The relationship between recording quality and musical taste

[matthewpiano]

I dug my Philips CD840 CD player out yesterday, out of interest, and compared it with the Rega. The Philips is an old Bitstream CD player and yet it sounds every bit as convincing as the same albums in good vinyl pressings. I'm of the opinion that both formats are there to be enjoyed, just as the best of music from all eras, including our own, is there for us to connect with as we wish.

There was some great creativity and some outstanding song writing going on back in the 60s and 70s. manicm mentions the Moody Blues - a great band who, certainly in those first few albums, produced some truly involving and unique music which I love listening to. There were so many others, from the folk-rock pioneers led by the mighty Ashley Hutchings (founder member of Fairport Convention, Steeleye Span and The Albion Band), to the canterbury groups (particularly Caravan, for me), through Pink Floyd and the other bands of the 60s underground scene. Albums like Love's 'Forever Changes', The Beatles' 'Abbey Road', Simon & Garfunkel's 'Bridge Over Tourbled Water' and many many more are incredible.

However, IMO the digital revolution and the wider availability of recording equipment and recording opportunities, has bought us music from both familiar and unfamiliar artists that we might never have heard. There are countless superb albums from recent years that have either pushed their associated genre further in new directions, or which sit as timeless statements of the artists' work. The first Imagined Village album, the brilliant and quirky Maestoso albums including 'Grim' and 'Caterwauling' (featuring the brilliant songwriting of Woolly Wolstenholme of BJH), Alice Gold's excellent album, and the opportunity for an artist like Steven Wilson to reach the position where he has been able to explore his myriad of musical interests through projects including Porcupine Tree, Blackfield, Bass Communion, no-man, solo material, and his new collaboration with one of the guys from Opeth (his name escapes me at the present moment). In Manchester there is a thriving scene based around various connotations on folk music with bands like Samson and Delilah, and The Woodbine and Ivy Band being able to record their innovative and interesting music - music which just would not have been recorded in the analogue era.

Rose tinted spectacles are all very well but, actually, the best music of the past is made all the richer by an appreciation of the best music of today, IMO.

 

[chebby]

Much less variety vying for our attention/time back in the 60s and 70s eg. No day-time TV, no gaming worth mentioning, no internet, no social media and no interest in AV...this gave music a virtual monopoly (unless you were playing monopoly!). -Portable music was usually a tiny (tinny) radio, so people often had some kind of Radiogram at home.

It is also worth noting that most music consumption in the home in the 1960s and 1970s was from the TV and the portable radio.

There were staggeringly more musical programmes on TV back then. Almost every remotely famous singer or 'crooner' had a long running TV show. Val Doonican, Roger Whittacker, Cilla Black, Andy Williams, Sandy Shaw, The Monkees, The Partridge Family, Top Of the Pops, Old Grey Whistle Test, Rock Goes to College... and probably hundreds more.

There were music quiz shows ('Juke Box Jury' for instance and even 'Face The Music' for classical music fans).

The big comedy shows would also feature guest musicians (even the satirical ones like 'This Was the Week That Was' had a resident singer) and no chat show was complete without a performance or two from a guest musician or band.

Many kids TV programmes contained musical performances (even Blue Peter would regularly feature a popular band or singer).

Add in all the music from advertising and theme tunes (some extremely popular ones took on a life beyond telly).

Musicals in the cinema (and on the telly) were incredibly popular too.

So it wasn't all about kids and 45 singles and record players or even about hi-fi enthusiasts.

TV as a national 'platform' for music was far more influential and yet (as many will recall) the quality was everything you would expect from a large wooden/hardboard/plastic box with a single, cheap, Tygan covered, oval, mono speaker (often mounted on one side as an afterthought).

I haven't even started on the ubiquitous portable 'tranny' made from compressed, resin impregnated, cardboard or cheap plastic! (Only a few fortunate souls could afford Hacker or Roberts radios and even fewer had seperate stereo tuners.) Worth bearing in mind that most radios and broadcasts were MW/LW (AM) and that VHF (FM) stereo broadcasting took from the 1960s until the 1980s to complete.

CJSF won't like this (don't look) but all BBC FM/VHF stereo radio output was being relayed across the whole country in 13 bit PCM digital from 1972 onwards. They were pioneers in digital broadcasts a decade before the first CDs appeared.

So, where was I? (Got lost there whilst typing this and eating dinner in between setting up recordings on my PVR*.)

Yes. Television in the 1960s and 1970s was probably one of the biggest sources of - and influences on - music and yet very 'lo-fi' indeed.

Warm, 'analogue', BBC FM stereo radio has been digital (at least in being relayed to transmitters) since 1972.

*Find out what a PVR is CJSF. They are incredibly useful and I am sure Hazel would love one.

 

[CnoEvil]

.....actually, the best music of the past is made all the richer by an appreciation of the best music of today, IMO.

A very astute observation Mr. Piano (It even works the other way round as well).

 

[paradiziac]

*Find out what a PVR is CJSF. They are incredibly useful and I am sure Hazel would love one.

Just steer clear of cable TV music channels...the music is almost incidental to the visuals, shocking stuff indeed!

 

[shooter]

Gone are the days a young aspiring star would do the pubs & clubs, if they were lucky they'd get spotted by someone important enough to get them on bigger shows with established acts, then maybe a bit of radio or TV airplay..... You're on your way.

True. Alan McGee famously quoted "If a new band as much as f***s it's all over the Internet."

His signing of Oasis back in the early 90's where he travelled up to Glasgow to check them out which in turn got them signed to his label Creation was the epitome of days days gone by. Now so true are his words as bands ply their trade on the net, and who can blame them. Its a great outlet for bands, get a Youtube page, get some fans behind you, the word goes out and a record company gets involved the next thing your playing small clubs around town, the buzz is out, the money comes in. No more Alan McGee days.

 

[shooter]

The relationship between musical quality and musical taste? Apples and oranges I think.

Bingo.

I buy music because i like it regardless of quality. And just to add, NOW 75 has better quality recordings than some of my new music releases, loud (dynamic compression) it maybe, but the production side is much better.

 

[the record spot]

. . . its simply reality, music was real then, now its 1's and 0's and it ain’t as good. One lives in the real word when one has to, but I like to pull the draw bridge up when I can.

I used to love vinyl, in a big way (hence my name here) but when I discovered the mastering engineers and some really good versions of albums on CD, then I dumped my preconceptions and sat back as digital blew vinyl away. I never use vinyl now; in fact, the P3 was removed from the hifi rack on Sunday and it's going on Gumtree soon. Has an AT440MLa catridge on it that's lucky if it has 50 hours use on it. The concept that digital isn't as good is outdated - maybe once upon a time it was, but no longer.

. . . face up, we live in a plastic society and digital is part of that society with poor values.

I like the values, the effort and morals of my younger days. Everything today is 'fast', no one has time, and digital is part of that culture.

Hang on, Victor Meldrew's joined us! Where do folk get this stuff. The idea that the modern world and the fast pace of life means that digital goes hand in hand with it? I dare say there were a good few ne'er do wells, ruffians and scoundrels that owned a radiogram in the 70s too...

What have DJ's got to do with my likes and dislikes, most of my preferences are Country, and Jazz based, Elvis Presley has his roots in good old country and gospel music.

Ah well, if you used the internet and discovered internet radio, you'd find that the thing's littered with any number of such stations and DJs to go with it. That's digital though, so obviously crap...

But there you go, I like what I like, I am entitled to my opinion . . . I think most modern music sucks, has little talent attached to it and is sold to gullible punters! There are exceptions I suppose . . . new let me see?????????????????

Julie Feeney, Rumer, Adele, Beth Rowley, Kris Drever...there's five to get you started.

"You can kid some of the people some of the time, but you cant kid all of the people all of the time" . . . CJSF

I think, CJ old son, you're possibly just kidding yourself...!

 

[HDNumpty]

I've not read the whole thread but thought I would stick my nose in. I'm with my (69yo) music loving and performing Dad on this one - approx 95% (or more) of popular music is utter cr*p. However, quality is there if you look for it. I would hold up Florence & The Machine (Ceremonials), Metronomy (The English Riviera), the Maccabees and lately Django Django as acts who are producing original, quality and above all WELL RECORDED music in the last 12 months, I.e. in the here and now. If you want to go more obscure have a look at davidsylvian.com for an 'old-timer' who is also (still) doing amazing things with sound and recordings and whose entire back catalogue you can order on CD or download in lossless FLAC.

It's not all going to sh*t and anyone who thinks it is probably belongs with the Daily Mail reading morons who think the streets are paved with danger and that there's a paedo around every corner waiting to steal your children.

There. That feels better.

Love, Peace and grease to all

 

[Clare Newsome]

". Elvis was "created", in every meaningful sense.

.....

He didn't promote himself at all, that's my point, the Colonel promoted him in exactly the same way that Simon Cowell promotes today's artists.

*pedant alert*

While agreeing that 'Colonel' Parker was ruthless in his promotional style, would like to point out that Elvis was already a seasoned performer, plus had a record deal with Sun - including hit singles - under his (at that stage skinny) belt way before Tom Parker was his manager.

*as you were*

 

[CJSF]

Enough is enough . . . I raise the draw dridge, turn on the Croft valve amp . . . I will ignor you all, make the Horlicks and enjoy some of the music I like, reproduced the way I (we) like . . . there you go, Hazel has just put the mugs on the table.

You all have a nice time fighiting it out yourselfs . . . 8)

CJSF

 

[shooter]

Enough is enough . . . I raise the draw dridge, turn on the Croft valve amp . . . I will ignor you all, make the Horlicks and enjoy some of the music I like, reproduced the way I (we) like . . . there you go, Hazel has just put the mugs on the table.

You all have a nice time fighiting it out yourselfs . . . 8)

CJSF

Let the subjective thread role

 

[Macspur]

I know I'm far from the target audience as it's possible to be, but the pop industry/ reality show tie-in is the thing that irks me the most.

Gone are the days a young aspiring star would do the pubs & clubs, if they were lucky they'd get spotted by someone important enough to get them on bigger shows with established acts, then maybe a bit of radio or TV airplay..... You're on your way.

Now it's: think you can sing? Audition for some reality TV show, up your chances by having a gimmick. Get a deal, record 2 albums before you've ever sung a note on stage. Sell your CDs to people who say they want your CD, but 3 years after receiving it for Christmas, it's still in the cellophane on the shelf*.

*True story. My Mother-In-Law's Leona Lewis CD has never been out of the wrapper.

It's all a bit sad.....

This would also be my view.......Longevity will be the acid test of who has great talent.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great modern artists, but you have to dig a little deeper.

I think we are having to dig a lot deeper nowadays to be honest, finding a good contemporary artist with good quality recording is even harder imho

Ben Howard-Kate Walsh... 2 relatively unknown British singer/songwriters, ooze quality, on stage and recordings.

Cheers

Mac

 

[Lee H]

Ben Howard-Kate Walsh... 2 relatively unknown British singer/songwriters, ooze quality, on stage and recordings.

You can barely move without hearing Ben Howard these days.

CJSF, nobody is criticising your choice of playback method, but to simply dismiss all of modernity as rubbish is pure folly. Again, your lovingly tweaked vinyl is just an earlier embodiment of convenience music - just like digital.

 

[The_Lhc]

approx 95% (or more) of popular music is utter cr*p.

And always has been, unless someone wants to argue that Herman's Hermits were as good as The Beatles? Either way it's not a modern phenomenom (although I appreciate that you didn't actually say it was).

 

[The_Lhc]

When Epstein died, and after the Beatles broke up Lennon and Ono did everything in their power to make sure they got the lion's share - that's not maximising income, that I repeat is ruthlessness.

It might be, but I'm talking specifically about promotion, any legal wrangles between former members of the band is a different matter and as I said by that time they were so successful they were beyond the requirements of promotion, effectively, whatever they did was going to be successful (even Wings!).

The advent of Britpop is not lost on me - I loved the Suede's, Blurs and Pulps of the island - but please don't compare them to Take That et al - please!!!

You know, you really need to start reading what I'm actually saying, at no point have I compared those bands to Take That or any boyband, I'm simply pointing out that your writing off of the 90s solely on the basis of the existence of a few boy bands does the decade a disservice as it ignores everything done by the above artists. It's also pointless as every decade has had its boy bands, from The Four Tops, The Osmonds (even The Jackson 5), through the Bay City Rollers in the 70s, New Kids and Bros in the 80s right up to the present day (to name very few in each decade). They've always been here, they always will be, to judge any decade on the number of boy (or girl for that matter) bands that were active is ridiculous, not least because I'd be willing to bet that the decade with the most is probably the 60s, which is held up as a beacon of quality by many people.

Take That write all their own songs now incidentally.

Are you telling me you can compare these teenyboppers to the Stones - PLEASE!!!!!!! Let's get some honesty here.

Yes, please, let's have some honesty and stop putting words in my mouth, as I said I've never attempted to compare any band with any other, so I don't know where you're coming from here. Find a valid argument and I'll answer it but don't make things up.

The Moody Blues, although quite hated, were undeniably creative. You don't see that kind of spark often. I'm not saying that modern acts are not creative - I'm a big fan of a few. But to my mind pop in the 90s onward became very apologetic and boring as a reaction to 80s excess. It became reactionary.

Right, now we can have a discussion, first we have to define "pop", for me it's pretty much any group that regularly makes the charts (so we can discount the odd one off like, erm, Iron Maiden making number one), so includes not just the manufactured stuff but also the kind of groups you listed above (they all had the label Britpop after all). I'd argue that those bands were really an attempt to get back to a more traditional guitar-based group structure after the heavy synth-led fayre of the 80s. The manufactured stuff just continued on from the late 80s in very much the same fashion it did before, I don't think it really influenced what the other groups did. Not sure I'd really call Blur or Oasis "apologetic" (especially not Oasis, they weren't apologising to anyone!) either.

For me pop music has always run in two distinct strands, the manufactured and the "real" (for want of a better word but I can't think of one now). These appeal to two distinct audiences with very little crossover between the two and don't really have much effect on each other. I don't see that this has changed much in 50 years.

As for Motown - many of them actually wrote their own.

Most of them didn't though and most of the tracks were recorded by a house band, albeit containing some very big names (all of Booker T and the MGs for a start...). It was a music factory every bit as much as Stock, Aitken and Waterman was (and yes, I am making a direct comparison this time).

 

[John Duncan]

I quite like Take That.

 

[The_Lhc]

I quite like Take That.

I waxed lyrical in quite excessive terms about their last album, which was mostly excellent.

 

[HDNumpty]

approx 95% (or more) of popular music is utter cr*p.

And always has been, unless someone wants to argue that Herman's Hermits were as good as The Beatles? Either way it's not a modern phenomenom (although I appreciate that you didn't actually say it was).

Yeah that was my point - is, was, always has been

 

[Alec]

I'd like to argue no sod that flat out state, as a fact that will one day be proven empirically beyond any doubt, that the Beatles were rubbish.

Apart from that I don't really care. I've forgotten why I'm here.

 

[manicm]

I'd like to argue no sod that flat out state, as a fact that will one day be proven empirically beyond any doubt, that the Beatles were rubbish.

Apart from that I don't really care. I've forgotten why I'm here.

And this coming from an R.E.M. fan, which after New Adventures In HiFi (their last great album, but I liked the underrated Reveal as well) plundered the Beatles and Beach Boys like the 60s were just yesterday.

 

[Alec]

I'd like to argue no sod that flat out state, as a fact that will one day be proven empirically beyond any doubt, that the Beatles were rubbish.

Apart from that I don't really care. I've forgotten why I'm here.

And this coming from an R.E.M. fan, which after New Adventures In HiFi (their last great album, but I liked the underrated Reveal as well) plundered the Beatles and Beach Boys like the 60s were just yesterday.

And they did it better; I rest my case.

 

[manicm]

Nope, they didn't. As I said after 98' they were through.

 

[Alec]

 

[shooter]

:rofl: