من هیچوقت از رومی تو ذهنم یک چیز خارق العاده و ما فوق نساختم که بخوام تبدیلش کنم به یک استاد بی چون و چرای صدا و هر چی گفت رو بدون فهمیدن حرفش قبول کنم. کلا نه تنها تو زمینه صدا بلکه تو زمینه های دیگر هم (مثلا مثل نظریه نسبیت) من تو ذهنم از کسی یک چیز فوق العاده و دست نیافتنی نمیسازم.
این به این معنی نیست که ارزش و جایگاه یکی مثل رومی رو نمیشناسم ، نه بلکه منظورم اینه من جدا از خود شخص بیشتر برام ایده ها مهمه و ارتباطم با اون ایده. اگر بتونم ایده ای رو بفهمم خوشحال میشم و اگر نتونم بفهمم از اون شخص یک تصور فضایی تو ذهنم ایجاد نمیکنم و هیچوقت سعی در بیان ایده ای که دقیقا خودم نفهمیدم نمیکنم.
رومی رو دوست دارم و دلیل این موضوع اینه که رومی جزو معدود کسانی هست که اولا فلسفه های فای رو خیلی خوب فهمیده ثانیا های فای رو از سطح معمول که بحث در مورد X بهتر از Y هست برده به فضایی برای درک و تعمق بیشتر در مورد موضوعات مهم های فای.
تو همین ایران اگر شما به فضای بحث ها و نظرات دقت کنید میبینید 90 درصد تمرکز روی این موضوع هست که برند یا تکنولوژی X بهتره یا Y و شنوندگانی که درک کمتری از صدا دارند تعصب بیشتری روی یک نوع تکنولوژی و یا برند دارند. رومی های فای رو ابزاری برای شکل دادن ایده هاش میبینه و فراتر از سطح معمول بحث های آئودیوفیل ها فضایی رو ایجاد میکنه برای تعمق و درک بیشتر.
این مطلب رو از رومی آوردم بخونید جالبه:
People who know me know that if I person does audio then it does not automatically imply that he is my best friend. I generally do not bring “just audio people” in my home and if I do then they are selected people who I feel might have a potential to understand what I do. Still among the people who visit me and hear my installation I had very seldom visitors who really got what my playback did. People liked or did not like (mostly liked) this or that aspect of audio in the way how it enters in my room. I always ask people to criticize my sound and point out what they would change if it was their playback. People talk about what they think but with all honesty they very seldom understand what is going on.
Yesterday I had a visitor who truly surprised me. Ironically he is an industry guy and we met a few years back at CES. I was acted in my favorite style as I usually did at Hi-Fi shows – protecting my reputation of intentional jerk of mystery and insulting anything insultable, thanks God there was a slot of it at CES. The guy has his own room, I visited it and I think we had ether quarrel of something like this, anyhow we firmly were convinced about itch other that we are idiots. Well, I was not convinced that the guy was idiot but rather his audio products were crap and I think I did express it very non-ambiguously. In few month after the show somehow we got in touch, probably it was via the site I do not remember how, but since then we do maintain a contact and once a year he visit me. As an industry person the guy had zero interests to me but as a person I like him, in fact I do consider him as sensible listener, not many like this out there.
So, the guy visited me yesterday and he truly surprised me as he was the very first person who “got” what I have been preaching for year in audio. I was playing for me my favorite selection and he suddenly told me: ” You know Romy, I just realized that you are playing Beethoven, Bruckner and Brahms, you play different interpretation, different orchestras and different conductors, but no matter what different music and styles you play your playback sounds like you Own Sound.” All that I replied was “I know.”
What my visitor mention is very much the abstract of my entire audio interest – using different methods of Sound interpretation by playback to conceive a new listening consciousness. I played a few more fragments for him and then asked him to identify what from his point of view would constitute my Own Sound. He surprised me again. After some thinking he said: “Your playback is stressing drama by idiosyncratic use of texture and colors of sounds.” I was surprised as it was close from how I intend it to be, I am not absolutely agree with his formulation but it was close.
What I am trying to do with my playback? This is a big subject and I can talk about it for hours. In short – my objectives and my accomplishments with playback are located at Two Level, after the Level One is accomplished then the actions at Level Two are possible. The level One implies an artificial inducing in a listener an hyper-inspirational state, what Russians call Dostoevsky Syndrome. In Western world the Dostoevsky Syndrome has no equivalent. Dostoevsky Syndrome is very specific and highly constructive intensification of reality that brings a person by venture of artistic exposure at elevated level of self-reflection. In Western world the closest thing I know is considers as a medical anomaly and frequently called Stendhal Syndrome, thought I personally recognize a lot of difference between Dostoevsky and Stendhal Syndromes.
So, at the Level One the “drama” is pumped and listener awareness is being moved to the state of hyper-reflection, then the Level Two kick in. The Level Two is a Value of the Message. It is simple and it is very complicated. At the level two the Value of Message is not only the messages it s but also the Value of a Listener. While the Level One is maintaining control a Listener is not a casual observer but rather a co-creator of musical event. A Listener is a consumer AND the creator, he has full control over event while is being fully condoled by the event. It is imposable to get it until your mind is moved out by the Level One. Partially musicians can experience it. If you play an instrument then you experience the vibration of instrument deck by own body and at certain level of play, when you do not need to worry about playing techniques anymore the musician gets a feeling that his body create sound. I said “partially” it is possible with some musicians as they are in fact do create sound. During the listening audio there is no event of creation while one listens and all elements of listener’s own cooperation with performing music is a pure fiction of a listener mind tensed and emancipated by controled (!!!) Dostoevsky Syndrome.
So, the “drama” that my visitor mentioned was not wrong but there is a lot of more to it as a drama for sake of drama is a freak show, same sort of a tabloid highlight. A compelling, stimulating and “loaded” message is necessary for mind generally and for a mind tweaked into hyper-reaction and hyper-reflection of Dostoevsky’s state in particularly.
If somebody cares then I would propose to share what are your objectives with your playback. I would like to keep this thread free from talking about the practical methods to accomplish it but more about your definition of success of your playback installation.
Rgs, Romy the Cat