Why Spend $$ ?

For those who indulge in uber-expen$ive gear, this may soothe their consciences. It is extracted from an article published in The Absolute Sound, July/Aug 2012, pg. 48.

How I Justify Buying Expensive Stereo Equipment

By Dennis Prager

I am not rich, I am not a professional musician, and I do not work in the stereo business. Yet I have spent a good amount of money on stereo equipment. Though I have built this system up over many years, I have still spent plenty.

Is spending almost the price of a luxury car on a stereo system justifiable?

The Role of Music in My Life

Music has been my constant companion from the day that, as a sophomore in high school, I discovered classical music at a one-dollar Handel concert given by Alexander Schneider and his chamber group at Carnegie Hall. Through my life’s happiest and darkest moments, great music has been there to cheer me and console me, to bring me back to earth when I was flying too high, and to lift me when I had sunk too low. In my younger years, Schubert provided expressions of angst, Beethoven gave strength, and Mozart provided serenity; now in middle age, Haydn gives me refuge from life’s stresses, and Bach brings me closer to God.

Moreover, in the last few years, I have (finally, I admit) come to love other musical expressions, especially jazz (including blues, bluegrass, big band, cool, smooth, Latin, among other styles) and film music. Duke Ellington and others now move me in ways I only thought possible in classical music.

Given the powerful role music plays in my life, I have always wanted to enjoy it in my home. But there are many ways of enjoying music in one’s home — from a 15-dollar clock radio to a half-million-dollar stereo system. But if a Beethoven symphony or Dave Brubeck can be enjoyed on a 15-dollar radio, why spend large sums of money on stereo equipment?

I will answer this by first asking a question: If Beethoven can be enjoyed on a radio, why go to the trouble and expense of listening to his music at a concert? The answer is that, in addition to the enjoyment of watching a conductor and orchestra, and in addition to the unique excitement of live music making, live music sounds better. We hear far more at a live concert than through a radio,and hearing is what music is all about.

The difference between hearing Beethoven on a clock radio or even on an average stereo system and hearing him live is immense. And if one ever has an opportunity to sit in an orchestra, or, as I have, to conduct one, the difference between live music and even great stereo is also dramatic.

One way of expressing this difference is that the clock radio gives you the melody that Beethoven composed, but not all the music. For example, in his famous Fifth Symphony, Beethoven wrote much more than his da-da-da-dah theme. He interwove themes in the violas, gave soaring lines to trumpets, fascinating moments to the bassoons, angry outbursts to cellos and basses, and so on. Those “inner voices” are what I want to hear. I want, in short, to hear everything a composer wrote, not just the melody. I want to hear the unique sound of every string, wind, brass and percussion instrument.

This is equally true of other types of music. For example, on jazz singer Norah Jones’ disc “ Come away with me,” the first song “Don’t know why” includes a backup chorus that only on quality equipment is heard as human voices. Hearing that adds an enormous amount to one’s enjoyment.

An analogy to the graphic arts might help. If you see a book-sized black and white photograph of a Rembrandt painting, you certainly can enjoy the painting, and you can appreciate some of the artist’s greatness. But the truth is that you haven’t really seen Rembrandt’s painting.

A typical stereo system is a small black and white photograph of a large color masterpiece.

You don’t need to be a musical connoisseur to appreciate this. A young man who was into heavy metal and had never actually listened to classical music, heard my stereo system, and said that for the first time in his life, he understood why people like classical music — he heard so much going on, so many beautiful and exciting sounds from so many different instruments, that he couldn’t be bored. I am convinced that, aside from live concerts, one way to get many more people to love classical music is to have them hear it on superb equipment.

With my extraordinary stereo system, I can enjoy what only a handful of the wealthiest people in history could enjoy — great music played by great musicians in my own home. In terms of the drama of live human presence, no stereo can substitute (thank God) for live musicians, but in terms of sound, it is often quite close to live, and occasionally superior.

On the other hand, unlike the super rich of yore, I don’t merely have a few musicians at my disposal; I have all of the world’s great orchestras and soloists, and they can play for me at a moment’s notice at any hour of the day or night. At midnight, the Cleveland Orchestra plays for me, and though deceased, Vladimir Horowitz, too, can play for me — and precisely the music I want. And the clarity is such that closing my eyes puts these great musicians right in front of me.

On Spending Discretionary Income

Are my love of music and the role it plays in my life sufficient reasons to justify what I spend on stereo equipment? Or is it all merely an elaborate rationalization?

This brings me to a philosophy of spending.

I assume that most readers of this essay have more money than they need merely to survive. Such money is known as discretionary money. Many people don’t think hard about how they spend this money. We often spend this money on whim — and therefore on things that don’t bring us the most enduring pleasure.

Most people have some sort of philosophy of spending with regard to life’s essentials — we know roughly how much we can and want to spend on a home, on food, and on schooling for our children — but not about spending on non-essentials. Yet, this, too, calls for considered reflection.

I have preferred to spend my pleasure money on listening to Bach in performances and with sound that Bach himself rarely enjoyed — in my home. That’s worth a lot of money to me.

The Moral Question

What sum of money can we justify spending on things — especially things whose sole purpose is to provide us with pleasure? In order to answer this, we need to answer other questions:

First, have we met our financial obligations? Have we paid for our home and family? Have we paid our financial debts to others?

Second, have we given a decent amount in taxes and to charity? For some people this question is impossible to answer, because they believe that virtually any amount of money spent on oneself beyond basic needs is too much, given the amount of poverty and human suffering.

Common sense offers answers. If we were to give away virtually all our non-essential money, why would we work as hard we do? There is no question that a significant part of what animates most of us who work hard is the ability to enjoy the fruits of our labors. Moreover, if we all gave our non-essential money away, there would soon be no money to give to anyone. Since no money would be spent on non-essentials, most workers would be laid off work, the economy would come to a standstill, and very little wealth would be produced.

When people have earned their money honorably (a big “if” for some people), paid their fair share (and more) of taxes, met their debts, provided for their loved ones, and given time and/or money to charitable causes, why shouldn’t they spend their money on things that bring them joy?

Is such spending “extravagant?” One person’s extravagance is anther’s joy. Who am I, the owner of an elaborate stereo system, to say that a man who meets the above criteria and then buys a Rolls-Royce is too extravagant in his spending? Even if I had many millions of dollars, I would not spend so much money on a car, but I am in no position to condemn his spending. (If he bought the Rolls to impress others rather than because of the joy a great automobile affords him, that would be a psychological and character issue — but there is no way for the rest of us to know motives.)

Healthy Excitement

There is another argument on behalf of spending pleasure money after the criteria of responsible spending are met. I take it from a statement made recently by the American television superstar Jay Leno. Much of his pleasure money goes to collecting old cars — a rather expensive hobby, but he certainly has the money to indulge in it. Mr. Leno was quoted by USA Today as saying, “Most men in Hollywood have one car and a lot of women; I have one wife and a lot of cars.” In order to function best in this world, men (and women) need an infusion of some excitement.

Finally, there is something good about the human pursuit of excellence. When I buy something I particularly admire, such as one of my stereo components, I usually call or write the manufacturers to tell them how much joy their product has given me. At least in the relatively small world of high-end stereo, these communications are usually received with gratitude; indeed, I often end up having long conversations with people whose lives are dedicated to making beautiful music as accessible as possible. So, in some way, we may actually be contributing to a noble pursuit when we sustain people who devote their lives to making better amplifiers.

So, once you’ve met your obligations go and enjoy your hard and honestly earned money. Just make sure you spend it on that which brings you the most enduring pleasure.

More Opinions:

www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreymorrison/2014/03/16/is-high-end-audio-worth-it/?sh=292ac9b46da0

www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-do-you-get-when-you-spend-more-for-speakers/

audiophilereview.com/audiophile/is-high-end-audio-really-a-sound-investment/

audiophilereview.com/audiophile/when-do-audiophiles-spend-too-much-on-components/