able to see him play and see the way he communicated not only with the music, but with eye contact and body language made me realize he was reaching out with everything he had, not just the bass. Live performance is a two way street; I love it when I look out and see an audience that's totally enthralled in the performance, and I love it when someone comes up and says how much they enjoyed the show (performance, concert, gig, event) because we looked like we were enjoying it so much ourselves. The aural and visual reinforce each other in the great artists-that's why it's such a thrill for all of us when a 20 second clip of Bird, or Toscanini, or Hank Williams, or whoever is dug up; we can't pretend to be blind if we're not.
All that said, I'm as big a stickler as anyone about semantics and grammar; words DO matter, and clear expression is something to be desired. We could all probably relax a notch and enjoy a sincere compliment when it comes our way.
As a small aside, I have an uncle who is major star in the opera world; he and his colleagues invariably ask, "Did you enjoy the show?" Same with my orchestra pals.

[Stereo Joe]

Originally Posted by drurb

As one who spends his life involved with hearing matters, I'm keenly aware of how loaded the English language is with visual terms. "We'll have to see how it turns out." "It appears to be the case." "He brought the issue into focus." On and on and on... So, I don't generally blame people for using visually loaded terms-- but music? Ah, you'd think that because the experience is so firmly auditory, people would not say things such as "I went to see his show" when referring to a musician. I think it says more about how people use the language than it does about how much they appreciate what they heard. Yeah, but it bugs me too.

Excellent point(s).
Also, it seems like there aren't a lot of great music-specific adjectives to use when describing music, so we are left to substitute descriptive words borrowed from our other senses: chromatic, texture, color, feel, smooth, soft, delicate, greasy, etc...

[drew_bassmore]

I could "see" where both (seeing and hearing) are the complete experience as Jazzdogg and Salcott are indicating.

When I attended the NEA Jazz Masters tour, which, included Bobby Hutcherson, Jimmy Heath, Slide Hampton, Cedar Walton with Glenn Richman and Eddie Marshall, I had a variety of aural and visual experiences.

I would alternate between closing my eyes and otherwise viewing the proceedings. Sometimes I found I wanted to feel inside of the music, so I would close my eyes and attempt to listen actively. This was most necessary when Cedar played, because I couldn't see the keyboard anyway.

However, it's impossible to keep ones eyes off of Bobby and Eddie, as they put on just as much visual spectacle as they do pyrotechnics in their playing.

On top of that, I wanted to see what my teacher (Glenn) was doing physically with the instrument so I might retain something of value for a later lesson with him or practice time.

Ultimately, during improvisational music, I more often than not enjoy the complete live listening experience over watching every single note played.

During a Pop Music show though, it is completely different. I believe there is some decently crafted pop music out there, and if one is experiencing it performed live, the visual aspect is expected as much as good musicianship is for me.

[Eric Swanson]

Interesting thoughts, PW.

I guess that I think both are important. Ironically, when I go to hear music, I usually sit very still with my eyes closed, so that I can try to listen more completely.

On the other hand, seeing/hearing some of the great players I have been in the same room with, has been partly about "seeing is believing." When I was younger, I had this mistaken idea that jazz happened somewhere out in "jazz heaven," magically, by people I would never meet. That they somehow worked on "takes" over and over until they got it right, etc.

Actually being around people who played at a very high level (either jazz or orchestral/solo music) was helpful to see and believe; that great players can "knock it out" in one take, and do, night after night.

It was also, for me, a chance to see and accept the responsibility of deciding whether or not I thought (at that time) I was personally able to continue along the path of the pro player; that great pros have combined talent, time, discipline, dedication, training, experience, maybe some luck, etc. to become the musical giants they were/are.

Of course, as a teen, I learned that there is no "jazz heaven" or "orchestra heaven" where music happens in limbo; if somebody wants to play at that level, of course it takes a very strong combination of talent, dedication, time, discipline, etc. Seeing that these people are real, that their playing happens in "real time" is pretty powerful, really. But, of course, seeing and hearing it happen at the same time is the most magical thing.

I don't care what the media is, there is nothing as powerful as a live performance, IMHO.

[Paul Warburton]

Thanks, but here's another one that isn't uncommon @ TB and out on gigs....this may be the one that makes me wonder if something isn't quite straight up.
This is an example of a conversation from my Facebook Wall....
Him: "I saw you last night with your band. We loved seeing your show.
Her: Thanks, I love seeing live music too. Thanks for coming out to see us.
These people can actually see music?

EDIT: I guess Kreepo and his friends can see music. I'm not picking on you, but I see in your Profile that you're 19 and I thought you might help me get a handle on all this.
I don't have a problem when it comes to genres other than Jazz and Classical (and I haven't noticed this slipping into that genre). I think what's bothering me is that younger Jazz players are starting to talk like this.
That does bother me because they seem so interested in the sound of their instruments but continually see live music.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by drew_bassmore

I would alternate between closing my eyes and otherwise viewing the proceedings. Sometimes I found I wanted to feel inside of the music, so I would close my eyes and attempt to listen actively.

Originally Posted by Eric Swanson

Interesting thoughts, PW.
I guess that I think both are important. Ironically, when I go to hear music, I usually sit very still with my eyes closed, so that I can try to listen more completely.

I'm betting that neither of you ever plugged your ears while at the live performance in order to experience only or to enhance the visual aspect!

Of course a live performance is a powerful combination of the visual and the auditory. There is simply no doubt that "seeing" is an extremely important and enjoyable component. I would argue, however, that the visual is an enhancement of what is fundamentally an auditory experience. Would anyone really argue with that? So, you'd think the adjectives would reflect that but, then again, the language is visually dominated.

Finally, we enjoy audio recordings of artists we love all the time without any associated visual component. I don't think we'd enjoy nearly as much or spend nearly the time watching silent videos of them.

[David Kaczorowski]

I thought this was gonna be a hemorrhoid thread.