That seems to apply to any form of amplification. Is only unamplified music heard “in person”?
We’re listening to music, not unpacking general relativity.
Ahem, we’re talking acoustics, and the speed of sound in air is only about 400 m/s, so in a large venue like a stadium it sure can make a difference.
I think that the point is that “in person” is kind of a fuzzy notion to begin with. If there’s a concert in a stadium, and you weren’t in the stadium, but were on the roof of a neighboring building that overlooks the stadium (from which you could still hear the sound from the stadium’s sound system), did you see the concert in person? What if you were in the same spot, but it was an acoustic concert, and you could only just barely hear the music from there? What if your grandmother with poor hearing was sitting right next to you, and even though you could hear it, she couldn’t-- Did she see the concert in person? Does it only matter if you can hear, or does it matter if you can see the stage, too?
Nope, we’re talking about the definition of listening to something “in person”.
But, if any of you go to your kid’s piano recital and want to say you didn’t go in person, because the instrument’s sound took .01 seconds to reach your ears, go right ahead.
Alternatively, if you want to say that you watched the Beatles perform “in person” because the YouTube video you just streamed is just like being present in the Ed Sullivan Show audience, but with a bit longer delay than .01 seconds, go ahead and do that too.
Jesus dude. We all know what it means. You don’t have to be a pedantic ass about everything
Nope, you didn’t see the concert in person. You weren’t in the venue and didn’t see anything.
Nope, you couldn’t see the concert OR hear the concert.
Of course she did, I imagine she saw the whole thing.
That’s a tricky question. If I go to a concert and blink, have I stopped being at the concert for an instant? If I turn around to get a drink at the bar, am I no longer part of the audience?
So you’re saying that everyone would give the same answers to all of the questions I raised?
Within a less than a tenth of a percent of the crowd size other than people trying to prove a ridiculous point
I’ve never heard a perfectly understandable concept so thoroughly lawyered to death.
… if we spoke to every single adult American about this, I doubt as many as 20 people would bring up the points you’ve brought up.
It’s kind of an odd case where the addition of more and more correct technical information leads farther and farther away from understood truth. In short – the physics just don’t matter to understanding here. Correct or not – they just don’t. Frustrating for pedants (trust me, I understand the urge) … but the pedants are just rightly “declared wrong” here, regardless of the correctness of the technical information.
In a sense, if 99.999% don’t care about the super-narrow facts of a situation, those facts don’t matter. I guess that can lead to bad things sometimes … but other times, it really doesn’t matter.
What if everyone claps with only one hand?
Nah, I don’t believe you heard it. And if you did it was only in your head, after reading it.
High five everyone!
OK, OK, OK! I’m gone!
To quote @hajario, “have you ever been to a concert”?
To circle back:
We started with an edge case, so of course the exact details matter.
Well, I see that I got whooshed, sorry. And I concur that this discussion about “what’s in person” is the nitpickiest nitpick I’ve ever seen here at this board, and that counts for something.
Oh, I don’t know about that. As presented, it makes intuitive sense, at least.
I took Mark_Finn’s case like so:
-
The Wannamaker Organ (sp?) started it’s twice-a-day performances on Some Day, 1911. On Day 1, 100 people gathered round and heard the first performance and 85 people heard the second. Don’t really care about whether, say, any passing pedestrians heard a few notes and kept walking, or anything like that. Count of in-person listeners at Day 1: 185.
-
Repeat [[365.25 (leap days!) × 2 performances] × 114 years] - 2 (no leap day in 2000) = 83,275 performances
-
83,275 performances × arbitrary average number of in-person listeners (see “in-person” above). Call it 200 per performance to yield 16,655,000 in-person listeners to that one organ. A nonce figure built on assumptions and dry sand, to be sure. But something.
EDIT: Now, the overall count can’t be falsified … so it would be fair game to respond somethiing “That organ may be a contender, but we just don’t know for sure”. But not based on picking around the edges of what “in person” actually means.
In person? I’m not sure.
This past Sunday I was having lunch in a BBQ joint with Mrs. Cheesesteak, and there were 4 guys across the room playing punk rock really loud. Given the speed of sound, and microphones, and the fact I was facing the wrong way, it’s hard to describe what was going on. There was a basketball game on the TV, maybe I was at an NCAA Tournament game?
Reality is confusing.
Exactly to this and the entire post. We could maybe debate about how long someone has to stick around to have been there which would still be asinine but to say that a someone in a club paying rapt attention to an amplified electric guitar solo isn’t seeing the music live might be one of the most half baked arguments I have ever read.
I’ve done gigs like that.