Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 76 to 93 of 93
  1. #76
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Woochifer

    Well this thread has really strayed from cartridges

    Most film critics are not film critics they're reviewers...and there's quite a difference. I'm not a big fan of having to read a book before I see a film in order t understand the film. This is the job of the Director and the Screenwriter adapting the novel or book into a film.

    May critics/reviewers, especially amateur ones, are going to have a tough time if we expect one individual to be able to be versed deeply in so many genres. I'm not a knowledgeable martial arts film person - what I have seen is limited to what comes out here, which is the odd Jackie Chan film and Bruce Lee pictures and dozens of dreck like Enter the Ninja. So when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon hits the screen it is both visually impressive well acted and basically a dance. And I thought it one of the best films of the year. But that's because it's fresh to me as it would be to many a critic this side of the ocean.
    You're right in that it should not be an expectation of the amateur internet reviewers or critics who freelance and contribute to smaller publications. But, if someone's going to review for a broad circulation daily or a major market TV station, they'd better have their stuff together and have a working familiarity with several genres. And that would include the more offbeat cult genres since more and more filmmakers (Quentin Tarantino's the most prominent example) grew up on those types of movies and now draw from those influences. All too often, I see reviewers rave about stuff just because they intuitively think that they're supposed to like it. They'll rave about it because it's "independent" or purportedly high minded, and be less than enthusiastic about something because it's too "mainstream" or worse yet, they just have no clue about certain genres.

    And to me, that's where a lot of film critics showed their hypocritical stripes when Crouching Tiger came out. I'm admittedly a Hong Kong film junkie, and the few films that made their way into U.S. cinemas were often derided because the reviewers were looking at these films expecting typical foreign art house fare (i.e. slow paced, introspective, etc.), and instead got bombarded with relentlessly paced action scenes, otherworldly philosophical concepts, gravity defying fantasy, over the top emotion, and drastic shifts between tragedy, comedy, drama, absurdity, spectacle, and awe. Those are all elements in the wuxia fantasy genre, and they are rooted in Chinese opera and heroic novels, which by their nature are over the top and unreal. Yet, some reviewers (well, the ones that bothered to review the wuxia films in general) would call the films shallow with lack of character development because the movies did not explain why the characters could fly! And the same reviewers would later praise Crouching Tiger, even though that movie has the exact same structure that they had perceived as a fatal flaw earlier! Very few critics could praise the movie while actually saying something substantive about the genre that spawned it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    My view of Lord of the Rings unfortunately is that it's not nearly the masterpiece the hype proclaims. I think Roger Ebert's review of the last part is spot on perfect as to the way I see the film and rate them. I have not read the novels...but even then I know several peers that have and are dismayed that the films ruined the novels...others who have read the novels think the films are masterpieces. As good as they are technically I find them, as with Ebert, just a little too silly to make masterpiece status.

    But then so are Star Wars films - basically Cowboys and Indians in space and IMO Harrison Ford's tongue in cheek performance made the first two highly enjoyable and then came the "I want to sell Ewoks to kids" Revenge of the Jedi(later re-named Return) and for me the series cracked. I could not even get throgh episode one it was just so stupid for words.
    Well, my criteria for a masterpiece is a film that takes me into the movie's reality and completely redefines what I can expect from a film experience. Very few films do this, and LOTR easily met that criteria. I don't see the silliness at all, because if expectations are too grounded in conventional reality, then the entire fantasy genre needs to be dismissed as silly. And I don't agree with that at all. In his first review, Ebert admitted that part of his qualified recommendation of the movie had to do with his own expectations based on having read the novels. On the other hand, Michael Wilmington with the Tribune had also read the novels, and while pointing out the differences with the book, still felt the movie was one of the greatest fantasy epics ever made, not comparing it to Star Wars like everybody else, but Fritz Lang's "Die Nibelungen" or Douglas Fairbanks' "Thief of Baghdad". I agree with his assessments a good deal of the time, and it certainly doesn't hurt that he's one of the few film critics that understands the various Hong Kong movie genres, and had seen all of Jackie Chan's movies well before "Rumble In The Bronx" and "Rush Hour" introduced him to American audiences.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The best thing IMO for finding a critic is to see if their TASTE is similar rather than JUST how well they argue their case. Ebert usually always makes a valid argument for what he likes - but in the end "Crash" is still a terribly pointless piece of soft porn garbage disguised as art for shocking the audience to try and hide the fact that the script was atrocious. But Eert sure does make a solid case for liking it. Blegh.
    Well, the one thing that I appreciate about Ebert is that he admits to enjoying the occasional trashy movie (Siskel didn't share that), while providing enough depth of knowledge to put together a great commentary track for the Citizen Kane DVD. He's not so high-minded that he won't appreciate something from the likes of John Waters or Russ Meyer. (It doesn't hurt that the only screenplay that Ebert ever wrote was for Russ Meyer's camped up sequel to "Valley of the Dolls") Those types of cult flicks are what they are, and any art house lenses should be checked at the door before anyone even thinks about reviewing something like that. "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" may be a junkie movie, but it's way cool junk.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 01-29-2004 at 12:43 PM.

  2. #77
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Woochifer

    Well from your comments it sounds like you have a broad taste in film and don't automatically dismiss a Hollywood film for being a hollywood film. I discuss movies who analyze and rip apart fluff. The problem is that fluff films are meant to be fluff and why I like Ebert is that he is soft on those movies. Maybe too much so to my liking but I agree with the stance on Romantic comedies, horror movies, action films where possible etc. I have a guilty pleasure list a mile long.

    Films are subjective and it is my view that a film must stand on its own. Without a pre-requisite reading. It was not until Cronenberg exaplained the meaning of his film Crash that I understood the point. He was apparently arguing that Love in society no longer exists and is simply a power struggle in today's world...that was his explanation. Sorry but that just doesn't work, it's not there on the screen.

    Lord of the Rings isa tougher one because i know it's so loved by so many. And I saw all three and generally liked all three. I was never emotionally tied t the pictures and I would have been happy if the third one cut-out the three endings and stopped after the first one. Basically, Every film I found too long. I like long films at 3 hours but it requires pacing, and I felt the pacing was generally poor throughout the series and unecessary sequences(especially in the FOTR). The First film felt like a preachy travel log. We run, we stress the importance of the ring, we go to a new location, we have the Dwarf make a few jokes, we stress to the audience yet again the importance of the ring, we run some more, we go to another location. As a big D&D player when I was a kid I felt it was a screen version.

    I made this comment and was attacked that D&D was made FROM LOTR...so was Star Wars very likely but it means nothing. Star Wars didn't take itself seriously, it had the sweeping elements and transports you to another world and at the time had the impressive visuals...but it was tongue in cheek adventure action and paced very well.

    LOTR simply doesn't really relate to me other than its basic power struggle theme, but that is nothing really new. One friend of mine and many people completely missed the part that the girl(which I can't spell) gave up imortality to marry. This is where I Ebert is correct especially to those of us like myself who have notread the book. The emotional weight of this decision is completely lost on me - and my friend didn't even know that is what she was giving up. Females were largely caricatures anyway.

    But of course I do respect the film and totally understand why people love the movie and I give them high marks...it depends on how much you like Fantasy I suppose.

    Film criticism is just so subjective. I think I can write a pretty good criticsm of Dawn of the Dead defending it's place in my top 30 of all time. I have argued that the Terminator is really a Romance film at its core, that E.T. has a romantic core that is up there and IMO surpasses Casablanca(It's also similar to the story of Christ but I'd have to look at that a bit more), and I probably have a number of other bizzarro (to some people) picks in my top 100 - like Goodfellas but not The Godfather, That Young Frankenstein is actually closest to the Shelley novel for intent than any of the other versions(and best), That Raiders of the Lost Ark does in fact deserve to be highly regarded beyond JUST an adventure film, That Anthony Hopkins' best role was his work in Remains of the Day and NOT in Silence of the Lambs, and that Leaving Las Vegas should have won best picture damn it!

  3. #78
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Well from your comments it sounds like you have a broad taste in film and don't automatically dismiss a Hollywood film for being a hollywood film. I discuss movies who analyze and rip apart fluff. The problem is that fluff films are meant to be fluff and why I like Ebert is that he is soft on those movies. Maybe too much so to my liking but I agree with the stance on Romantic comedies, horror movies, action films where possible etc. I have a guilty pleasure list a mile long.
    In the same vein that I love the junk food indulgence, I get the same occasional enjoyment from what I know are junky movies. I agree that there is a place for films that aim low and hit their target, rather than expecting every film to aim high and then rip it if it doesn't quite connect. On the other hand, I can't stand films that in actually don't aim to accomplish anything, but pretend to be high minded -- films I've seen from Mike Leigh and Jane Campion immediately come to mind. Sounds like Cronenberg's Crash was done in a similar aspiration (I never saw it, conceptually it just didn't interest me, even though I did like Naked Lunch and Dead Ringers).

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Lord of the Rings isa tougher one because i know it's so loved by so many. And I saw all three and generally liked all three. I was never emotionally tied t the pictures and I would have been happy if the third one cut-out the three endings and stopped after the first one. Basically, Every film I found too long. I like long films at 3 hours but it requires pacing, and I felt the pacing was generally poor throughout the series and unecessary sequences(especially in the FOTR). The First film felt like a preachy travel log. We run, we stress the importance of the ring, we go to a new location, we have the Dwarf make a few jokes, we stress to the audience yet again the importance of the ring, we run some more, we go to another location. As a big D&D player when I was a kid I felt it was a screen version.
    I think LOTR is a tough one to rate because in a way the films were not meant to be rated independently, since structurally each sequel was a continuation. I've only read the first book, and I felt that only FOTR had pacing problems. Ironically, the extended DVD cut of FOTR felt shorter than the theatrical cut, and ROTK flew by the fastest.

    The multiple endings in ROTK I didn't mind at all, and some people I know who read the whole trilogy actually interpret LOTR as ultimately a tragedy with Frodo as the tragic hero. It was his decision to go on that whole adventure to destroy the ring, and it was through that adventure that he discovered that he really wanted nothing more than his idyllic existence in the Shire back. Yet, his heroic act ultimately left him wounded, and no longer able to live out that idyllic life, even though it was his actions that ultimately saved the Shire and preserved the idyllic life for the other hobbits. That's why a happier ending like after the coronation ceremony or at the pub, would have been a copout because it would have been a much more drastic reinterpretation of the book. (A lot of devotees were already screaming that the Scouring of the Shire was not included in the movie, and that would've extended the ending out even further.)

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    LOTR simply doesn't really relate to me other than its basic power struggle theme, but that is nothing really new. One friend of mine and many people completely missed the part that the girl(which I can't spell) gave up imortality to marry. This is where I Ebert is correct especially to those of us like myself who have notread the book. The emotional weight of this decision is completely lost on me - and my friend didn't even know that is what she was giving up. Females were largely caricatures anyway.
    I actually picked up more on the elves sacrificing their immortality when the elf army went to Helm's Deep (in the book, that didn't happen; supposedly, it was the tree ents that saved the day there). I thought though that the romantic angle of Arwen giving up her immortality to stay with Aragorn was one of the weaker plot lines (from the TTT DVD supplements, I found out that Arwen was originally written to join the battle at Helm's Deep, but once they started filming, that story tread supposedly didn't work very well so they dropped it).

    If you want to go down the list of Oscar night travesties, there have been plenty. The absolute worst that I remember was Terms of Endearment beating out The Right Stuff. Terms of Endearment was outright painful to sit through, predictable, derivative, shameless in its tearjerker manipulation, bad even by blatant chickflick standards. The Right Stuff was not a perfect film by any stretch, but it was a compelling adventure movie with a great cast -- easily one of the best collections in the 80s of unknowns who would go onto bigger things, along side "Diner" and "The Outsiders." And it was definitely the best film I saw that year (and Siskel and Ebert both placed it as their top film, which was rare for them; and more recently, Ebert screened it in Chicago as part of his Overlooked Film Festival).

    http://www.ebertfest.com/five/films.htm

    And historically, the fantasy and sci-fi genres ultimately get shortchanged. No shame in E.T. getting bested by Gandhi (or Wizard of Oz getting beaten out by Gone With The Wind), but which film ultimately resonated more with audiences and will be remembered more? LOTR would be a breakthrough.

    You're right about Goodfellas being a top to bottom better film than The Godfather. But then again among Coppola's films, I also liked Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, AND The Godfather, Part II more than the first Godfather. (Keep in mind though that the first one is still in my personal top 50, which says a lot for how highly I regard those other movies) In general, those all-time rankings take into account the historical importance of films, and no denying that the Godfather was a watershed event in 1972. We now take mob movies for granted, and in so many ways Goodfellas was probably the most self-assured mob movie I've ever seen, even if its themes treaded on familiar territory. But, perhaps it's that effortlessly great quality with Goodfellas (not to mention its more lighthearted feel overall) that keeps some film buffs from rating it higher than the much more serious Godfather. The fact that it got beaten out by "Dances With Wolves" for Best Picture doesn't help.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 01-29-2004 at 09:00 PM.

  4. #79
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I'm glad you also mentioned the Conversation which I actually like the best of the Coppola films and is also in my top 100.

    There is no question the Academy values drama and preferably epic drama over sci-fi or fantasy. Sometimes that's ok but Gandhi really wasn't that great a picture though it had a superlative performance by one of the greats in Ben Kingsly. I don't necessarily mind the Academy and their selections on the whole. The Academy generally didn't like Spielberg for a variety of reasons from various sources. Not sure that is quantifiable because they have nominated his films a fair amount.

    I think I have agreed with the best picture selection twice since 1990 and 2-3 occasions the film that won was in my top 5. I did not see the other films up against Terms of Endearment but it was pretty weak effort that should not have been nominated much less won anything...but oh well.

    There are also films that seemed to take off later. I remember 1994 an especially good year for film where The Shawshank Redemption made an lousy 17 million and ended up becoming one oif the biggest renters(and sellers) of all time. But it had a terrible title and was up against Gump and Pulp and Quiz Show was no slouch. Even critics like Roger Ebert gavit 3.5 and has since reflected on it and has it in his top 100.

    I have to say it's one of the rare films, a Hollywood film, that I have come to like an awful lot more on subsequent viewings. Conversely Forrest Gump perhaps has dwindled since its win even in the minds of the public.

    Pulp Fiction of course had no real shot to win because of its subject matter and the voters. Still thought it should have won but oh well.

    I was actually impressed that they chose American Beauty - I realize not everyone loved this one but I was more impressed that the academy would choose a rather strange off beat picture over the usual fare. Dissapointed the War Zone didn't get a nomination but the subject matter was likely too tough for Oscar.

    You mention Campion and I must onfess that I HATED the Piano. Pretentious wind bag of a film that frankly shockes me that some call this a great Romance. It was the last film of the nominations I had seen and the buzz was that this was the film that would beat Schindler's List and Spielberg for director. Of course there was the more dreadful Age of Innocence that had its camp and basically whoever started those rumours should be out of film criticism IMO.

    What perhaps bugs e the most though is when a film like Leaving Las Vegas gets nominated for Actor Actress, Director and Screenplay and then to not get a nomination for picture makes little sense. Especially when the rest of pictures were so pedestrian...though Braveheart was fun I have to admit.

    This would be an endless thread ofhow many times the Oscars have annoyed me. The Gladiator may be the worst because I gave it a thumbs down. Usually, they pick a film that while I don't think it's great I can usually say it's at least a thumbs up. A Beautiful Mind was a pretty pathetic choice here as well. Of course I knew my choice of In the Bedroom had no shot but Monster's Ball was so much better thant the underdeveloped Altman ramblings of Gosford Park and the and thin as can be Moulin Rouge. But oh well.

  5. #80
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    ok, with regard to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...
    That was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my entire life.
    I am Chinese myself and watched many movies of that genre.
    That one was probably the worst made.
    No subtitles for me either since I understand all of it, and even then, it sucks.
    Story far fetched and the action...well...people have the misconception.
    It's not SUPPOSED to look like they are flying.
    It's supposed to look like you are able to concentrate your energy to jump off objects with relative ease (and breaking Newton's law for that matter). Except the director didnt cable the actors properly so that they looked like they were floating.

    Ok...enough with this thread.
    to make it fit the topic...ermm cartridge?? its ok...you can always take off your cart and put it in your new table when you get it ^_^

  6. #81
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    85

    Classical is finally dead

    Seeing how Classical music has been pronounced dead, should I still buy the few CD’s and records that are available or just let them die a slow death. What about the ones I have bought, should I bury them in my back yard or is they’re a proper way to discard them. Please advise me Skeptic as you seam to never be wrong.

    Well let’s see, people have been telling me for many years that Classical music is dead or dieing. If it is going to die please do, as I hate to see someone or anything die a slow painful death. However for those that wish to give it a second life please forward them to me. Any and all would be welcome at my place and stereo. Although I can afford the shipping it would be appreciated if this were covered by the previous owner as it will my responsibility to take care of all this music.

    As an old time rocker I still love my rock, classical, jazz, blues and a variety of other music. Only wished I new some of the bizarre music that I have heard in my travels. For those that say I am wrong please do us a favor and take a long walk on a short pier, for it never seams to end. Someone always will disagree with my music taste you cannot please everyone. Although I may not agree with someone else’s music taste it is not for me to tell them what they may or may not like or listen to. Thank god that we are not exactly the same, what I boring world if everyone was just like Skeptic or even worse just like me.

  7. #82
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Shielding is very important for reducing hum induced by the motor. The best material for shielding is mu metal because it effectively shields both electrical and magnetic fields from the inside of the cartridge. IMO, wood is a very poor material for cartridges. Not only doesn't it offer any sheilding at all, it is not consistant from one unit to the next unlike metal.

    One important consideration that can affect performance in regard to surface noise is stylus geometry. You don't hear much about that on these boards. The more complex geometries of Shibata and Micro Ridge types are far more expensive to manufacture and align in the stylus assembly than conical or eliptical shapes. The payoffs though are many including better tracking including less lateral angle offset error, less stress on the record groove due to greater surface contact area, and it generally sits higher in the groove not coming into contact with the smallest particles of dust in the bottom of the groove. Some manufacturers claim that the orientation of the crystaline grain structure of the diamond is important too. While I am not at all knowledgable about this aspect of styli, it is at least plausible and I would assume that with proper orientation, stylus wear rate could be reduced. I like the little brushes Shure puts on the front of the V15 Type V. It adds a gram to the force you dial up required on the tone arm but this force is strictly for the brush. The stylus force remains at a gram or less.

  8. #83
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Is classical dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    Seeing how Classical music has been pronounced dead, should I still buy the few CD’s and records that are available or just let them die a slow death. What about the ones I have bought, should I bury them in my back yard or is they’re a proper way to discard them. Please advise me Skeptic as you seam to never be wrong.

    Well let’s see, people have been telling me for many years that Classical music is dead or dieing. If it is going to die please do, as I hate to see someone or anything die a slow painful death. However for those that wish to give it a second life please forward them to me. Any and all would be welcome at my place and stereo. Although I can afford the shipping it would be appreciated if this were covered by the previous owner as it will my responsibility to take care of all this music.

    As an old time rocker I still love my rock, classical, jazz, blues and a variety of other music. Only wished I new some of the bizarre music that I have heard in my travels. For those that say I am wrong please do us a favor and take a long walk on a short pier, for it never seams to end. Someone always will disagree with my music taste you cannot please everyone. Although I may not agree with someone else’s music taste it is not for me to tell them what they may or may not like or listen to. Thank god that we are not exactly the same, what I boring world if everyone was just like Skeptic or even worse just like me.
    Well what's classical and what's dead. As I see it, music (all music) has constantly moved on, changed and dare I say it, followed fashion. Handel didn't sound like Tallis and Beethoven didn't sound like Handel. Music has also changed as technology progressed, after all, I am not aware of anyone composing for the harpsichord once the piano had become fully established, unless they had already spent most of their life with the harpsichord.

    Some will assume that as it is perfomed by a full symphony orchestra it is classical and therefore superior to anything performed by a band. Apart from religeous music, upto the mid seventeenth centuary most music was performed by what could most easily be described as an acoustic band containing a spinet, flutes and lutes etc.

    At least part of the rise in the symphony type orchestra in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuaries was to provide adequate power to fill bigger and bigger auditoriums as the music was made available to bigger and bigger audiences. Music was of course still being composed during this period for solo instruments and small ensembles.

    Also up to the end of the nineteenth centurary music composition was basically of European origin but by the begining of the twentieth the African influence kicked in and I believe, forward looking musicians and the music listening public weren't for turning back and why should they, they never had before.

    Technology was also moving at a rapid pace, soon we had the ability to amplify, record and broadcast. We no longer needed the power of a full symphony orchestra to fill an auditorium, a solo guitarist could now do it easily, and that applied just as much to Segovia as Jimi Hendrix.

    It is my opinion that the music from the twentieth century was as good as the music from any other time in history it had just moved on and became a lot more diverse, consider the wealth of styles; jazz, blues, swing, big band, boogie woogie, rock and roll, folk to name but a few.

    So is classical dead? What's meant by classical and what's meant by dead?

  9. #84
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    As an old time rocker I still love my rock, classical, jazz, blues and a variety of other music. Only wished I new some of the bizarre music that I have heard in my travels.
    PS Ever heard Afro Celt Sound System, you'll find it in a record store in the "world music" section.

  10. #85
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162

    Good post

    Quote Originally Posted by Chas Underhay
    Well what's classical and what's dead. As I see it, music (all music) has constantly moved on, changed and dare I say it, followed fashion. Handel didn't sound like Tallis and Beethoven didn't sound like Handel. Music has also changed as technology progressed, after all, I am not aware of anyone composing for the harpsichord once the piano had become fully established, unless they had already spent most of their life with the harpsichord.

    Some will assume that as it is perfomed by a full symphony orchestra it is classical and therefore superior to anything performed by a band. Apart from religeous music, upto the mid seventeenth centuary most music was performed by what could most easily be described as an acoustic band containing a spinet, flutes and lutes etc.

    At least part of the rise in the symphony type orchestra in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuaries was to provide adequate power to fill bigger and bigger auditoriums as the music was made available to bigger and bigger audiences. Music was of course still being composed during this period for solo instruments and small ensembles.

    Also up to the end of the nineteenth centurary music composition was basically of European origin but by the begining of the twentieth the African influence kicked in and I believe, forward looking musicians and the music listening public weren't for turning back and why should they, they never had before.

    Technology was also moving at a rapid pace, soon we had the ability to amplify, record and broadcast. We no longer needed the power of a full symphony orchestra to fill an auditorium, a solo guitarist could now do it easily, and that applied just as much to Segovia as Jimi Hendrix.

    It is my opinion that the music from the twentieth century was as good as the music from any other time in history it had just moved on and became a lot more diverse, consider the wealth of styles; jazz, blues, swing, big band, boogie woogie, rock and roll, folk to name but a few.

    So is classical dead? What's meant by classical and what's meant by dead?
    Composers die, music doesn't. Music "trends" change but the old ones don't die. I think the real question everyone is asking is "has the classical trend died?" i.e are the number of people that enjoy classical music and attend concerts dwindling? The answer to that is "yes". For better or worse, music has evolved and trends change. That doesn't mean the music has died. If it's good music, it will live forever. 60 years hence, we're still listening and learning from Charlie Parker. 75 years hence, we're doing the same with Duke. Hundreds of years hence, we're doing the same with Bach and Beethoven. We will continue to learn from these geniuses as well as Hendrix, Robert Johnson, Coltrane and many others.

    If by music one means that the recording can never be the original event than ALL music dies with the last reverberation of the final note... but that's a whole nutha discussion!

  11. #86
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by rb122
    I think the real question everyone is asking is "has the classical trend died?" i.e are the number of people that enjoy classical music and attend concerts dwindling? The answer to that is "yes".
    Not too sure about this to be honest. For arguments sake, lets assume classical means pre 1900, I get a stack of literature regarding future performances both locally and in London. I only manage to attend a couple per month but I never notice many vacant seats and I always notice a very wide age group in the audience. I have in fact attended classical concerts ever since I was at school but the audience seemed much older then.

    So I don't think the apreciation of classical is dying and I don't think it ever will. It may just be a case of many people having more diverse tastes nowdays and are attending jazz or rock gigs the other two times per month.

  12. #87
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Sadly, I have to say that if classical music is not dead yet, it is dying. It is not thriving. It is
    becoming increasingly the province of miniscule groups of elites. It was designed to create
    something of beauty and interest. The craftsmanship it took to produce the sweetest sounding
    violins, violas, cellos, the ingenuity to produce an instrument as versitile as a piano, the lifetime of
    effort devoted to perfecting the playiing of these instruments, the genius of people who could write
    for them and combine them in endlessly fascinating ways and the skill of the musicians to be their
    faithful servants presenting their ever inventive musical ideas to endless generations of unkown audiences is becoming increasing irrelevant in a world that wants fast, crass, obvious, overload of their senses, an assault on their sensibility, hasn't got the attention span of a gerble, and laughs at the notion of beauty when it is not commercially profitable. That is what most of our world is about. I personally am grateful to my parents who gave me the gift of the knowledge of classical music and the interest to persue it on my own. The love of it has enriched my life in ways that less fortunate people can never hope to know.

    I listen to many other types of music as well and I like many of them including jazz. But
    as I see it, the best of it doesn't come close to rising to the heights achieved by the best
    classical music has to offer. There is no danger that recordings of classical music will
    ever disappear so there is no need to panic. Making cds is one of the cheapest things
    to manufacture that there is and increasingly, the best older recordings including those
    only ten or so years old are becoming available on the used market for very little money.
    There will always be some people who will be driven to study this music and to perform
    it. But I don't think it will ever have the widespread appeal it once had or that other
    more commercially profitable music has.

    It should be pointed out that for the time being, the study of writing and playing
    classical music will have to remain around in order to maintain the technical resources
    to produce the backdrop for many pop
    artists, television commercials, and movie soundtracks but even much of that may
    disappear when at least the playing of this type of music can be automated and musical
    performance outsourced to a computer. That's already well in progress.

  13. #88
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    I really don't think the sky is falling on your poor head Mr Skeptic

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Sadly, I have to say that if classical music is not dead yet, it is dying. It is not thriving. It is
    becoming increasingly the province of miniscule groups of elites. It was designed to create
    something of beauty and interest. The craftsmanship it took to produce the sweetest sounding
    violins, violas, cellos, the ingenuity to produce an instrument as versitile as a piano, the lifetime of
    effort devoted to perfecting the playiing of these instruments, the genius of people who could write
    for them and combine them in endlessly fascinating ways and the skill of the musicians to be their
    faithful servants presenting their ever inventive musical ideas to endless generations of unkown audiences is becoming increasing irrelevant in a world that wants fast, crass, obvious, overload of their senses, an assault on their sensibility, hasn't got the attention span of a gerble, and laughs at the notion of beauty when it is not commercially profitable. That is what most of our world is about. I personally am grateful to my parents who gave me the gift of the knowledge of classical music and the interest to persue it on my own. The love of it has enriched my life in ways that less fortunate people can never hope to know.

    I listen to many other types of music as well and I like many of them including jazz. But
    as I see it, the best of it doesn't come close to rising to the heights achieved by the best
    classical music has to offer. There is no danger that recordings of classical music will
    ever disappear so there is no need to panic. Making cds is one of the cheapest things
    to manufacture that there is and increasingly, the best older recordings including those
    only ten or so years old are becoming available on the used market for very little money.
    There will always be some people who will be driven to study this music and to perform
    it. But I don't think it will ever have the widespread appeal it once had or that other
    more commercially profitable music has.

    It should be pointed out that for the time being, the study of writing and playing
    classical music will have to remain around in order to maintain the technical resources
    to produce the backdrop for many pop
    artists, television commercials, and movie soundtracks but even much of that may
    disappear when at least the playing of this type of music can be automated and musical
    performance outsourced to a computer. That's already well in progress.
    Let's go back 150 years, I don't think the gin sodden unwashed inhabitents of London or any other city for that matter would have appreciated good (classical) music any more than those you allude to today. No, even then it would have been the province of miniscule groups of elites.

    I agree there has been some very fine craftmanship around for many centuries, this also applied to the manufacture scientific equipment from the mid seventeenth centuary onwards, furniture and clocks, Ever wondered how Joseph Knibb or Thomas Tompion made clocks so accurate armed with little more than a file and as for John Harrison, I think he got to within a tenth of a second per day on board a ship.

    Fortunately via generations of clever b'stards like John Harrison, we now have computer controlled machines that can make the component parts for violins, pianos or clocks far more accurately (tonally consistant) than we could back then. That's progress!

    Throught history, apart from within religeous circles, music has had to be commercially viable. It is only since things like Arts Council funding that so called modern classical composers have been able to write crap and get away with it!

    Time is a great healer and the crap music gets forgotten very quickly but the good stuff still remains.

  14. #89
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    85

    Oh no I have become an elitist

    "PS Ever heard Afro Celt Sound System, you'll find it in a record store in the "world music" section."

    No never heard about it but shall look when I get back in town. Thanks for the tip.

    Oh no I have become an elitist just because of some of the music I listen to. Better ask for a big raise to justify my new attitude. God do I wish I had it all.

    Yes music is always changing sometimes for the better other times for the worse. Never thought I would buy any Country & Western music. Maybe nobody will notice Hank Sr mixed in with the other CD's, keeping my fingers crossed. My best friend knowing his luck will zero right in pull it out listen to it and tell me what he thinks.

    Off topic all my CD's are in order and togetheir except for my Classical music. For some reason I have seperated them out to be by themselves on their own shelf. What is this suppose to tell me? Am I concerned that some of that old rock and roll my rub off on them or is it the other way around. Maybe it's just my elitist attitude showing through but for some reason I haved always done this.

    Off center, not the norm I can deal with but this elitist attitude has me concerned. Better address this problem and reload my guns.

    Need to get a better cartridge for my JA Mitchell turntable, any suggestions? Also need to build that speaker kit sitting in the closet. The parts look pretty but they would look a lot better in some nice boxes.

    Just like rock and roll classical music will not die. So many choices how does one only pick the best.


    Have a Great Day and enjoy the music no matter what or how you listen to it. Life is too short, the more I learn the less I know, must be one of the dumb ones.

  15. #90
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Reply to Happy Ears

    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    "PS Ever heard Afro Celt Sound System, you'll find it in a record store in the "world music" section."

    No never heard about it but shall look when I get back in town. Thanks for the tip.
    Hope you like it!

    QUOTE=happy ears]Never thought I would buy any Country & Western music. Maybe nobody will notice Hank Sr mixed in with the other CD's, keeping my fingers crossed. My best friend knowing his luck will zero right in pull it out listen to it and tell me what he thinks.[/QUOTE]

    All right damn it, I admit it, I like Dwight Yokam.

    QUOTE=happy ears]Off topic all my CD's are in order and togetheir except for my Classical music. For some reason I have seperated them out to be by themselves on their own shelf. What is this suppose to tell me? Am I concerned that some of that old rock and roll my rub off on them or is it the other way around. Maybe it's just my elitist attitude showing through but for some reason I haved always done this.[/QUOTE]

    Wot like Roll Over Beethoven?

    QUOTE=happy ears]Need to get a better cartridge for my JA Mitchell turntable, any suggestions? [/QUOTE]

    I use an Ortofon Kontrapunct b in mine but it may not suit everyone.

    QUOTE=happy ears]Life is too short, the more I learn the less I know, must be one of the dumb ones.[/QUOTE]

    I couldn't agree with that statement more but I think it really is a case of; the more you learn, the more you realise there is still to learn.

  16. #91
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162

    When something in art starts to die...

    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    "
    Oh no I have become an elitist just because of some of the music I listen to. Better ask for a big raise to justify my new attitude. God do I wish I had it all..
    ...it's largely due to an elitist attitude about it. If classical is perceived as only for the elite, it loses its relevance. Perhaps that's what happened to it. Maybe it just needs a facelift.

    Perceptions aside, it's a music that anyone can enjoy. That enjoyment doesn't require a Phd, a six figure income, a Mercedes or a Rolex. But when people believe it does as does Skeptic, they fail to see that they are the ones killing it. Hell of a way for him to thank his parents.

    Looking at classical objectively, it has several perceived shortcomings. It doesn't rock, it doesn't swing, there is no improvisation, it's largely the same from orchestra to orchestra and performance to performance (remember, these are PERCEIVED shortcomings -I'm not espousing these for myself), the players are limited by the composition and can't stretch very much, and shoot, it don't even make ya go "Yee-haw"! When people need one of these shortcomings satisfied, they don't look to classical music. Hence, the need for other forms of music and whether I enjoy them all or not, they are all necessary to someone or other.

    You don't have to "understand" music or be able to read it to have music make an emotional or visceral impact on you. Elevating a certain type of music to the point where people perceive that they need a degree to appreciate it is what is "killing" classical music.
    Interestingly, most of the people I know who live and breathe music - they eat breakfast with it, drive with it, take a shower with it, discuss it, do internet searches on it, etc - are rock fans. Overall, they seem to enjoy music more than classical or jazz fans, in many cases. Perhaps that's a tidbit with no real point but I do find it interesting. Maybe the emotional or visceral impact of music is more important than the intellectual side, hmmm?

  17. #92
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    85
    “QUOTE=happy ears]Life is too short, the more I learn the less I know, must be one of the dumb ones.[/QUOTE]
    I couldn't agree with that statement more but I think it really is a case of; the more you learn, the more you realize there is still to learn.”

    Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it and chas will back me up. I remember a long time ago my teacher's telling me that the electron was the smallest thing known to man. Anyone that says otherwise does not know what they are talking about, I'm glad not everyone listened. They day I die will be the day I stop learning.

    There is so much and varied styles of music I could never hear it all. Heard some modern Indian music that impressed me but I was not smart enough to write down the artist’s name. Basically a combination of old Indianan (India) and modern pop music sure enjoyed listening to it. However some people wished this young lady dead as it was an insult to their style of life. She must have slipped into their homes and forced them to listen to her music with the biggest baddest headphones or speakers known to man. Please forward one set to for my evaluation, can only afford shipping one way.

    Yes have heard that the Ortofon Kontrapunct b is a nice cartridge, available in Vancouver for $695.0 USD on the Internet. My friend keeps telling me to up the price but will have to think about it. It is an Orbe with a SME V arm. Presently I am using an Ortofon OM30 moving magnet but I do prefer a moving coil. I guess I could say it was a night and day difference moving the cartridge from the Dual to the Orbe. Could not believe the differences I heard, really showed the weak links in the Dual and I used to think it was not bad. Oh well its only money and they say that you cannot take it with you but I will try.

    Enjoy the Music as life is to short. My father says that he is so busy he has asked God for another 80 years to get everything done. Sounds like their cat that won’t die been at heaven’s doors many times but will not go through the doors. I think it is stealing lives from other cats those young cats do not what they have. Five years ago the vet said it was dieing but it just wouldn’t listen or believe him. That sucker is still running around like a young cat and even without any teeth catches more mice than any other cats in the neighborhood. Everyone wants to know they are giving it me included.

  18. #93
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    Yes have heard that the Ortofon Kontrapunct b is a nice cartridge, available in Vancouver for $695.0 USD on the Internet. My friend keeps telling me to up the price but will have to think about it. It is an Orbe with a SME V arm. Presently I am using an Ortofon OM30 moving magnet but I do prefer a moving coil. I guess I could say it was a night and day difference moving the cartridge from the Dual to the Orbe. Could not believe the differences I heard, really showed the weak links in the Dual and I used to think it was not bad. Oh well its only money and they say that you cannot take it with you but I will try.

    Enjoy the Music as life is to short. My father says that he is so busy he has asked God for another 80 years to get everything done. Sounds like their cat that won’t die been at heaven’s doors many times but will not go through the doors. I think it is stealing lives from other cats those young cats do not what they have. Five years ago the vet said it was dieing but it just wouldn’t listen or believe him. That sucker is still running around like a young cat and even without any teeth catches more mice than any other cats in the neighborhood. Everyone wants to know they are giving it me included.
    Your rig is a notch or two up on mine, I use a Gyro Dec with a SME IV, I have got the Orbe threaded spindle and screw down clamp though, it's much better than the standard one. The output of the Kontrapunct is 0.47mv, so if that is compatible with your pre-amp, no problem, it works well in my rig. I know there are many other cartridges around but I am far more expert in wearing them out than recomending them.

    I like your dad's philosophy to life, it sounds like it's rubbed off on the cat.

    All the best

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Well, it's interesting
    By rb122 in forum Analog Room
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-24-2003, 03:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •