The relationship between recording quality and musical taste

[Tevion]

The arrogance of the internet raises its ugly head yet again, I can't believe folk argue a point contained in an article without reading said article. If your one of these people please jog on.com I can't be bothered filling in the gaps in your arguments like some sort of childhood nanny from your past!

As a hi fi enthusiast the article is spot on music is compressed to a silly level now, even some shop bought cd's seem to have large amounts of space left over, highlighting this problem of dynamic compression.
I have major issues when my nieces and nephews are over because of the arguments over the hifi because it sounds better in my house, the hifi in my sisters house is a cheap all in one micro system so the kids are used to a cheap plastic box type sound from the outset either that or computer speakers, thats before we even start with compression which isn't too important on cheap systems. The most important facility now for any audio equipment seems to be an ipod dock.
Go back to the 70's and there was more emphasis on sound quality hi fidelity sound was the buzz word and decent speakers were not only fashionable but a must have. Then came the 80's we were robbed throughout first with cd then with power output being the thing, advertising even started using wattages and pmpo to con us and we fell for it quality audio was not mainstream anymore but cheap nasty 200 watts per channel was a must. The 90's continued this trend until half way through when quality again resurfaced albeit very briefly next came the internet revolution and the decay really took hold continuing to gain the momentum to where we are today! One positive seems to be home cinema which strives to better the audio expierience with dts and suchlike but even that is compressed to a degree.
It seems to me we have come full circle but the con is still on, we are now using dacs to try and reproduce the sound we flung away for cd's in the 80's sadly a £10,000 dac will not beat a cheap £100 record player It's like arguing a fake faberge is better than the original!
One other thing that should be said is having a decent system directly influences what you listen to, my nieces and nephews will listen to classical over at mine something they dont do at home, asked why they all say basically the same " it sounds big" or words to that effect!

 

[matthewpiano]

Welcome to the forums Tevion. Not sure you needed to be quite so critical in your first paragraph, but let's concentrate on the rest of your interesting post.

I certainly agree with you that good sound quality can really help to open people's minds up to a wider range of music. Flat sound and/or recording quality can really do even very good music great injustice and there have been several times when changes in my hi-fi set-up have led to a re-assessment of albums I haven't previously thought much of.

I don't, however, agree with your vinyl/digital comparison, and the fake/original faberge egg analogy. I am a vinyl user myself and I have a very good turntable and cartridge. At it's best vinyl has a lovely quality and I can sit and listen to it for hours, but I've had equally good results from CD, if with a different set of qualities and priorities. In fact, despite the quality of my turntable, the bulk of my listening is still focused on CD. The very best digital systems I've heard, whether CD or file based, have been every bit as convincing as the very best analogue set-ups I've been lucky enough to experience.

Poor quality audio equipment has existed for as long as, or even longer than, high fidelity equipment. Think of all those tinny transistor radios, the rubbish 70s music centres by the likes of Ferguson, the cheaper end of the tape based personal stereo market (Alba, Bush etc.), ghetto blasters, plastic fantastic midi systems in the 80s and 90s from Amstrad, Alba etc. Let's not pretend that the majority were listening to the great Sansui amps or Thorens turntables back then, because they weren't. High fidelity equipment has always been a relatively niche interest even at its peak. Nothing has really changed there.

 

[The_Lhc]

But, the music charts are less relevant than ever before

To whom? You're showing your age with that comment! I listen to more chart music now than I did when I was a teenager, I certainly buy more of it (although admittedly we're only talking 2 or 3 tracks a year, that's more than I used to).

It might not be relevant to you as you're getting older but it's certainly as relevant to the mainstream music buying public (before anybody thinks to disagree because the charts are irrelevant to them, I'd strongly suggest that almost none of us here fall into that category) as it ever has been. It's just that that public isn't the same public as it was ten, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

If the chart is relevant to you, and you enjoy it, why not! I would say there's good stuff there from time to time though not always my personal cuppa.

But I just make the point that the chart (or the "mainstream") doesn't have the importance it once did,

Well, that's just saying the same thing but using different words. It's every bit as important to today's pop listener.

and the quality of the chart shouldn't be used as an excuse to lament a general decline in musical/recording standards.

I don't think the two go together. The fact that music is dynamically compressed is not related to the artistic quality of the music, it's just the way things are done these days. One of the bands most criticised for over-compression in their recordings is the Red Hot Chilli Peppers and yet they're one of the most critically acclaimed groups of the past 30 years (for reasons which, frankly, escape me but that's a different matter).

When I first started buying records as a teenager, it was a trip every couple of weeks to record shops in Leeds or Manchester to get stuff I wanted, that and/or staying up to tape stuff on the radio. If I went to my local Woolies it was "if it isn't in the top 40 we don't sell it". So it was hard for stuff not in the Top 40 to even get heard (daytime radio was also dominated by the charts and whatever was lucky enough to make the Radio 1 playlist, as judged by the invisible arbiters of musical taste).

There isn't actually any difference now, as far as pop music is concerned, there's very little in the charts that hasn't been playlisted by Radio 1 today, if anything the download culture has made it worse, it's now very common for a single artist to have 3 or 4 tracks in the top 40, even in the top ten, because iTunes makes them permanently available, whereas in the past a single would have been deleted sooner or later.

But now, there's billions of tracks available on demand on Spotify, Grooveshark, Hypemachine, Soundcloud...plus the potential to buy them with one click. Not to mention internet radio from all over the world, artist websites, label websites, YouTube ... You don't need the charts to tell you if it's any good, there's also Spotify apps, last FM, loads of reviews everywhere, social media...or just click and listen!

True but hundreds of thousands of kids still follow what they hear on the Radio and buy exactly what their friends are buying, humans like being part of a group.

 

[The_Lhc]

The arrogance of the internet raises its ugly head yet again, I can't believe folk argue a point contained in an article without reading said article.

I wasn't doing that, I was simply pointing out that the author's opinion of the musical "quality" (as opposed to the sound quality) of today's mainstream music is irrelevant as it's simply his opinion. That part of his argument falls down completely if you don't believe that the musical quality of today's pop is any worse than it has been at any time in the last 50 years. It's a bit like a religious person telling an atheist they're going to hell. The atheist won't be worried as they don't believe in hell in the first place.

If your one of these people please jog on.com I can't be bothered filling in the gaps in your arguments like some sort of childhood nanny from your past!

Funny, I don't recall anyone asking you to, so what makes you think your opinion is required? Arrogance, perhaps? I shouldn't be surprised though, we're all here, myself included, because we believe our opinion needs to be heard by the world, otherwise we wouldn't bother. We might not want to admit that to ourselves as it means we're all pompous windbags spouting hot air into the ether in an effort to validate our own intelligence. Certainly sums me up pretty accurately, how about yourself?

As a hi fi enthusiast the article is spot on music is compressed to a silly level now, even some shop bought cd's seem to have large amounts of space left over, highlighting this problem of dynamic compression.

I don't think that's the case, dynamically compressed or not the PCM stream will still deliver 1411kbps, so if there's space left on a CD that's simply an indication of the length of an album, not the dynamic compression level, which isn't the same as data compression found in mp3s (for example).

I have major issues when my nieces and nephews are over because of the arguments over the hifi because it sounds better in my house, the hifi in my sisters house is a cheap all in one micro system so the kids are used to a cheap plastic box type sound from the outset either that or computer speakers, thats before we even start with compression which isn't too important on cheap systems. The most important facility now for any audio equipment seems to be an ipod dock. Go back to the 70's and there was more emphasis on sound quality hi fidelity sound was the buzz word and decent speakers were not only fashionable but a must have.

Only if you had money, I'd wager most teens in the 70s didn't have much, my missus listened to all her singles on a truly horrible plastic thing with a tiny speaker built-in, we've still got it, it has to be heard to be believed but that's what she spent her teenage years enjoying her music on. The sound quality is significantly worse than most iPod dock systems.

 

[CJSF]

The arrogance of the internet raises its ugly head yet again, I can't believe folk argue a point contained in an article without reading said article. If your one of these people please jog on.com I can't be bothered filling in the gaps in your arguments like some sort of childhood nanny from your past! As a hi fi enthusiast the article is spot on music is compressed to a silly level now, even some shop bought cd's seem to have large amounts of space left over, highlighting this problem of dynamic compression. I have major issues when my nieces and nephews are over because of the arguments over the hifi because it sounds better in my house, the hifi in my sisters house is a cheap all in one micro system so the kids are used to a cheap plastic box type sound from the outset either that or computer speakers, thats before we even start with compression which isn't too important on cheap systems. The most important facility now for any audio equipment seems to be an ipod dock. Go back to the 70's and there was more emphasis on sound quality hi fidelity sound was the buzz word and decent speakers were not only fashionable but a must have. Then came the 80's we were robbed throughout first with cd then with power output being the thing, advertising even started using wattages and pmpo to con us and we fell for it quality audio was not mainstream anymore but cheap nasty 200 watts per channel was a must. The 90's continued this trend until half way through when quality again resurfaced albeit very briefly next came the internet revolution and the decay really took hold continuing to gain the momentum to where we are today! One positive seems to be home cinema which strives to better the audio expierience with dts and suchlike but even that is compressed to a degree. It seems to me we have come full circle but the con is still on, we are now using dacs to try and reproduce the sound we flung away for cd's in the 80's sadly a £10,000 dac will not beat a cheap £100 record player It's like arguing a fake faberge is better than the original! One other thing that should be said is having a decent system directly influences what you listen to, my nieces and nephews will listen to classical over at mine something they dont do at home, asked why they all say basically the same " it sounds big" or words to that effect!

Hi Tevion, welcome . . . I like your style, say it as it is . . . :clap: I think over all you are right, not all will agree of course. I have my routes in the 70's, 80's and a few years in the early 90's, then a big gap until last year. I never even listened to music during that gap period.

Twelve months in, I put myself up as an 'ex' audiophile. New music and new recording techniques do little for me, there are exception, like Lenard Cohen's 'Old Ideas', Alison Krauss 'Raising Sand', but in general, I'm too old and love my 'music' too much to appreciate what passes as musical entertainment these days. I'm enjoying going back on my old record collection, recordings that were pressed in the 70's and 80's, at least serious compression is generally not a problem?

We are told that digital is the best??? 'balderdash' . . . easiest to produce and control would be more truthful perhaps?. But as you suggest, public are glabella, they have taken it hook, line and sinker. Modern times wants ‘easy’ and lets be fair, it is to easy to press a button to get what you want these days, musically they have got what they deserve IMHO.

I have experienced some excellent digital downloads, even from Spotify, however my appreciation of analogue and the love of extracting the best from it, always has vinyl, in my book, at least that one step ahead.

These days, I read, but dont often get involved . . . one is not going to change anything:? I simply enjoy my music and let other do their own thing?

CJSF

 

[chebby]

Only if you had money, I'd wager most teens in the 70s didn't have much, my missus listened to all her singles on a truly horrible plastic thing with a tiny speaker built-in, we've still got it, it has to be heard to be believed but that's what she spent her teenage years enjoying her music on. The sound quality is significantly worse than most iPod dock systems.

Precisely.

Kids in those supposed 'Golden Eras' (pick your own favourite one) were not all buying their gear from specialist hi-fi dealers. They were mostly buying cheapo plastic (or leatherette covered hardboard) tat from places like Rumbelows.

The people buying the likes of Linn/Thorens/Quad/Radford/Leak/Tannoy/Grundig/SME etc. were (a) reasonably well off (b) a lot older than in their teens (c) a small and very specialist minority.

Cheap, mono, autochanger record players with ceramic styli and an old penny stuck on top of the arm to aid tracking(!) were all the rage with teens in the 1950s and '60s to play singles. In the 1970s it was likely to be a cheap Fidelity or Amstrad 'rack' or a 'Ghetto Blaster' that chewed up their tapes. Their dads probably owned a cheap music centre or an old radiogram.

Nowadays, far higher quality music reproduction is affordable to the (average) teenager more than ever before.

 

[matthewpiano]

Absolutely agree with you Chebby.

 

[chebby]

Hi Tevion, welcome . . . I like your style, say it as it is . . . :clap: I think over all you are right, not all will agree of course. I have my routes in the 70's, 80's and a few years in the early 90's, then a big gap until last year. I never even listened to music during that gap period.

Twelve months in, I put myself up as an 'ex' audiophile. New music and new recording techniques do little for me, there are exception, like Lenard Cohen's 'Old Ideas', Alison Krauss 'Raising Sand', but in general, I'm too old and love my 'music' too much to appreciate what passes as musical entertainment these days. I'm enjoying going back on my old record collection, recordings that were pressed in the 70's and 80's, at least serious compression is generally not a problem?

We are told that digital is the best??? 'balderdash' . . . easiest to produce and control would be more truthful perhaps?. But as you suggest, public are glabella, they have taken it hook, line and sinker. Modern times wants ‘easy’ and lets be fair, it is to easy to press a button to get what you want these days, musically they have got what they deserve IMHO.

I have experienced some excellent digital downloads, even from Spotify, however my appreciation of analogue and the love of extracting the best from it, always has vinyl, in my book, at least that one step ahead.

These days, I read, but dont often get involved . . . one is not going to change anything:? I simply enjoy my music and let other do their own thing?

CJSF

This (and some of the other fantasy on here) reminds me of documentaries about the 1960s. (You know, the ones that are researched by people in their twenties reading the dodgy, ghost-written, memoirs of people who spent the entire decade wrecked in a Buckinghamshire mansion.)

Everyone owned a Lotus or an E-Type or a Mini. They all shopped in Carnaby Street boutiques and went to nightclubs where they all (regularly) bumped into Keith Moon or George Best or Mick. Everyone owned a flat fitted out like something from an episode of Jason King and earnt their livings being fabulous and getting photographed by their mate David Bailey!

(I also blame a whole generation of Radio 1 DJs who spent 25 years 'imprinting' their own experiences onto the nation's youthful imaginations, every day, until - like a form of mass false memory syndrome - many believed they had partly lived that life as well.)

It would be like someone researching what everyone used - to play music - by reading a pile of old HFN&RR magazines. Only accurate for a small percentage of people. A pile of old Argos catalogues gives a far more realistic perspective.

 

[paradiziac]

Yep, starting with vinyl, I've been into music for 25 years and most of that time, for various reasons, I had only lo-fi gear. It never stopped me enjoying music though.

My hifi goal for the next 25 years is a dedicated listening room stacked full of old vinyl and a state-of-the-art deck to play it on with a nice selection of fine beverages on tap.

In the meantime, I'll keep listening to Spotify through my Macmini/DAC until I've saved enough pennies...

 

[Anonymous]

There is the music industry and there is music the two are not the same. I listen to quite a few underground bands, singers etc they may not have the best production, best marketing, best stylist but they just made good music. Fortunately they can sell their tracks via the web in mp3 320 kb/s and it's better than the music by numbers stuff the music industry is happy churning out...

 

[idc]

........

Conversely, if I check my iTunes play count, Mylo Xyloto is my most played album by some distance and I've been using iTunes for nearly 10 years now.

Dont get me wrong I don't think of it as the best album ever, or even my favourite album ever, but it's stuck in my conscience, and I play it at home, in the car and at work, don't know why it just makes me feel good.

.........

Yes! When a tune works for me, the quality of the recording becomes less important and if it pops up on the crappy radio at work I'll stop if I can and listen.

Another thought, maybe much of pop sounds better with dynamic compression? Maybe you are not supposed to revel in its sound quality and you are supposed to feel other emotions when you hear it?

 

[Anonymous]

There is the music industry and there is music the two are not the same. I listen to quite a few underground bands, singers etc they may not have the best production, best marketing, best stylist, good looks but they just make good music. Fortunately they can sell their tracks via the web in mp3 320 kb/s and it's better than the music by numbers stuff the music industry is happy churning out with all the best production, studio, engineers...

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's the quality of modern music (subjective debate anyway) that is the reason for dynamic compression being used in music production, it is the demand for the level of ultimate portability and convenience we enjoy today combined with a decision by music production studios that dynamically compressed music will sound better on these portable devices and I-Pod Docks etc. Maybe they are right and for the majority of people who do not have Hi-Fi quality systems it does sound better.

However, as already stated on this thread, music systems in the past were of no higher quality in most cases than the majority of music systems being used today. Portable devices (Walkmans etc) existed when dynamic compression was not being utilised (apparently) so why do we need dynamic compression now and not then?

Maybe it will be possible in future to buy a choice of versions and it will be possible to opt for one which has not had dynamic compression applied to it during production, but I doubt that there is sufficient demand from the vast majority of people for the current preference to ever be reversed.

 

[manicm]

But over the last few years the music seems to be being created by finding people with the right appearance then finding and creating some noise that will have a short term appeal to a certain group of people and marketing it for maximum profit with little thought for sound quality or musical quality and that can't be good for anyone except the people making the money.

How many songs did Elvis write in his lifetime?

Yes but love him or loathe him he did have real singing Talent

That's a matter of opinion, he had a distinctive voice but it's one that many thousands of Elvis impersonators can do just as well. What he had was the right look, in the right place at the right time and a manager that was utterly ruthless in his determination to promote him.

Lhc, gotta say, you're missing the point here somewhat. Elvis never promoted himself as a songwriter, so he didn't write any, so what? He was a great performer though and unique at the time. Yes he was heavily influenced by Chuck Berry but he made it his own.

You talk about ruthlessness? That's naive mate, cos even the most idealistic writers were pretty ruthless in their heyday including Lennon, McCartney, Dylan and even Neil Young - they all did what they could to survive.

On the other hand the boy bands were the biggest tragedy of the 90s - more so in my opinion than Stock, Aitken and Waterman, why? Cos the idiots all claimed to 'write their own songs'. But why? They all sounded the same, and just one aim to hit the teenage charts. Please don't compare them to the Beatles - cos melody-wise the moptops brought something genuinely new and vibrant.

In fact pop-wise I hated the 90s and partly the 00s even more than the 80s - cos of the good music there was more creativity than the later decades.

 

[the record spot]

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

 

[manicm]

Only if you had money, I'd wager most teens in the 70s didn't have much, my missus listened to all her singles on a truly horrible plastic thing with a tiny speaker built-in, we've still got it, it has to be heard to be believed but that's what she spent her teenage years enjoying her music on. The sound quality is significantly worse than most iPod dock systems.

Precisely.

Kids in those supposed 'Golden Eras' (pick your own favourite one) were not all buying their gear from specialist hi-fi dealers. They were mostly buying cheapo plastic (or leatherette covered hardboard) tat from places like Rumbelows.

The people buying the likes of Linn/Thorens/Quad/Radford/Leak/Tannoy/Grundig/SME etc. were (a) reasonably well off (b) a lot older than in their teens (c) a small and very specialist minority.

Cheap, mono, autochanger record players with ceramic styli and an old penny stuck on top of the arm to aid tracking(!) were all the rage with teens in the 1950s and '60s to play singles. In the 1970s it was likely to be a cheap Fidelity or Amstrad 'rack' or a 'Ghetto Blaster' that chewed up their tapes. Their dads probably owned a cheap music centre or an old radiogram.

Nowadays, far higher quality music reproduction is affordable to the (average) teenager more than ever before.

Um, I'm not so sure about this. Like someone else posted here, as not all kids can afford an iPod today, as not everyone could afford a Walkman back then - but like the iPod they became pretty ubiquitous amongst the young. And don't think the sound sucked - my older brother brought me a fabulous Aiwa in the late 80s from England. It's sound was the absolute dog's proverbial and as a teen I was delighted.

And as for music availability? Well you went to your upstreet friends and did home-taping of-course! Which clearly was not 'killing music' as some wanted us to believe.

 

[BenLaw]

pompous windbags spouting hot air into the ether in an effort to validate our own intelligence. Certainly sums me up pretty accurately

Excellent! A new signature perhaps? Certainly one worth mentioning IMO.

 

[The_Lhc]

But over the last few years the music seems to be being created by finding people with the right appearance then finding and creating some noise that will have a short term appeal to a certain group of people and marketing it for maximum profit with little thought for sound quality or musical quality and that can't be good for anyone except the people making the money.

How many songs did Elvis write in his lifetime?

Yes but love him or loathe him he did have real singing Talent

That's a matter of opinion, he had a distinctive voice but it's one that many thousands of Elvis impersonators can do just as well. What he had was the right look, in the right place at the right time and a manager that was utterly ruthless in his determination to promote him.

Lhc, gotta say, you're missing the point here somewhat.

No, I'm answering the point Electro was making about today's music being "created". Elvis was "created", in every meaningful sense.

Elvis never promoted himself as a songwriter

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.

so he didn't write any, so what?

So, these days it's always used as a barometer of "quality", anyone who doesn't write their own music is considered inferior today but this standard is never applied to beacons of quality such as Motown and the like, even though almost none of those artists would not have been writing their own music.

He was a great performer though and unique at the time.

That's the crux and it's an advantage that no subsequent artist can ever really have again.

You talk about ruthlessness? That's naive mate, cos even the most idealistic writers were pretty ruthless in their heyday including Lennon, McCartney, Dylan and even Neil Young - they all did what they could to survive.

Why is it naive? The Beatles had Epstein pulling the strings, in the early days, when it was most needed (subsequently of course they reached a critical mass and it didn't really matter what they did, continued success was assured), that wasn't for survival, it was about maximising success.

On the other hand the boy bands were the biggest tragedy of the 90s - more so in my opinion than Stock, Aitken and Waterman, why? Cos the idiots all claimed to 'write their own songs'. But why? They all sounded the same, and just one aim to hit the teenage charts. Please don't compare them to the Beatles - cos melody-wise the moptops brought something genuinely new and vibrant.

There was plenty more "boy bands" in the 60s than just the Beatles, is it alright to compare them to those? It should be because they're exactly the same. Anyway, the 90s was the golden age of Britpop, apparently, you seem to be forgetting that, just because there were boy bands is no reason to write the whole decade off (although it's not my favourite).

In fact pop-wise I hated the 90s and partly the 00s even more than the 80s - cos of the good music there was more creativity than the later decades.

Sorry, I just don't believe that, it's far harder for today's acts to be seen as original but that's only to be expected, Elvis was the first genuine "pop" star, nobody else gets that opportunity, but that doesn't mean creativity isn't out there now.

 

[Overdose]

The OPs question was about recording quality and musical taste. I believe that it is fair to say that the more modern mainstream music, is recorded to be listened to in a variety of siuations, most of which are not condusive to quality listening and many are on the go, ie in a car, at work in the office/workshop or at home in the background. These noisy environments need music that is dynamically compressed, or most of it will remain unheard.

A good example of this was when I was trying to listen to a Laura Marling CD, whilst driving down from my Easter break, parts of the music and vocals were difficult to hear. More pop orientated music like Gwen Steffani for example, was fine.

 

[CJSF]

Hi Tevion, welcome . . . I like your style, say it as it is . . . :clap: I think over all you are right, not all will agree of course. I have my routes in the 70's, 80's and a few years in the early 90's, then a big gap until last year. I never even listened to music during that gap period.

Twelve months in, I put myself up as an 'ex' audiophile. New music and new recording techniques do little for me, there are exception, like Lenard Cohen's 'Old Ideas', Alison Krauss 'Raising Sand', but in general, I'm too old and love my 'music' too much to appreciate what passes as musical entertainment these days. I'm enjoying going back on my old record collection, recordings that were pressed in the 70's and 80's, at least serious compression is generally not a problem?

We are told that digital is the best??? 'balderdash' . . . easiest to produce and control would be more truthful perhaps?. But as you suggest, public are glabella, they have taken it hook, line and sinker. Modern times wants ‘easy’ and lets be fair, it is to easy to press a button to get what you want these days, musically they have got what they deserve IMHO.

I have experienced some excellent digital downloads, even from Spotify, however my appreciation of analogue and the love of extracting the best from it, always has vinyl, in my book, at least that one step ahead.

These days, I read, but dont often get involved . . . one is not going to change anything:? I simply enjoy my music and let other do their own thing?

CJSF

This (and some of the other fantasy on here) reminds me of documentaries about the 1960s. (You know, the ones that are researched by people in their twenties reading the dodgy, ghost-written, memoirs of people who spent the entire decade wrecked in a Buckinghamshire mansion.)

Everyone owned a Lotus or an E-Type or a Mini. They all shopped in Carnaby Street boutiques and went to nightclubs where they all (regularly) bumped into Keith Moon or George Best or Mick. Everyone owned a flat fitted out like something from an episode of Jason King and earnt their livings being fabulous and getting photographed by their mate David Bailey!

(I also blame a whole generation of Radio 1 DJs who spent 25 years 'imprinting' their own experiences onto the nation's youthful imaginations, every day, until - like a form of mass false memory syndrome - many believed they had partly lived that life as well.)

It would be like someone researching what everyone used - to play music - by reading a pile of old HFN&RR magazines. Only accurate for a small percentage of people. A pile of old Argos catalogues gives a far more realistic perspective.

Fantasy it ain’t Chebby . . . 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.

. . . modern 'reality' is poor at best, standards have dropped, look around . . . 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.

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.

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?????????????????

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

 

[matthewpiano]

These noisy environments need music that is dynamically compressed, or most of it will remain unheard.

A good example of this was when I was trying to listen to a Laura Marling CD, whilst driving down from my Easter break, parts of the music and vocals were difficult to hear. More pop orientated music like Gwen Steffani for example, was fine.

An excellent point and one that I often struggle with on the train with my Network Walkman.

 

[matthewpiano]

. . . modern 'reality' is poor at best, standards have dropped, look around . . . 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.

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.

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?????????????????

"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 really have to disagree with this CJSF. Digital isn't inferior (and I include CD here) and whilst there are lazy artists riding on easy routes up the charts today, such artists have always existed. There is plenty of well written, well performed and well recorded music being produced today if you seek it out.

 

[Lee H]

its simply reality, music was real then, now its 1's and 0's and it ain’t as good...

Everything today is 'fast', no one has time, and digital is part of that culture.

Isn't that just progress though? You could argue that vinyl is "fast" becuase music used to mean "live" as there were no recordings.

Music stopped being "real" when it stopped being a string quartet in the corner of the room. Any attempt at recording music - no matter the quality - is flawed.

All that most of us on this thread are showing is getting older. The method of playback for the current generation is different to our choice. Take someone from 18th Century Vienna and play them a HD Mozart track, to them, it would sound considerably poorer than having Mozart in the palace playing for them.

 

[matthewpiano]

Actually, digital technology has made it possible for some of the more adventurous and less commercial being made today to exist. Many of these bands could never have afforded to pay for time in expensive studios and so in the past may never have been heard. Add to that some of the older generation bands who would struggle to get a decent record deal these days but are now able to do the bulk of the recording themselves, and digital technology actually becomes a great pathway for making interesting music heard.

 

[The_Lhc]

What have DJ's got to do with my likes and dislikes,

Read it again, that isn't even close to what Chebby said.