So you're an audiophile - are you also a musician?

Thank you all for answering my thread. My intention was to test my hypothesis that most audiophiles, like myself, are really frustrated musicians in disguise and that by investing heavily in audio gear create a panacea for not being up on stage and performing. Thanks to "Basement" for raising the audiophile-musician connection as that was what I was after. The audiophile-musician connection is probably strongly correlated, afterall evolving from listening to music to playing music seems like a pretty natural progression. Thanks too to dan@xenote.com for raising the possibility that trained musicians listen differently than weekend-musicians &/or non-musical playing people. While dan@xenote.com comments sound somewhat elitist I would have to agree that training may improve one's ability to listen differently, not better, just differently. Being able to discern a Selmer alto sax from a Yamaha or Fender bass from a Rickenbacker comes easiest from first hands experience.

As a newbee to Audiogon, I appreciate the passion and participation of its members. Without both elements we'd just be a bunch of "gear heads." In case you were interested, I have played trombone, piano, keyboards and alto sax, and have played in marching and concert bands and come from a musical family where each person plays at least 2 instruments. Hope that didn't sound elitist . . . just blowing my own horn!

Kevinzoe

Kevin,
What do you mean by "musician"? A professional who makes a living at it or someone who actively plays alot? I played saxophone starting in 4th grade thru and including college. However I have not picked up the instrument since. I played in all kinds of bands and was really into it and pretty good but gave it up to pursue a career and a family. I have a firm love of music and especially like classical,traditional jazz,classic rock, and blues. I know music will always be an important part of my life.

Jayarr,
My interpretation of a "musician" is someone that currently plays or has played an instrument (or sings), that may have had formal music training (or not and instead plays by ear), and that could be either professional or amateur. Nothing special here about the term - pretty loose definition really.

Kevin

I'm not sure I want to get into this because I really do not want to offend anyone. In my first post, I tried especially not to sound as if I thought that classically trained musicians somehow had a leg up on everyone else when it comes to listening. I do agree with Dan that we probably do not listen in the same way or to the same things.

For example, our listening group met last week at the home of a guy with a system in the Albert Porter range and a huge collection of both vinyl and digital software. He has some of the most acute and perceptive ears I've ever encountered and manages to avoid the ego that so often comes with them. One of the pieces we listened to was the Weber Clarinet Concerto #1 (f minor). He went on and on about the clarity, the soundstage, the imaging, the "air," giving the recording (actually, giving his system) A+++ marks. What I and another classically trained musician in the room heard was a mediocre clarinet player with intonation all over the place, lousy articulation, and no sense of correct performance practice for Weber.

Now, my friend is a great audiophile and a great listener. He can probably hear the difference if a gnat farts on his interconnects. But nobody ever taught him what a clarinet is supposed to sound like. At least not the niceties that separate a world class player from one who teaches clarinet at Bohunk University.

This is the difference between listening to the music and listening to the sound. I think many audiophiles listen to the sound but those of us who were professionally trained listen to the music. It doesn't make us better, just different.

will

If that makes anyone a snob, then we are all snobs. It can range from a proffesional musician who would state that he/she would never spend more than 400$ for a stereo, or a 'normy' who gets complete satisfaction with a really bad sounding boom-box, to somebody that apreciates that he could hear every mistake, or articulation because the stereo is so damn good.
I can't count how many times when I see somebody play live that I will pick apart or notice aspects of the performers, both good and bad. (like if the drummer misses a beat, or a player hits a chord that does'nt blend, or the way a tune is structured and set up for the next bar). Really, it's just me practicing in my head, for I know that when I hear something that I think is something that I noticed as 'improper', I also know full well that they are better musicians than I am.
As an audiophile, when I listen to a stereo, I like to hear the subtle aspects that clue me in to what the performer is hearing and feeling, that I might feel what is making the performers play what they are playing and the way they are playing it. Needless to say, I bet as musicians, we all listen to music differently, and as audiophiles, we all listen to systems differently. As we critique, either a performance or a stereo, we are not nessesarily critisizing, but listening and aprecciating.
While as musicians, we may or may not have training in certain things, but it doesn't mean we can or can't notice. We might be able to identify the structure of the harmany, or the structure of syncopated timing, but it also takes practice as well. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of non-trained audiophiles that can hear these things as well, and have more practice than I do at listening to them, evan as they cannot identify them with a terminology, or be trained to.
How many times, in the coarse of our 'formal' education, have we been pleasantly surprised to learn that there were names and rules to be able to pruduce what we have been hearing and playing all along, or that by learning rules have been able to easily produce what we have been trying to play? And how many times have we been surprised at how some poeple can't notice what we think are major changes in the sound of a system, and don't really care? There are many poeple that honestly, price not an issue, can't understand or relate why an audiophile would get so excited about a sound of a stereo. But I bet that most audiophiles would understand, relate, why a musician would get excited about making music. (Audiophiles that have no experience making music, and without regard for love, of seeing that individual happy). It also seems to me that musician friends, who are not audiophiles, that have heard my stereo hear and appreciate changes in my stereo without effort.
Evan among musicians, not counting different degrees of practice or which instrument they play, we can find that many are talented in different areas, some similar and some drastic. Evan among different degrees of talent, there are different degress of practice and skill. But ever try to teach somebody who just has no musical ability? Where you both just end up laughing that they just don't get it, and never will?
There are many who are musical that have different ways of expressing it. And there are musicians that play for different reasons. I would hypothizise that for someone that is an audiophile, and not a musician, that they could be taught or learn to play, if they wanted to, that those that have the passion to listen to and buy stereo equipment on the level of an audiophile is more like a musician who has never played, or expresses it differently.
Am I on to something? Are there any experiences that anyone has noticed similar or different?