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
