This editorial from today’s New York Times talks about what we have lost by no longer reading aloud to one another (and no longer playing music for one another). I know many who would agree with this piece, and I too agree with the author that such activities had and have great value, ranging from a different kind of literacy and literary understanding to a lost form of familial intimacy. That said, I think that by and large this author is completely wrong.
The first logical fault lies in claiming that aside from convenience, we gain nothing from hearing books on tape instead of read aloud at an in-person gathering and from hearing music recorded by professionals instead of played in a cozy living-room recital. I say that even if it were NOT as convenient, these things could still be considered massive improvements. Audiobooks are often read by professional actors or voice actors, and even the less-professionally done volumes still get the benefit of editing and redoing portions. We are getting a higher quality product. When I read aloud, I stammer sometimes. I don’t always read far enough ahead with my eyes to begin a sentence with the inflection or tone intended by the author. I may be quite deficient compared with the average bookworm of a century or two ago, but even they can’t compete with trained pros who get do-overs and editing equipment. My audiobook is of a higher quality.
And that argument goes double for music. Sure it’d be nice to hear a waltz played on the family harpsichord by my neighbor’s daughter, but does she take requests? She can’t possibly have the 5,000 song repertoire my iPod has, and even if she did, my iPod can learn a new song faster. A collection of friends can’t master all the techniques, songs, instruments, styles, and vocal impressions required to recreate my favorite compositions, and I don’t even think I have enough friends to replicate the London Symphony Orchestra. Which brings me to my next point: the London Symphony Orchestra is BETTER than my friends. Apologies to any musically inclined readers, but there’s no way a social network can match quality recordings of the best the world has ever seen. Metropolitan orchestras, original cast recordings from musicals, historical recordings of bands long gone, and nearly instant access to the best of modern innovation…all these things are at our fingertips now.
Now, I’ll still read to my children. And I’ll play my audiobooks as I drift off to sleep because it’s convenient. But I’ll also play music for my children even when I’m capable of singing to them instead—because I suck at it. And audiobooks read by the author will always have a place in my home, because that out-loud version is guaranteed to better represent the author’s intended inflections, tones and more ineffable qualities. Technology doesn’t stop us from doing these things, but the fact that we frequently choose not to may be telling. Convenience is huge, but so is quality.
We can lament the decline of human interaction brought on by computers, cell phones and iPods, but when it comes to the recitation and recreation of pre-composed prose and music, I’ll accept modernity’s technological embrace over Jane Austen’s contemporary parlors, because not only is it more convenient, it’s better.
No comments:
Post a Comment