Is this cartridge overkill?

[dean_martin]

I have a Pro-Ject 1.2 turntable. I replaced the stock cart, a Sumiko Oyster, with a NOS Parasound cart with significant improvement in balance. The Oyster favored hi frequencies and sounded thin to me. But the Parasound was only $35.00 and was intended to hold me over until I had the money to get something better. Now that I'm ready to upgrade, I'm considering the Grado Reference Platinum. My table was $285. The Platinum is $270. Is this too much cart for the Pro-Ject?

I was originally thinking of spending about half the cost of the table. My other choices are the Grado Prestige Gold or the Ortofon Super OM 20, both of which I've found for around $130. Your thoughts or other recommendations will be appreciated.

[rb122]

I have a Pro-Ject 1.2 turntable. I replaced the stock cart, a Sumiko Oyster, with a NOS Parasound cart with significant improvement in balance. The Oyster favored hi frequencies and sounded thin to me. But the Parasound was only $35.00 and was intended to hold me over until I had the money to get something better. Now that I'm ready to upgrade, I'm considering the Grado Reference Platinum. My table was $285. The Platinum is $270. Is this too much cart for the Pro-Ject?

I was originally thinking of spending about half the cost of the table. My other choices are the Grado Prestige Gold or the Ortofon Super OM 20, both of which I've found for around $130. Your thoughts or other recommendations will be appreciated.

My experience is that the Pro-Ject arms are good enough to work with more expensive cartridges. I don't think this would be overkill despite the prices. If you were going to get into the stratosphere of cartridges, I'd suggest you upgrade your turntable but I think you're going to be pleased with the improvement. The Grado should sound better balanced and give you some nice bass as well! Enjoy!

[Woochifer]

I've always felt that the cartridge is every bit as important as the turntable itself. I had a 14-year old Ortofon OM body that I'd been swapping out with the 20 stylus every couple of years. Given the age of the cartridge body, I decided try something different and went with the Sumiko Black Pearl, and I've regretted it since then. By comparison, the Sumiko just sounds bland. It has a very fat sounding midrange, but that might be because its high end extension is not all that great. I'm now waiting for the stylus to wear out, so I can either go back to another OM20 or the Grado Prestige Gold.

The OM20 is a very good midlevel cartridge that I thought was too often overlooked until The Absolute Sound made it one of their best buys last year. It tends to extend the highs a bit, and the midrange might be a bit thin, but its overall linearity and coherency is excellent. And I tend to prefer my sound somewhat punchier, and you definitely get that with the OM20. I also like that the cartridge has a fairly high output, and works great with a variety of tonearms because of its lightweight and removable counterweight. But, like you I've also been looking at higher priced options for my next cartridge.

[happy ears]

Years ago I had a Dual turntable that I bought on a clearance sale. Although it came with a basic cartridge and it was not what you would call an exotic turnatable. However when I upgraded to a cartridge that cost as much as the table I was impressed with the improvements. In fact it sounded better than many turntables that cost more if a cheap cartridge was used.

It all starts with the needle and cartridge when it comes to vinyl, although the turntable and arm are also of importance, they each have a job to do. This is one area CD lovers have an advantage and do not have to spend money on.

Presently I am saving my money so that I can get a nice turntable. At least I kept all my records in good shape and boxed them up for storage. Might have been one of my smarter moves, we all get lucky now and then. So go for it and enjoy the music.

[maxg]

I would agree with the others here - go for it. Bottom line - if you want to upgrade the table in the future you will be able to take that cart with you. Hell - my cart costs 4 times what my table cost originally.

As it happens a friend of mine is going to get himself the Project 1.2 as well. To start him off properly he'll take it without a cartridge and I will lend him my spare - a Clearaudio virtuoso 2 which is at least double the cost of the table. It also has the advantage of being a high output MM cartridge and works a dream with my spare project phono box.

[jbangelfish]

I have always spent more for a cartridge than for the tt and never regretted it. The cartridge is in many ways the most important piece in the puzzle. You should be able to hear an improvement and as someone else stated, if you decided to upgrade your tt later, the cartridge would be good enough to do so. If my cartridge was still being made, it would cost at least 5 or 6 times what I paid for my tt. This might be extreme but even if I bought everything new, I'd probably spend as much or more for my cartridge as I did for my turntable and tonearm. It seems the only way to get the most out of your turntable. This little formula would probably change if you got into the 10k and above tt's.
Bill

[skeptic]

I have a Pro-Ject 1.2 turntable. I replaced the stock cart, a Sumiko Oyster, with a NOS Parasound cart with significant improvement in balance. The Oyster favored hi frequencies and sounded thin to me. But the Parasound was only $35.00 and was intended to hold me over until I had the money to get something better. Now that I'm ready to upgrade, I'm considering the Grado Reference Platinum. My table was $285. The Platinum is $270. Is this too much cart for the Pro-Ject?

I was originally thinking of spending about half the cost of the table. My other choices are the Grado Prestige Gold or the Ortofon Super OM 20, both of which I've found for around $130. Your thoughts or other recommendations will be appreciated.

There are several major considerations when buying a phonograph cartridge. The turntable, tonearm, and cartridge work together as an integrated system. It is critical to match the cartridge with the characteristics of the tonearm. An expensive cartridge demands a tonearm with well damped resonance well below audibiity, excellent bearings (jeweled are better than ball bearings), both static and dynamic balance, and good geometry. The ability to adjust vertical tracking angle is useful also. It is useless to try to install the best cartridges in lesser tonearms because you can't get the benefit of the added performance capability you paid for. As for the turntable, not only should it be able to turn at exactly the right speed with no audible wow, flutter or rumble especially if you have a wide range sound system, but it should have a well shielded motor so that hum doesn't become a factor. Some cartridges, especially low output cartridges are susceptable to audible hum from poorly shielded turntable motors. Usually, the manufacturer of the cartridge or the turntable can recommend suitable cartridges for a particular turntable model.

As for sound, the main difference between the "sonic signiture" of most cartridges is the high frequency resonant peak present with many cartridges. Some audiophiles like this, others don't. It's not onlly a matter of taste but of the other equipment you own. However, in addition to a well damped high frequency resonance and extended flat response, I personally value trackability, that is the ability of the cartridge to track heavily modulated records without distortion and at low tracking force. In this regard, I have always been pleased with Shure. I know many audiophiles do not like this line of cartridges because it doesn't have a "zippy" high end. But IMO, this can be easily compensated for if necessary through equalization.

[RGA]

I use a basic little Shure M97Xe with my NAD 533(a Rega 2 mod made by Rega). I can attest to the cartridge making a difference because the NAD came with a Goldring cart which was bloody awful. Light on finance then led me to the Shure because it supposedly is easier on the vinyl for one and tracks better...which I figured would help compensate for the fact that the NAD is no high end table and the Rega 250 arm is no high end arm.

The results are pleasing - still not quite where I would like but I need a proper stand. Right now the table is on the top shelf of one of those old 70s stereo racks - which is a bit jiggly. But I don't want to spend HUGE money on isolation platforms.

Shure makes a highly regarded Cart V15xMR which Stereophile raved about...and was one of the cheapest available - well cheap for expensive carts. http://www.shure.com/catphono_hifi.html

Most I have talked to about cartridges have said that Shure is a bit of a "SAFE" cartridge in that it tracks well, wears out your disc less, and rarely has issues of noise. At least compared to the goldring the M97Xe lives up to that.

[dean_martin]

my original plan was to go with the Ortofon OM20 because 1) I had an old Dual that came with a cart made by Ortofon that I liked and 2) the Pro-Ject tables come with Ortofon carts in Europe. I've also heard good things about Grado carts (except for the hum issue w/Rega tables) and considered the Grado Gold because I can get it for about the same price as the OM20. When my Christmas bonus was a little more than expected, I thought the Grado Reference Platinum for a little over $100 more would be interesting. It's $270 from audioadvisor with their 30-day guaranty. I can't justify going over $270 at this time - too many albums left on my wish list.

Pro-Ject and Sumiko are distributed in the US by the same company so I haven't asked them to recommend a cart thinking they would probably recommend a Sumiko cart.

The first cart I purchased was a Shure M92e for a Technics table (it's on an old Marantz table now), but I haven't really looked at their line lately.

Anyhow, I think I have a handle on my choices. Part of the fun for me is narrowing the field before I lay down the cash. Unfortunatley, living in a rural area makes it hard to audition fine audio gear. Thanks again.

[DMK]

my original plan was to go with the Ortofon OM20 because 1) I had an old Dual that came with a cart made by Ortofon that I liked and 2) the Pro-Ject tables come with Ortofon carts in Europe. I've also heard good things about Grado carts (except for the hum issue w/Rega tables) and considered the Grado Gold because I can get it for about the same price as the OM20. When my Christmas bonus was a little more than expected, I thought the Grado Reference Platinum for a little over $100 more would be interesting. It's $270 from audioadvisor with their 30-day guaranty. I can't justify going over $270 at this time - too many albums left on my wish list.

Pro-Ject and Sumiko are distributed in the US by the same company so I haven't asked them to recommend a cart thinking they would probably recommend a Sumiko cart.

The first cart I purchased was a Shure M92e for a Technics table (it's on an old Marantz table now), but I haven't really looked at their line lately.

Anyhow, I think I have a handle on my choices. Part of the fun for me is narrowing the field before I lay down the cash. Unfortunatley, living in a rural area makes it hard to audition fine audio gear. Thanks again.

Auditioning cartridges at a dealer is nearly impossible. First of all, the chances that they have the turntable you'll be using is often remote. Second, even if they do, you're still in unfamiliar territory with probably unfamiliar ancillary gear. Third, if you want to compare two different cartridges, bring your lunch while they swap! And going back and forth will be out of the question for all but the most accomodating and/or bored salesman.

Add to this the fact that playing around with different cartridges is confusing at first because nothing except speakers has as many possible sonic differences. MC's don't sound like MM's, most MM's sound different from one another as do most MC's. I don't find too many of the high frequency peaks that Skeptic mentioned. Rather, I find the "fast" cartridges are fast because of an unveiling of the midrange. Anyway, as you travel up the price structure within a certain brand, you'll start out with fairly large diffs until you hit a certain price point, around $1000. Then they get extremely subtle. I'm not saying the diffs aren't worth it to many people but they really aren't to me anymore. But the cartridges at the low price points are the most annoying - not because many of them don't sound good but because they have such magnified sonic signatures. RGA mentions the Goldring Elektra that came with his NAD. It was a lousy choice for NAD to use unless their point was to push an upgrade! The Goldring Elan that comes with the Music Hall MMF-2 is likewise a piece of crap. But the jump to the Goldring G1012 that comes with Music Hall's MMF-5 is very nice. RGA also mentions the Shure which isn't much more expensive than the Elektra but is at least 3 times better sounding. My point is you'll go bonkers as I have trying to piece this all together at once. I play around with different cartridges because it's been a guilty pleasure of mine for years. There's no set of rules among cartridges using measurements or even within the same brand. You just have to hear them over time and even then your memory is likely to fail.

P.S The Grado woodbody cartridge will make your Pro-Ject sing like a bird! An acquaintance of mine replaced his Shure (which was no slouch, but I can't recall the model - it wasn't their top of the line, though) on that same table and he's one happy camper with no further thought of upgrading. He's not only happy, he's wise! :)

[RGA]

DMK

My weakest point in this hobby is turntables because I grew up on tape and cd. So I'm a late comer.

If there is an upgrade to make with the NAD set-up which way should I go? It's certainly good enough so I may just wait and make a bigger move one day to the Audio Note TT1 which was rather amazing actually. Well I should not say amazing since the owner there has over 35,000LPs so you'd figure he'd like something nice to play them on.

[happy ears]

35,000 LP's is just a few more than me, well actually over 34,000 more than me. Maybe he should send some to me so that they get more often. Just tell him that they will go bad if they are not used, the notes will float right off the vinyl, or something like that.

Could not tell you about upgrades for your NAD but if it is a modded Rega 2 I would look at what is available for the Rega. Skeptic pretty well says what a turntable and it's parts must do. You could try a better cartridge such as the Shure you have mentioned, as this is where it all starts. But then you could save up for the big jump.

With all it's flaws I still like the sound of vinyl. As well I am saving my money up for a new turntable. Just wish new records did not cost so much but there are some great deals on used records.

Spin that vinyl and enjoy

[Jimmy C]

...the table, cart, arm and phono pre work as a unit... I'm certainly not intimately familiar with many different set-ups, but my a friend of mine went with a Gold on a 2.1.

This combination is miles ahead of the stock cart (which I found quite lifeless). Everything across the board is better, including a big reduction in surface noise. In my mind, there is no question that the $160 was well spent.

Now - is it woth moving up to the Platinum? How much difference would there be? Not sure, but I have the Platinum on a Perspective... again, there are improvements in weight and scale along with the LPs appearing quieter yet. I can't say if it's the table, the cart, etc. Nevertheless, it sounds good.

Another poster said the arm would be good enough to appreciate the cart differences, subtle or not. I agree.


The wood body Grados have a great midband, always mellow and rich. Go for it!

[rb122]

DMK

My weakest point in this hobby is turntables because I grew up on tape and cd. So I'm a late comer.

If there is an upgrade to make with the NAD set-up which way should I go? It's certainly good enough so I may just wait and make a bigger move one day to the Audio Note TT1 which was rather amazing actually. Well I should not say amazing since the owner there has over 35,000LPs so you'd figure he'd like something nice to play them on.

I actually like the NAD table but I agree the stock cartridge was pretty bad. You've done yourself a service by replacing it with the Shure. I suppose you could upgrade cartridges further but I think your setup is good enough until you decide to go with the Audio Note. I was lucky enough to hear one of those with a Lyra Lydian something or other cartridge and it was, as you say, "amazing". I don't know what DMK might say but I think you've already come up with the best advice anyone could give you.

[Woochifer]

DMK

My weakest point in this hobby is turntables because I grew up on tape and cd. So I'm a late comer.

If there is an upgrade to make with the NAD set-up which way should I go? It's certainly good enough so I may just wait and make a bigger move one day to the Audio Note TT1 which was rather amazing actually. Well I should not say amazing since the owner there has over 35,000LPs so you'd figure he'd like something nice to play them on.

Knowing your preferences, I would suggest trying out a moving coil cartridge. That would probably give you the most dramatic difference from what the Shure delivers. Ortofon makes several high output MCs that don't require an outboard preamp. The disadvantage to MC is that the stylus cannot be swapped out when it wears out like you can with a MM cart. You typically have to have the cartridge retipped or traded out. Also, a lot of the higher end models require an outboard step up preamp.

If you don't want to spend a lot of money, you should just verify the setup on your turntable. Things like the overhang, the VTA, anti-skate and stylus force, and tonearm counterbalancing all have an immediate effect on what you hear.

[DMK]

DMK

My weakest point in this hobby is turntables because I grew up on tape and cd. So I'm a late comer.

If there is an upgrade to make with the NAD set-up which way should I go? It's certainly good enough so I may just wait and make a bigger move one day to the Audio Note TT1 which was rather amazing actually. Well I should not say amazing since the owner there has over 35,000LPs so you'd figure he'd like something nice to play them on.

35,000 LP's??? Whoa! Obviously, the call of convenience (Redbook CD) hasn't hit him. Well, his ears are all the better for it.

I recall the NAD as being a pretty decent turntable. I suppose you could upgrade the cartridge but if the Audio Note isn't too far off - say, less than a year or so away - you might just save your funds for that. I've never heard that 'table but it got a killer review in one of the Brit audio mags a couple of years ago. Good build quality - I have seen one even if I didn't get to hear it. Your Shure is a fine cartridge in its price range as well. If you could find a great deal on a Benz Glider, they do well with Rega arms and Rega-sourced arms such as what is on your NAD. But best price I've seen on those is $550. That may be something to consider after you pick up the AN. The NAD isn't the best turntable around but who owns "the best"? Not me! Well, I do consider the speakers I own to be the best I've ever heard but you own an integrated amp made by the company that makes the finest SS integrated I've ever heard - the A21A. I'm not familiar with yours but if it sounds like the A21A, you own the best!

To sum up, unless you found a deal on a higher end MC cartridge, I wouldn't take the plunge until you're ready for the AN. Quite honestly, the AN is purported to be a finer 'table than the one I currently own - the VPI HW-19 jr. I use the Rega RB300 arm but I'm considering upgrading to a Morch DP-6.

[RGA]

The Audio Note designer owner, Peter Qvortrup, at 35,000LPs+ has one of the largest if not the largest collection in the world.

The TT1 is based off of a SystemDeck II and the Arms for the units are modified co-ventures with Rega based off of the Rega 300 and 600 arms but have been re-wired with An's Silver wiring among other things.

The Dealer here has the TT1 which he claims ot be a lot better than the more expensive Linn Tables and he also carries Linn's line so that is interesting. The TT1 comes with the AN Cartridge.

Basically Audio Note makes the entire audio Chain though they basically take proven designs they like best and make them better. My speakers are based off of the very original Snell speakers, The turntables as I said are based off of the System Deck and Rega arms, their amps are their own and the probably make the most expensive and widely considered BEST integrated amp and DAC available at 90kUS and 50KUS respectively.

The A48b sounds more tube like than the A21a is a high bias Class A class A/B design and is ~70Watts. The A48 was selling for 20+ years but was less competitive as all the new tube amp companies came out making the A48B a little redundant...plus the A21a is a better unit overall at the same retail level. Sugden probably felt that people would go for the A21a on sound despite average looks to get class A. The A48B looks exactly the same as they use the same chassis but because it isn't pure class A people would likely shift to a more functional unit.

I bough the A48B because it had a phono board and was a mere $400.00Cdn used circa 1997 and retailed at around $1899.00. I compared it to the 3k MF integated and anctually preferred it with the Paradigm Stuudio 100. Very pleased with the amp and have considered going with the Sugden Headmaster as preamp because I'd like to upgrade my tube headphone amp one day.

I think I will hold off for the Audio Note because A) it sounded awesome and Audio Note front ends are designed using their speakers. Few companies make excelent stuff front to back and geared to be used as a complete system, LINN and Quad are two others that come to mind. Hell AN makes their own soldering material and glues.

Interesting side note. One of the AN designers works at Sugden and Peter Qvortrup knew Jim Sugden and was a dealer for Sugden's original products which he sold with Snell Type E, K and J speakers.

I find it kind of amusing that I came to both Sugden and Audio Note products by simnply listening and after buying all that find out these tidbits later.

People who claim to hate Solid state I often sggest to give a listen to Sugden. Incidentally both AN and Sugden use the same Transport/Dac to this day which is TDA1541Crown DAC which was in the 80s and both companies prefer the units.

I dunno I found it interesting that I gravitated to these companies which have gravitated to eachother. And the NAD is really a Rega and they too co-venture with Audio Note. Weird and wild stuff.

[Woochifer]

The Audio Note designer owner, Peter Qvortrup, at 35,000LPs+ has one of the largest if not the largest collection in the world.

Barry Hansen (aka Dr. Demento) has a collection of over 200,000 records, plus countless tapes, CDs, and other oddities. Not sure if he's in the Guiness book, but it's definitely the largest collection I've ever heard of. It doesn't hurt that he hosts a radio show and gets a lot of his stuff for free.


Basically Audio Note makes the entire audio Chain though they basically take proven designs they like best and make them better. My speakers are based off of the very original Snell speakers, The turntables as I said are based off of the System Deck and Rega arms, their amps are their own and the probably make the most expensive and widely considered BEST integrated amp and DAC available at 90kUS and 50KUS respectively.

I know you're rather smitten by AN because you love their speakers, but the expertise behind making turntables, amplifiers, DACs, speakers, and cartridges are pretty different. I'm a bit skeptical that one company can be the "BEST" at all of the above. I mean, haven't you stated in the past that the best speakers are made by companies that specialize in making speakers, and not those companies that also make receivers and CD players?

There are plenty of great turntables and cartridges out there, some wildly different approaches, and some not so well defined price points. Each of them has their strengths and weaknesses. If that AN was indeed collaborated with Rega, then it should have some merit and consideration. For all it's worth, I've always felt that the Linn Sondeks were a bit overrated. They're great decks, but they also charge a lot for what you get. They use a suspended platform isolation similar to the one that AR invented in the 1950s and several other companies copied since then (including the Dual CS5000 that I use).

[DMK]

The Audio Note designer owner, Peter Qvortrup, at 35,000LPs+ has one of the largest if not the largest collection in the world.

The TT1 is based off of a SystemDeck II and the Arms for the units are modified co-ventures with Rega based off of the Rega 300 and 600 arms but have been re-wired with An's Silver wiring among other things.

The Dealer here has the TT1 which he claims ot be a lot better than the more expensive Linn Tables and he also carries Linn's line so that is interesting. The TT1 comes with the AN Cartridge.

Basically Audio Note makes the entire audio Chain though they basically take proven designs they like best and make them better. My speakers are based off of the very original Snell speakers, The turntables as I said are based off of the System Deck and Rega arms, their amps are their own and the probably make the most expensive and widely considered BEST integrated amp and DAC available at 90kUS and 50KUS respectively.

The A48b sounds more tube like than the A21a is a high bias Class A class A/B design and is ~70Watts. The A48 was selling for 20+ years but was less competitive as all the new tube amp companies came out making the A48B a little redundant...plus the A21a is a better unit overall at the same retail level. Sugden probably felt that people would go for the A21a on sound despite average looks to get class A. The A48B looks exactly the same as they use the same chassis but because it isn't pure class A people would likely shift to a more functional unit.

I bough the A48B because it had a phono board and was a mere $400.00Cdn used circa 1997 and retailed at around $1899.00. I compared it to the 3k MF integated and anctually preferred it with the Paradigm Stuudio 100. Very pleased with the amp and have considered going with the Sugden Headmaster as preamp because I'd like to upgrade my tube headphone amp one day.

I think I will hold off for the Audio Note because A) it sounded awesome and Audio Note front ends are designed using their speakers. Few companies make excelent stuff front to back and geared to be used as a complete system, LINN and Quad are two others that come to mind. Hell AN makes their own soldering material and glues.

Interesting side note. One of the AN designers works at Sugden and Peter Qvortrup knew Jim Sugden and was a dealer for Sugden's original products which he sold with Snell Type E, K and J speakers.

I find it kind of amusing that I came to both Sugden and Audio Note products by simnply listening and after buying all that find out these tidbits later.

People who claim to hate Solid state I often sggest to give a listen to Sugden. Incidentally both AN and Sugden use the same Transport/Dac to this day which is TDA1541Crown DAC which was in the 80s and both companies prefer the units.

I dunno I found it interesting that I gravitated to these companies which have gravitated to eachother. And the NAD is really a Rega and they too co-venture with Audio Note. Weird and wild stuff.

I liked the Sugden Headmaster amp. I heard it after I bought the one I own, which is actually an integrated amp that now sees only headphone duty. It's the finest head amp I've ever heard and was a damn decent integrated as well - the fully tubed Mesa Tigris, made by the makers of Mesa/Boogie guitar amps.

Didn't Audio Note make (or perhaps they still do) a DAC that uses no oversampling? I've heard that the thing sounded incredibly analog-like which would seem to make sense based on design philosophy. As I recall, it wasn't absurdly priced. Am I thinking of the right company?

[RGA]

DMK

Yes their entry level DAC/Transport combo was reviewed in the latest issue of UHF and it is a Zero times oversampling cd player. The theory behind it is that if you don't make errors in the first place there is no need to have error correction circuitry...the worse the player the more of that junk it needs....well that's the theory and the hard line aspect to the philosophy how well it works will be judged on the sound...which becauseit will no doubt sound different from current cd players may not be too liked...unless you don't like cd player sound now or have little experience with redbook cd listening then you might like it a lot. UHF said it bettered their reference.

AN has levels of DAC. The DAC 5 in stereophile received the highest rating of any product ever and spawned the zero oversampling approach. Well actually the Zero oversampling was done way back on the original cd players but both Sony and Phillips were clueless on how to get them to sound even acceptable let alone good.

Woochifer

Peter may be one of the high end recroding collection leaders or personal collection leaders...of course 35k is a helluva lot either way.

Companies like Sony and yamaha and Denon have not shown me they can make a good speaker...and receiver makers are not interested in quality sound reproduction they are interested in selling a box with the highest profit margin possible...there is a difference between artisans in business and media moguls in business - the proof is in the products(with exceptions when they try and launch new technology).

Mr. Qvortrup owns several of the premier designs of speakers going from Quads to pretty much you name it and uses it as a platform to improve upon.

AN builds the entire audio chain and WANTS people to hear the entire complete system as a complete system...if you like it or hate it then at least they can say they got flamed with their own gear. If you listen to their amp with some piece of junk speaker people often blame the amp. Makes sense.

[RGA]

Actually Woochifer

Audio Note is probably least known for their speakers...because their system look relatively sleak and the speakers due to 70's retro looks stick out a bit. But they do use their own speakers as the reference and measuring tool to build their amps/sources etc.

Stereophile and Hi-fi Choice both used the AN E to test amplifiers for their publications and is owned by some of their reviewers as well as enjoy the music's chief reviewer. So it's not like their speakers are dog ****. And perhaps their speakers are their weakest link...which means the rest of the stuff they sell...well....

[RGA]

Sorry about 3 posts in a row.

DMK

Thanks for the update on the Headmaster. I have heard nothing but glowing reports on it...but then I always hear that about Sugden. One plus is the remote control and modular size. I may end up travelling when I become a teacher so it would be nice to take a small amp with me.

Anyway, the TT1 is the lowest end turntable of the series and What Hi-Fi (albeit not my most favorite audio Magazine) seems to like it http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/what_hifi_awards_2003_an_tt1.pdf

[Woochifer]

Companies like Sony and yamaha and Denon have not shown me they can make a good speaker...and receiver makers are not interested in quality sound reproduction they are interested in selling a box with the highest profit margin possible...there is a difference between artisans in business and media moguls in business - the proof is in the products(with exceptions when they try and launch new technology).

Sony, Yamaha, and Denon don't make great speakers, but they're not marketed as great speakers. Only Sony makes anything that costs more than $1,000 a pair (and that particular reference speaker is supposed to be quite good). The rest of those speaker lines exist more to have something available to package with all-in-one systems, and those are sold on price more than anything.

And your assertion that they are not interested in sound quality is pretty laughable. I guess then that the sound quality that I get with my receiver-based system is more an accident than something that an engineer deliberately designed into the product.

Oh please, artisans and media moguls?! Where did you conjure up that example? Or are you mixing up your facts with conspiratorial fiction? NAME ME ONE MEDIA MOGUL WHO'S IN THE SPEAKER BUSINESS! COME ON! EVERYBODY is in the business to make the highest profit margin possible! So-called "artisans" that don't watch the profit margins are either DIY hobbyists or guys that have done time in bankruptcy court. The proof is indeed in the products, but when you start exaggerating to this extent, it just comes across more as blind ranting than anything that has any element of truth to it.


AN builds the entire audio chain and WANTS people to hear the entire complete system as a complete system...if you like it or hate it then at least they can say they got flamed with their own gear. If you listen to their amp with some piece of junk speaker people often blame the amp. Makes sense.

Again, that does not mean that everything they make is the BEST for that particular category. Hearing a complete system as a complete system, isn't that the same thing as a HTIB system? Granted, it sounds like AN makes a lot of quality gear, but your constant assertions that this product and that product that they make represent the BEST in vastly different categories just invites skepticism and comes across as letting THEIR marketing dictate what your impressions are.

[RGA]

First of all you know my stance on receivers. I seriously doubt if you talk to AUDIOPHILES that any of them would take a two channel output from a Denon, Sony or Yammie seriously as high end 2 channel sound or high end sound period. Which doesn't mean they're junk it means they are selling to people with different goals than two channel audio enthusiasts or very deep pocketed multi-channel enthusiasts who would be builting those big Bryston/Krell monoblock set-ups.

You made the point about the speakers not I and I just said that these guys are not producing marquee gear across the board. None of them produces a high end amplifier though Marantz in Britain did bring out their STATEMENT amplifier which not surprisingly is a 25 watt class A amplifer with a switch to bring it into class A/B for more power if speakers demand. That is a nice intelligent feature to cover several speaker demands. This amplifier interests me if they ever sell it in North America.

Artisans can go into business with a different approach than pure businessmen...some make this stuff because they have a passion for it. I would like to sell audio that I like but I don't want to have to depend on making a living off it because then my store would have shift to meet external demands on not my own. The interest that we both share is obvious since we discuss this stuff on audio forums...it's a hobby. Sony is a conglomorate (wrong word mogul too much Baseball Mogul playing lately). Companies like Rolls Royce(before the takeover) and Audio Note are building cost no object items. The statement products from Dynaudio and B&W etc are similar too of course.

Think of it this way. Audio Note makes the entre chain...I'm not saying anyone has to agree with them...but everytihng is designed to work with each other. Another forum and someone didn't believe The AN K could have the sensitivity being a sealed infinite baffle design that can still produce bass with very little distorion at high volume levels with little power required...it can and is so someone has gotten around this issue.

HTIB well this of course is a nice comparison of the conglemorate's approach to system matching...do many of them test their amplifiers with real world speakers or do they just build off a computer...do they listen to their amplifiers. $12.00 total worth of material, shipping packaging (which is probably $9.00 worthof the $12) for $199.00.

Because AN designs complete systems they have more control over what you hear - you want to hear Audio note then HEAR Audio Note. If their 'opinion' and it's just their opinion that SS amplifiers compromise the signal then they would PREFER you not listen to their cd player and speakers on your "initial" listen because they feel SS ruins the sound...or ruins it compared to their amplifier.

And as much as it pains me to say it, my speakers sound a helluva lot better on their system than it does with my Sugden - whcih I already liked better than costlier amps.

Audio Note is not the best, perhaps, at each and every componant they make, but what they have successfully done IMO is take the strengths and weakness and play off of those WITHIN the system so the end result is really quite exceptional.

UHF recently reviewed the AN DAC/Transport and really liked it but said it was hard at times in passages...for all we know though if you place that transport/Dac with an AN SET amp that hardness may be brought down and with more sensitive speaker than UHF uses that dynamics may be brought up.

Quad and Linn both did this and it makes sense...if people are going to say your stuff is Overrated or just plain bad at least make sure it wasn't the Rega Brio Amp or Nad Turntable or Bose speakers that wrecked your possible customer's view of your products. That's one reason why I was listening to my speakers with SET amp for about an hour and the dealer told me it was not only a tube amp but a SET amp???? But how, it has loads of deep bass prestine highs LOUD levels - nothing like I was expecting TUBES to sound like except non fatigue. You take that amp and run a set of 4ohm 85db Totems and that might be horrible.

Best is subjective...Right now I'm sure you have a best system you've ever heard and in 5 years that might shift to something else. Right now the best SYSTEM I have heard was the AN system at soundhounds. Individual componants may not be of course. And it was far from Audio Note's best system probably only clocking in at $40-50kUS. Their best adds another zero.

[zappafreak]

I have always spent more for a cartridge than for the tt and never regretted it. The cartridge is in many ways the most important piece in the puzzle. You should be able to hear an improvement and as someone else stated, if you decided to upgrade your tt later, the cartridge would be good enough to do so. If my cartridge was still being made, it would cost at least 5 or 6 times what I paid for my tt. This might be extreme but even if I bought everything new, I'd probably spend as much or more for my cartridge as I did for my turntable and tonearm. It seems the only way to get the most out of your turntable. This little formula would probably change if you got into the 10k and above tt's.
Bill

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SHELTER 901?
WHAT DO YOU USE?
THANKS,

ZF

[skeptic]

Frankly, I've been surprised that manufacturers of audio gear haven't started marketing entirely integrated systems in a big way. Especially high end manufacturers. It seems to me that far more could be done to exploit the current 2 channel paradyme by producing amplifiers and preamplifiers with built in active crossovers, dedicated equalization, and bi and tri amplfication for specific loudspeakers. To say the the AN speaker doesn't sound as good with a Sudgeon amplifier as with one of their own means that AN missed an opportunity to market them as an integrated pair.

Audio manufacturers, especially so called high end manufacturers have been remarkably conservative tweaking the same tired worn out designs for over 20 years and calling each new minor variant, a big breakthrough or improvement. AN for example has tweaked 20 year old Snell speaker designs (and not even their best models, the A series.) When it comes to vacuum tube amplifier design, there really is nothing new under the sun and the deisgns are actually all over 40 years old with minor improvements in signal coupling capacitors and power supplies. (The best sounding of them in my experience were the OTL types like Futterman and NY Audio Labs, a Futterman knockoff design.) The best strategy is to buy the ones that are a few years old that have fallen by the wayside and no longer in favor with those who must have the latest and geatest in a particular line. The truth is that in most cases, the newest version isn't much different or better than the older one. In this throw away world, used equipment, even high end used equipment, loses market value very quickly.

The advantages that the larger manufacturers have over the smaller ones are truely great. One is economy of scale. Another is research capabilities. Yet another is extensive quality control. Another is a vast array of in house technical skills. And another is a large established distribution and service network. Add them up and you can produce high end equipment for a fraction of what the little guys charge. Apparantly, they just don't want to. Another thing is that the engineers who do work on this equipment are paid a normal salary. As normal working stiffs they don't get the illusion that because they are also the CEO, CFO, VP of sales and marketing, they are worth hundreds of thousands a year which must be covered by the profits from a relatively small number of units sold.

It's hard to see how all of the crazy high end equipment with crazy prices get sold. Most of the people I know are putting kids through college, paying off mortgages, saving for a vacation and retirement, and would never dream of spending even a thousand dollars for a sound system. There must be an awful lot of rich people out there I've never met.

[RGA]

Rolls Royce has less QC issues than andy opf the big three's best efforts and also a vastly superior car...not any more now that a congomorate took them over...first time they ever had a recall becuase the conglomorate cheaped out on the seats(and they melted from the seat warmers). D'ohh.

And as for expertise. Audio Note's chief designer Mr. Kondo was Sony's Chief Designer way back and was dissatisfied with the engineering and quality of the componants.

And if you're the world wide expert on engineering let me listen to the products you've designed - surely someone with your staggerring degrees and the only person who could possibly design goiod gear and the only person that can find it surely you must own a company making this stuff.

But since your opinion on music is limited to classical(ohh and maybe Jazz on occasion) and Any and artists beyond those are talentless hacks who nothing about playing music - you wonder why it's tough to take any other views seriously.

You come to this forum because there is less techie people to discuss issues so you can feel you have something over them...go to Audio Asylum and rant then I can watch all the OTHER basement engineers with the degrees - but no actual product to point to - battle out it with you as to the MANY problems that the Conglomorate speakers have the poor old Peter Snell all by himself obviously didn't have.

You may be right about the A - it was certainly the most expensive of the line. AN has toiled with re-making it as well. They have attempted many big name highly touted speakers from Quad among others - but many don't cut it. And Cost is no object with them.

And as for preferring a particular tube topology...well good for you...the fact that others actually like something different is a fact of life. Darn that Rock...must all be noise to you. Pity, they are saying something with their music just as Mozart was doing. People say this to me about Rap which I loathe...but I can acknowledge the goal some have behind it. Some rockers have a lot of classical training could be classical musicians and prefer Folk/rock/pop etc.

[skeptic]

A very angry post RGA. I must have hit a nerve. You seem to take anything that even suggests that AN's Qvortrop isn't god seriously. To me they are just another quirky little company, making quirky little equipment, at big bucks prices, owned by a quirky little ex salesman with a quirky spelling name. I'm going to try to hear the AN speakers this spring after the weather warms up. You've aroused my curiousity and I've got an open mind about them even though their advertising seems like just one more pile of hype. Unfortunately, the dealers who carry it are not very close to my home.

"Rolls Royce has less QC issues than andy opf the big three's best efforts and also a vastly superior car...not any more now that a congomorate took them over...first time they ever had a recall becuase the conglomorate cheaped out on the seats(and they melted from the seat warmers). D'ohh."

I know a little about Rolls Royce and I nearly bought one myself a few years ago. Then I realized that it would just be an expensive ornament, a toy to show off. On American roads and I suspect on many Europeans roads today, it is virtually useless as a car. And they DO break down. BTW, the transmissions are made by General Motors and the suspensions are made by Citroen. At least they used to be.

"And as for expertise. Audio Note's chief designer Mr. Kondo was Sony's Chief Designer way back and was dissatisfied with the engineering and quality of the componants."

So Kondo was interested in products for a segment of the Market Sony didn't manufacture for. So he left. Nobody is a one man band. It takes a lot more than one guy to pull of a world class anything today. AN was lucky to get him but as the old saying goes, Sony Corporation misses him like you'd miss a drop of water taken out of a bucket. A month after he left, most people forgot he was ever there. I saw an interesting interview with Akio Mauro Sony's founder shortly before he died. He took the original idea for the pocket transistor radio (it was slightly too big to fit in a normal man's shirt pocket at that time so they had shirts with oversized pockets made up) to Longines, the Swiss watch maker. The execs at Longines told him that the product would never sell and they weren't interested. Today, Sony could buy Longines lock stock and barrel with their spare pocket change. If Sony wanted to enter the high end audio market, they could eat Peter Qvortrop's lunch. They could produce products equal or better than his to sell at a fraction of the price. That just isn't where they are going and Qvortrop should be eternally greatful for it.

"And if you're the world wide expert on engineering let me listen to the products you've designed - surely someone with your staggerring degrees and the only person who could possibly design goiod gear and the only person that can find it surely you must own a company making this stuff."

The sound system I patented never saw the light of day commercially. In 1983 as a member of AES, I tried to market it to about two dozen manufacturers at the AES trade show and convention in New York and none of them were interested. The original best prototype was disassembled 19 years ago and I am just beginning to experiment with a new one for the first time in all these years. However, I don't intend to demo it to you.

"But since your opinion on music is limited to classical(ohh and maybe Jazz on occasion) and Any and artists beyond those are talentless hacks who nothing about playing music - you wonder why it's tough to take any other views seriously."

Aside from your gramatical error making your statement a little unclear, you are right. IMO, I don't take musicians who perform other than classical or jazz seriously. Most all of them really are talentless hacks, their commercial success and fame notwithstanding. It's not open for discussion. That's how I see it.

"You come to this forum because there is less techie people to discuss issues so you can feel you have something over them...go to Audio Asylum and rant then I can watch all the OTHER basement engineers with the degrees - but no actual product to point to - battle out it with you as to the MANY problems that the Conglomorate speakers have the poor old Peter Snell all by himself obviously didn't have."

I came to this forum because I enjoy it. I only stayed at Audio Asylum a few weeks several years ago because their culture was intolerant of dissident views about audio cables. It was like a cult. I wish there were more technically savy people here, not less. But I accept this site for what it is If I didn't, I wouldn't read or post here. As for Peter Snell, I met him shortly before he died. I give him a lot of credit for starting and running a successful small business. But he faced a mountain of problems like any other small manufacturer which strained his resources to the limit. Perhaps the stress contributed to his untimely demise. I don't know.

"You may be right about the A - it was certainly the most expensive of the line. AN has toiled with re-making it as well. They have attempted many big name highly touted speakers from Quad among others - but many don't cut it. And Cost is no object with them."

The type AII and the AIIIi were the only Snell speakers I heard that I liked. I was not even slightly impressed with the others. If you are saying AN can't reverse engineer the type A, it speaks mountains about their technical limitations. BTW, cost is an object with everyone. Even NASA.

"And as for preferring a particular tube topology...well good for you...the fact that others actually like something different is a fact of life."

To each his own. The NY Audio Labs was the best sounding tube amplifier I ever heard. Sounded just as good as a fine solid state amplifier. Without the output transformer, it had all the clarity you could want. It certainly convinced me that neither tubes nor transistors have any actual sound of their own. Of course if you own one of these expensive amplifiers and it needs service, expecially if the bias voltages need adjustment, you are in real trouble. NYAL has the only equipment that can make it possible to adjust it correctly and I don't know if they are even in business since Harvey Rosenberg died. One more danger of buying expensive equipment from a small company.

" Darn that Rock...must all be noise to you."

Pure noise, that's all. A blight on the sensibilites of humanity. Even traffic noise is preferable.

" Pity, they are saying something with their music just as Mozart was doing."

I don't know what you are smoking but it must have affected your mind. You don't have a clue about what you are saying.

"Some rockers have a lot of classical training could be classical musicians and prefer Folk/rock/pop etc."

Maybe. Maybe they see more money in Rock. Maybe they just couldn't cut it as classical musicians either. A third rate classical musician could easily be a first rate rock musician. When all you have to know is 1,4,5 chords, C major, and 4/4 time, you can snooze your way through any of it. NO SKILL REQUIRED.

[jbangelfish]

What the hell, nobody ever said I was too bright. While we are all entitled to our opinions, no matter which side of the fence we are on, these opinions tend to get in our way and close our minds to new things.
Skeptic's technical knowledge of equipment and of music is highly regarded by most of us, just sometimes alittle narrow in focus. I wish he could bring himself to listen to some of what I would consider to be modern classical music. As RGA stated, many rock musicians cut their teeth on classical music and have considerable talent. I believe that many of them were too creative to be content playing the old classics that they grew up on, especially when they found that they had the abiltiy to write something new and of course, make huge sums of money.
I'm quite certain that many of them were or are talented enough to play with an orchestra and probably many did at one time or another. Their choice to write and perform their own music made enormous sums of money for many which they would not have made if they merely played professionally in an orchestra. I still think that they were driven more by creativity than greed but once the money and superstar status starts coming in, it probably becomes frustrating to them in that they are forced to create marketable tunes by recording contracts.
If Skeptic would give some things a listen, he might open up alittle and at least give some credit to some modern composers, but maybe not, it would sound unfamiliar. I enjoy the newness and appreciate the creativity of many modern artists. Sarah McLachlan and Tori Amos have written some very beautiful music on the piano and are accompanied by many orchestral instruments on their albums. Tori Amos plays a Bosendorfer concert grand and thanks them for building the best pianos in the world. (hear that Skep?) I'll bet she can play Chopin as well as Van Cliburn did. I'm not sure which instrument Sarah chooses but she is also extremely talented. Skep, I can't imagine that you would not enjoy at least some of their music. I too grew up on classical music, mostly piano and pipe organ and I still enjoy both. Bach pieces on the pipe organ to me, are very much like rock music (good rock music), loud, fast and difficult to play. He must have been the Ozzy Osbourne of his day, a superstar, and probably not everyone liked him either.
Bill

[skeptic]

"If Skeptic would give some things a listen, he might open up alittle and at least give some credit to some modern composers, but maybe not, it would sound unfamiliar."

If you're talking about classical composers, I have. I've warmed up to much of Stravinsky. But don't hold your breath waiting for me to acknowledge Schoenberg as a great composer. It won't happen. Ditto, De La Joya and his ilk.

As for other genres of music, as an example I've been holding back on my review of John Coltrane's album "A Love Supreme" which DMK persuaded me to purchase and listen to. I wrote it a while back but haven't posted it yet. Believe me he won't like what I have to say about it. I tried very hard to have an open mind listening to it but it only confirmed my beliefs more stongly. Having heard it well over a dozen times already, I'm waiting for a while to listen to it again once or twice more just in case it subconscously grew on me. It will be a very long and detailed review because I did listen to it very carefully and extensively.

One of my sister's closest childhood friends became a pop and rock music song writer. What a waste of talent. BTW, she didn't need the money. Her father was a wealthy lawyer and her husband is a well to do doctor. Nobody could figure out what went wrong inside her head.

[jbangelfish]

I remember the Coltrane exchange. I'm not familiar with his music so I might be a reclusive shut-in myself. All I can say is that I've heard of him and that many people like him, I probably would not but I really don't know.
I've not heard Schoenberg or De La Hoya that I can remember but I'm guessing I would not like them either. Seems to me Bernstein also composed but was not particularly well received. How far back is Stravinsky? Wrote the Firebird Suite, didn't he? I think I have a copy of that somewhere.
I will give credit to some very recent artists such as Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson, Tori Amos and Sarah McLachlan or even Billy Joel (he said he was retiring to write classical music, I'm still waiting) who are all pianists and organists with a great deal of talent IMO. They all have truly outstanding keyboard skills and certainly came from classical beginnings. You could say that they all sold out in a way to become rock stars and to make money. By the same token, they wrote some very beautiful music and did become very popular which says to me that there is not a total aversion to music that is written as it was hundreds of years ago by the great classical composers. Even my dad who was a church organist for 50 years would listen to some of their music and give them credit for being talented musicians and composers, maybe you would too. It is surely not all noise and likely some of it would strike you as more musical than some of these other modern composers that you mention.
Bill

[skeptic]

We have this discussion in my family all of the time. My aunt who debuted at Town Hall when she was 16 must have a recording of every piece of classical piano music ever written. Now she's closing in on all of the jazz paino music ever written. (She'll be 95 this year.) She thinks some of the jazz pianists are greater than most of the classical pianists. I of course don't agree. And I also still don't think that the most complex jazz approaches the most complex classical music in the range of tonal colors, dynamics, or the demands placed on the musicians.

There are no composers IMO today or even in the last century who appoach the great musical geniuses of the 17th 18th and 19th century. Another big arguement in my house revolves around who was the greatest composer or at least who would you listen to if you could only hear the music of just one composer. I choose Beethoven hands down. His music never fails to satisfy. If there is one composer whose music invariably displays power it's his. And the logic of the way it progresses is unchallengable. Listening to a Von Karajan's recording of the Eroica the other day was totally captivating. The other person who lives in my house, "the musician" prefers Brahms. Well, there's no accounting.

Bernstein was an outstanding musicoligist and musician. But he was not a great composer. Even by the standards of American music, he was not at the same level as Copland or Gershwin (IMO as usual.)

My tastes have changed over the years. When I first heard The Rite of Spring, it was so strange to my ears as to be out on the fringe. Recently, I became aware after having heard it for the first time in many years how accustomed I had become to it and how familiar it seemed. Hardly strange sounding any more at all. (A good recording of it will give those AR9s quite a workout.)

Crossover artists are usually unsuccessful. Kiri TeKanawa is a great operatic voice but many of her pop recordings leave a lot to be desired. Admittedly she did not use her operatic voice to record them but she had some great arrangements and wonderful orchestral backup (She made recordngs of Kern, Porter, Gershwin, and Berlin as well as a very nice one with Nelson Riddle's arrangements and orchestra but the EMI engineers who mastered all but the Riddle recording done on London were awful and put their sibilant echo signiture on all of them to one degree or another.) On the other hand, Linda Rondstat tried to record La Boheme. A total catastrophe. Her voice wasn't even close to being up to it. If only Barbara Streisand could learn to sing on key, she would not be so unbearable. Is that asking too much. It's not like I'm asking her to learn how to read music or something.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=skeptic
As for other genres of music, as an example I've been holding back on my review of John Coltrane's album "A Love Supreme" which DMK persuaded me to purchase and listen to. I wrote it a while back but haven't posted it yet. Believe me he won't like what I have to say about it. [/QUOTE]

I can't WAIT to read it! If your review is anything like your posts on non-classical music, I'm sure it'll be hilarious! Hey, all that "persuasion" on my part wouldn't have anything to do with you disparaging in an earlier post without having heard it, would it? Ah, forget that - I told myself I wouldn't bring it up and there I go!

Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger. That's fine. But truly, I can't even imagine being less concerned with your opinions than I am now. It's perfectly fine if you don't like "A Love Supreme". I'll be the first to support your right to your opinion. Some people who honestly do understand modern jazz have trouble with it. It's ok if you don't get it. Even if you bash it beyond repair, I won't mind. I only wanted you to hear it so that your opinion might carry a little weight. It's only when you post opinions and pass them off as facts that I have to intercede. I realize that just about everything on this board is opinion but there might be a newbie or lurker out there that might be swayed the wrong way.

But I see you've qualified your opinions recently for the most part. That's critical in your case because I have no doubt that you make excellent points on other things and we may discount them based on your complete lack of knowledge of music beyond classical. Oh, there is one you forgot to qualify -the one about any classical musician could play rock. That's a total laugher! Of all the musicians I know, there are... oh, about two dozen that are primarily rock musicians and that can play a lot of classical music very well. Know how many classical musicians can play a convincing solo over even the most simple blues progression? None. Zero. Zilch. Third rate or first rate (if the belittled Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra players could be called first rate.) they can't do it! If it's so simple and requires no talent, why can't they do it? Must be beneath them. Or it could be that rock requires them to be creative. They didn't learn THAT in music school, did they? :)

Anyway, there are plenty more outrageously humorous parts of your posts, past and present, but there's no point in rehashing all that. As far as the Trane, you should probably put it away for a year or so. Some comprehension might hit you or it might not. But one thing I can say with 98% certainty is that if you don't like this disc (and I had no delusions that you would), there's no point in your pursuing any jazz after 1960 or so. Don't waste your time and I mean that sincerely.

Finally, comparing different genres of music in the areas of complexity, virtuosity, and talent level is ridiculous. There are things that rock musicians can do that classical musicians cannot, and vice versa. Ditto for most other kinds of music. Until you've heard everything out there (something I'm spending my life trying to accomplish), you have no clue what you're talking about and you come off as foolish. Now, how about that review? Oh, also you should be able to get a few bucks for the Coltrane at your local music store. I'm sure it won't sit in their used bin beyond a couple of minutes! Hey, if it helps motivate you to post your review, I find "La Boheme" to be a pretensious, boring, overrated piece of ****e and the mere fact that Ronstadt even attempted it shows her incredible bad taste. But I still don't deny it is music. It may even be GOOD music but I don't care for it or any other piece of opera I've ever heard. Maybe I just don't get it. See the qualification? But you're getting better and you receive brownie points for trying the Trane in spite of your obvious biases against anything modern, the derisive comment about Schoenberg as a case in point.

[DMK]

Yourself and many other classical enthusiasts discuss different renditions of classical compositions such as this conductor's version of Beethoven's Fifth as opposed to someone else's. Many of you have umpteen different readings. As someone who owns maybe two versions of my favorites and only one of other things I enjoy, please explain to me why I should own several. Let's take Beethoven since he is your favorite. I own Norrington's complete version and von Karajan's. What am I missing by not owning another?

Could it be that you like a little creativity with your old favorites? Ok, maybe I have an ulterior motive for asking but I'm still curious. But if you enjoy a different conductor's viewpoint on a familiar theme, you might begin to understand why as a jazz nutcase for 30 years that I've gravitated beyond dixie and swing into what I deem as more creative jazz. Beyond that, I have no agenda other than curiousity.

Oh, the Norrington is on CD and the von Karajan is on vinyl. Two guesses which one I find more satisfying! :)

[RGA]

First of all stop trying to convince one track minded arrogant people who think only they are right about ALL things in life. He thinks by attacking Streisand, Rondstadt, all rock or basically all music for the last 100 years he thinks himself a more musical intellect. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can really argue that classical and jazz are generally more difficult to actually PLAY as musical intruments. So basically the more difficult it is to play the better?? I guess it is totally insane of me to prefer Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven...which isn't to say I don't like some of what they do a great deal.

Rock and roll, Skeptic because you're too dense to figure it out, has something called Lyrics. What is a Lyric? A Lyric is a poem. What is poetry? The highest form of Literary writing which requires knowledge to uncover the point, message or political argument etc of the writer's choosing. Now some of it is crap on that level no doubt just as a lot of Crap was penned from Wordsworth - who was a talentless HACK IMO compared to Colerige, Byron and Shelley but that's an aside.

Basically ROCK is a poem put to words. Hell even Loreena McKennit put "The Lady of Shallot" to music nearly word for word at about 11 minutes. Lots of violins for ya too.

DMK there is really no use to trying to convert narrow minded people to expand their horizons because that would be like converting a Jehovah's Witness to being athiest or agnostic.

I happen to like a huge array of music because each serves a use. John Williams makes music for a lot of films that take those films to a new level. Jaws for example would be nothing without that theme...and even the basic few notes on the piano for the movie Halloween made a low budget low plot indy film in to the highest grossing horror picture(or indy film) hugely popular - and scary. Of course to be an intelligent film critic one can't throw out all the genres of films because they happen to only think silent films were best(after all older is better right?)

Then there is music simply there for a mindless toe tapping beat. As much as Skeptic despises Streisand he would probably conced that Streisand is more talented a singer than oh say Madonna. I concede that Madonna has a limited vocal range - 2 octaves maybe and certainly isn't going to do those vocal gymnastics of Streisand or Celine Dion(the latter has no training either and many feel that with work she has the basis of a classical voice). Back tp the point. I recognize that Streisand or Shirley Bassey or Charlotte Church or Katrina Gauvin can SING better than Madonna - and yet as much as I hate to admit I prefer to LISTEN to Madonna or a Gloria Estefan over these other better singers. Music is not JUST about the talent of singer. Indeed, a lot of LESSER singers sound one of kind or unique. No one else sounds like Tom Petty or Rod Stewart and you can pick off Madonna's voice all in a few bars. None of em are particularly great singers and certainly don't hold up to operatic singers. But have you heard Pavorotti try and sing those duets rocky type songs...now that's a laugh - but then his voice has ALWAYS irritated me.

Basically Rock/Pop has a consitant beat - I call it beat music. I also had to laugh that in the movie Mr. Holland's Opus you see Richard Dreyfuss trying to teach kids music and the students are all totally bored with classical music. Then he plays on the piano some tune and asks the class what it is. The tudents say ohh that is such and such a song from the platters or the Beatles etc. Mr. Holland say ERRRRRRRRRR no Beethoven. Rock/pop music has elements of classical right in it for Heaven sake.

I get into the same kind of discussions on film criticism. You'll have the die hard anti-Hollywood anti-English speaking and of course Anti-Spielberg (the latter the most Anti of all) because if the general public likes it and the MOST money is generated by something then it mus automatically mean it's crap. You can't have a superiority complex if you like all the things the masses like. Which kind of explains the love of Citizen Kane, a good film no question but the best. Well if people stdied their Shakespeare they might realize in fact how unoriginal the film really is. Pauline Kael wasn't fooled thankfully.

Lastly, Beethoven's music incidentally transformed and was integral to one of my favorite films...A Clockwork Orange.

[RGA]

I enjoy the newness and appreciate the creativity of many modern artists. Sarah McLachlan and Tori Amos have written some very beautiful music on the piano and are accompanied by many orchestral instruments on their albums. Tori Amos plays a Bosendorfer concert grand and thanks them for building the best pianos in the world. (hear that Skep?) I'll bet she can play Chopin as well as Van Cliburn did. I'm not sure which instrument Sarah chooses but she is also extremely talented. Skep, I can't imagine that you would not enjoy at least some of their music. I too grew up on classical music, mostly piano and pipe organ and I still enjoy both. Bach pieces on the pipe organ to me, are very much like rock music (good rock music), loud, fast and difficult to play. He must have been the Ozzy Osbourne of his day, a superstar, and probably not everyone liked him either.
Bill

Some people don't want creativity they like to stagnate in the era of witch hunting and limited intruments and political pressures stifling creativity - a complaint and a sore spot for Mozart who was perhaps prohibited from really letting loose.

Sarah McLachlan is a terrific artist but unfortunately sings a catchy tune or two whcih is not mundane and the same old song that was done from 1743 France so forget it. She is classically trained on the piano, she plays the guitar, she writes the music and the lyrics. What the hell else do people want. Heck people get mad at singers LIKE Celine Dion because they say if you don't write your own stuff you're a hack...well geez that makes all those gifted Oboists hacks if they don't write their own stuff because the VOICE IS a musical intrument and no two are the same. And since no two are the same it's pretty stupid to say well the Cello is a BETTER instrument than the Flute. You can say the Oboe is HARDER to play than trumpet but that doesn't mean the trumpet is a totally useless instrument and should be chucked out with all the other lowly brass instruments.(That is EXACTLY what Skeptic's rant is all about).

Heck look at Kenny G. I don't play but according to a Jazz nut and player at my school apparently Kenny G plays 5 notes in varying routines. The thing is he plays the five very well and while it may not be to everyone's taste he sells it as mood music and i understand why women gravitate to the music at a spa or whatever.

I joke but honestly if you want to fall asleep to relaxing music Kenny G will work, along with Enya. This doesn't mean that Kenny G is better than Miles Davis talent wise.

[skeptic]

"And since no two are the same it's pretty stupid to say well the Cello is a BETTER instrument than the Flute. "

Then let me say something pretty stupid; THE CELLO IS A BETTER INSTRUMENT THAN THE FLUTE. A MUCH BETTER INSTRUMENT. From a cello, you can get the Dvorak cello concerto, the Bach double, and so much more. The cello sings like no other instrument with the possible exception of the violin. With its vast repertoire, even the piano cannot sing like a cello. What do you get from a flute? Vivaldi flute concertos. Mozart flute sonatas. It's like comparing a trickling stream with a vast raging river or an ocean. It's hard to lump Gallway and Rampal in with the same league as Rostropovich or even Cassals. They're music is worlds apart. While it is true that the flute is indespensible to a modern symphony orchestra, the flute is not a musical instrument to be taken too seriously on its own. Even a sax is a much more serious instrument.

[skeptic]

"As someone who owns maybe two versions of my favorites and only one of other things I enjoy, please explain to me why I should own several."

I don't know that you should. For me though, it's different.

It might interest you to know that I deliberately sprang for the extra $10 to buy the deluxe version of "A Love Supreme" so that I could get more than one point of view of it, even if it was from the same musician. One of the things about music is the way the performer sees it. Sometimes one performer will see something no other performer has done before. And you are always looking out for something more interesting. I also own the Von Karajan redcordings of the Beethoven symphonies but mine are on CD. It's the versions recorded in the early 1960s. I think I read somewhere he recorded 4 different sets. I have another full set of the Beethoven on DG vinyl but I can't remember by who. I've got another full set on cd with Walter and several of those including the 4th, 5th, and 9th on vinyl. I'd bet I've got at least 15 different recordings of the 9th between cds and vinyls. Each has something different to offer although believe it or not, on the whole, the Von Karajan set is my favorite. I am not familiar with the Norrington recordings but wish I at least heard some of them. Is that the one with the London Symphony Players? If it is it got rave reviews. Of course, the best of all worlds is to have your favorite performances on the best sounding recordings. But life is not always so accomodating. Tonight I heard Artur Rubenstein's recording of the Greig piano concerto he recorded in 1961. Who thought when I first owned and heard that recording on vinyl in 1968 I would be listening to it on cd 35 years later. It's still a wonderful recording and performance. I just wish I could find a cd of Martha Argerich playing it. I'm sure it would be a killer too.

Believe it or not, I have access to a vast collection of jazz and pop and yes even rock recordings. It's not that I don't own them. It's just that I don't enjoy them nearly as much. And then there are many I don't much enjoy hearing at all.

[Woochifer]

Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger. That's fine. But truly, I can't even imagine being less concerned with your opinions than I am now. It's perfectly fine if you don't like "A Love Supreme". I'll be the first to support your right to your opinion. Some people who honestly do understand modern jazz have trouble with it. It's ok if you don't get it. Even if you bash it beyond repair, I won't mind. I only wanted you to hear it so that your opinion might carry a little weight. It's only when you post opinions and pass them off as facts that I have to intercede. I realize that just about everything on this board is opinion but there might be a newbie or lurker out there that might be swayed the wrong way.

Well, all I can say is at least he tried! With Trane, you either have to accept it on its own terms or reject it out of hand, because what he's expressing on "A Love Supreme" is about as intimate an insight into the mindset of a person through music as I've ever heard. It's uncompromising, and simultaneously inspiring and disturbing. Even without knowing anything about Trane's personal life, it's like that instrument is a conduit into what his life is all about. It's about as personal an expression as you can get.

I'd already heard plenty of Coltrane's stuff before I put "A Love Supreme" on for the first time, and literally I got chills several times while listening to that album. When music becomes that transcendent, then you know it's got meaning. If someone doesn't connect with the music like that, then it's really their misfortune as far as I'm concerned. This intense bond between musician and listener is why "A Love Supreme" is so frequently cited among the greatest jazz albums ever made, even if you can name hundreds of other albums that have better precision, more logical progressions on the solos, more technical virtuosity, etc.

Also, Elvin Jones' drumming on that album is about as perfect and intuitive a rhythm as I've ever heard. That pretty much cemented his stature with me as the quintessential jazz drummer. I got to see him perform a club gig last year and it was just amazing (easily the most inspired rendition of "It Don't Mean A Thing" that I've ever heard). Gonna see McCoy Tyner as well in a couple of weeks.

[skeptic]

"Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger."

Not so. But I'm not surprised that attacking someone's taste in music can cause anger. Especially people who identify themselves with the music they listen too. Frankly, I would never be angry at anyone who said that they detested classical music. Many of my best friends don't like it. For me it is a privelege and a gift my parents gave me to enjoy one of life's rarer pleasures. Learning to appreciate some of the others like fine wine I had to do on my own.

I've met more than a few jazz and even pop musicians. One of the most delightful evenings I ever spent was with Dick Hyman the other guys in his trio, and their wives at a midnight buffet on the Royal Viking Star in 1989 when he was performing there. He invited me to join them when I told him I remembered his recordings from his old days at Command Records. Anybody ever hear of Enoch Light and the Light Brigade? And as much as I enjoyed him and his performance on the ship, I must say that the half dozen or so recordings of his that I own are not nearly as pleasing. He is supposed to be the jazz pianist's pianist but I just don't get it.

" There are things that rock musicians can do that classical musicians cannot"

One thing rock performers sometimes do at a concert that I've never seen any classical musician do is set fire to their instruments. Based on the way they play, had I been in the audience, I'd have opted for them to do that BEFORE the performance.

[Woochifer]

First of all stop trying to convince one track minded arrogant people who think only they are right about ALL things in life. He thinks by attacking Streisand, Rondstadt, all rock or basically all music for the last 100 years he thinks himself a more musical intellect. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can really argue that classical and jazz are generally more difficult to actually PLAY as musical intruments. So basically the more difficult it is to play the better?? I guess it is totally insane of me to prefer Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven...which isn't to say I don't like some of what they do a great deal.

Rock and roll, Skeptic because you're too dense to figure it out, has something called Lyrics. What is a Lyric? A Lyric is a poem. What is poetry? The highest form of Literary writing which requires knowledge to uncover the point, message or political argument etc of the writer's choosing. Now some of it is crap on that level no doubt just as a lot of Crap was penned from Wordsworth - who was a talentless HACK IMO compared to Colerige, Byron and Shelley but that's an aside.

Basically ROCK is a poem put to words. Hell even Loreena McKennit put "The Lady of Shallot" to music nearly word for word at about 11 minutes. Lots of violins for ya too.

DMK there is really no use to trying to convert narrow minded people to expand their horizons because that would be like converting a Jehovah's Witness to being athiest or agnostic.

I happen to like a huge array of music because each serves a use. John Williams makes music for a lot of films that take those films to a new level. Jaws for example would be nothing without that theme...and even the basic few notes on the piano for the movie Halloween made a low budget low plot indy film in to the highest grossing horror picture(or indy film) hugely popular - and scary. Of course to be an intelligent film critic one can't throw out all the genres of films because they happen to only think silent films were best(after all older is better right?)

Then there is music simply there for a mindless toe tapping beat. As much as Skeptic despises Streisand he would probably conced that Streisand is more talented a singer than oh say Madonna. I concede that Madonna has a limited vocal range - 2 octaves maybe and certainly isn't going to do those vocal gymnastics of Streisand or Celine Dion(the latter has no training either and many feel that with work she has the basis of a classical voice). Back tp the point. I recognize that Streisand or Shirley Bassey or Charlotte Church or Katrina Gauvin can SING better than Madonna - and yet as much as I hate to admit I prefer to LISTEN to Madonna or a Gloria Estefan over these other better singers. Music is not JUST about the talent of singer. Indeed, a lot of LESSER singers sound one of kind or unique. No one else sounds like Tom Petty or Rod Stewart and you can pick off Madonna's voice all in a few bars. None of em are particularly great singers and certainly don't hold up to operatic singers. But have you heard Pavorotti try and sing those duets rocky type songs...now that's a laugh - but then his voice has ALWAYS irritated me.

Basically Rock/Pop has a consitant beat - I call it beat music. I also had to laugh that in the movie Mr. Holland's Opus you see Richard Dreyfuss trying to teach kids music and the students are all totally bored with classical music. Then he plays on the piano some tune and asks the class what it is. The tudents say ohh that is such and such a song from the platters or the Beatles etc. Mr. Holland say ERRRRRRRRRR no Beethoven. Rock/pop music has elements of classical right in it for Heaven sake.

I get into the same kind of discussions on film criticism. You'll have the die hard anti-Hollywood anti-English speaking and of course Anti-Spielberg (the latter the most Anti of all) because if the general public likes it and the MOST money is generated by something then it mus automatically mean it's crap. You can't have a superiority complex if you like all the things the masses like. Which kind of explains the love of Citizen Kane, a good film no question but the best. Well if people stdied their Shakespeare they might realize in fact how unoriginal the film really is. Pauline Kael wasn't fooled thankfully.

Lastly, Beethoven's music incidentally transformed and was integral to one of my favorite films...A Clockwork Orange.

I don't know why musical arguments have to be framed in terms of whether one genre is better than another, whether one is harder to play than another, whether one is more artistic than another. I think you're getting drawn in a bit too hard on this topic, ease up dude! If you listen to it, and you like it, who cares what others think?

I get weird reactions all the time whenever I tell people that I sometimes spiritually connect with rave music (that is when the right DJ is manning the decks). To them, it's mindless droning; to me, it's beat, pulse, note, tones, and amplitude creating a transcendent connection. For the same reasons, I listen to John Coltrane and Metallica. If the music gives me chills, and I feel what's expressed through the music, then that's transcendental. I don't expect people to share my reaction. It's nice to have a common point of view, but I don't expect it. It's almost like trying to argue religion -- either you believe in it or you don't.

Ultimately, we listen to music for different reasons. If technical precision is all that matters, then just put an endless loop of Bach inventions and be done with it. Other expressions are more personal than others. Some are more fraught with imperfections than others. Some are more accessible than others. Some are happy, others are not.

P.S. I don't think you can put Citizen Kane as something that's considered great strictly because of people with a superiority complex. It's in my personal top 10, not because someone told me it was great, but because I just like it. Yeah, it's got elements of Shakespeare, but then there's plenty of other classic writing that predates Shakespeare that contains similar tragic elements. It's considered a great film because it was ultimately so influential and ahead of its time, and pulled together so many filmmaking techniques. Friends of mine who've gone to film school study that movie inside and out, even after graduating, not because it was assigned viewing, but because the technique has contemporary relevance. Keep in mind that it was not highly regarded in its own time, but its legacy grew as time went on.

Even on a lighter note, "Singin' In The Rain" is now consistently ranked among the top films in these polls, yet in its own time it was considered vastly inferior to "An American In Paris." Both starred Gene Kelly, but one film's star has risen while the other's has fallen over the years. The legacy of any art form is not always immediately discernible in its contemporary context. In its own time, jazz was considered vulgar "jungle music" by the mainstream press. Now, the common tagline is to call jazz America's only unique contribution to the arts.

[RGA]

I certainly won't tell people what music they SHOULD be liking. Of course statements like "What do you get from a flute? Vivaldi flute concertos. Mozart flute sonatas" well yes and you can't get that music from a cello.

Anyway I don't care what someone Likes in terms of music or movies for that matter and I want to stress that I do like Citizen Kane but I also fall into the camp, and there is a big camp on this, that Kane leaves me cold as a tragedy. I much enjouyed arguing that Death of a Salesman serves as a better tragedy for modern audiences. Of course i had to argue that Death of a Salesman could even be considered a tragedy because in order for it to fit the definition of the literary term would have to be changed. Basically I find Kane more of a distanced technical excercise with great cinematography that has bith a pro/con effect. It is marvelous to look at but distances the characters and at times I almost felt like they're doing this JUST to do it. There was a TV show a number of years ago that everyone raved on about because it had a herky jerky camera (hand held no doubt) that became frustrating to watch.

People have often argued that some directors Spielberg most notably manipulates his audiences emotions through the use of music or whatever. Well I can make that case for most directors with their use of the camera...it's more subtle but no less manipulative. And in fact a lot of the time i would argue that some directors CAN'T evoke feeling to the same level. THis isn't to say that Spielberg hasn't had shlock in some of his films like Amastad or the bookend of Saving Private Ryan or cowered from attacking a sensitive issue perhaps in the Color Purple where he should have kept certain issue of the book in. At least Spielberg admitted later that he shouldhave given the project to a different director because he felt he didn't do it justice. Hell it was still a good film and had 11 nominations and this was his "Mistake."

I don't particularly value films for their technical merrits...same for music actually. The fact that a film in 1950 set new ground for visuals and inspired all that followed is all nice and fine as film history, but I weight the gutteral aspect of the movie every bit as heavily...and on that Kane fails me. I prefer the 1985 Hoffman Death of a Salesman which was made for tv that follows a great literary piece and is visually impressive considering it's made for tv and the tragic element was Willy Loman following the "So-Called" American Dream. I had no sympathy whatever for Kane AKA William Randolph Hurst.

I don't have anything against older films as many including most notably the Seven Samurai, Dr. Strangelove and The Third Man are in my top 100. Lots of films highly loved like the Godfather to me come across as a 3 hour long mob soap opera with about as much depth. Then when Goodfellas IMO the easily superior film IMO comes along the arguements ensue about the SCOPE of the film and the importance of the level of mob and blah blah. Goodfellas is a raw and tighter film well paced and handles the grunt mob exceedingly well. The Godfather is like the big slow ocean liner tugging along shows you the sites but is a bit vacuous and even a little dull. The second one I liked FAR more. But hey Cabaret beats them both by a country mile IMO.

OK stop RGA once i get on movies I'm Roger Ebert's wrst nightmare.

[maxg]

Have we concluded yet whether Red is a better colour than Green?

Like Sceptic I am a classical lover and can see where he is coming from. Unlike him, however, I have room in my collection for Rock, Soul, Jazz, Pop, Reggae and who knows what else. I dont think this makes me either a better or a worse person than him - I just have more eclectic tastes when it comes to music.

There is no right and wrong when it comes to music - except in the eye of the individual beholder. What is music to my ears to white noise to another. Good. With that kind of variation of tastes we are assured a bright and musically varied future.

So Sceptic likes Beethoven and rates him as the best composer. Well - maybe for symphonies, his violin concerto and 5th piano but I would hardly rate Fidelio as an Opera worth spending time on.

For Opera look to Mozart, Verdi, Rossini and of course Wagner to name but a few, all in a different league from Beethoven.

For Violin - well Beethoven's Violin concerto is superb, but is it really better than works from Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak etc.? How do you compare these things?

Come to that do I prefer Beethoven's 5th piano over, say Rachmaninof's 2nd and 3rd Piano concertos? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. How would I go about comparing these to, say, Bach's Organ works?

Beethoven's competative piece to Dvorak's Cello concerto is?

The point I am making here, is that whilst Beethoven is one of the all time greatest composers without doubt comparisons are really futile. If I were to be stranded on a Desert Island with a single composers works I might choose Beethoven, but then again I might choose Haydn - there is a lot to be said for being stranded with over 100 symphonies as opposed to 9, only 7 of which are really rated.

final points:

1. The violin is better than the cello.
2. Opera is a purer form of music than the Symphony.
3. The only good composer is a dead composer.
4. Italians write the best Opera's.
5. or not....

[rb122]

"Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger."

Not so. But I'm not surprised that attacking someone's taste in music can cause anger. Especially people who identify themselves with the music they listen too. Frankly, I would never be angry at anyone who said that they detested classical music. Many of my best friends don't like it. For me it is a privelege and a gift my parents gave me to enjoy one of life's rarer pleasures. Learning to appreciate some of the others like fine wine I had to do on my own.

I've met more than a few jazz and even pop musicians. One of the most delightful evenings I ever spent was with Dick Hyman the other guys in his trio, and their wives at a midnight buffet on the Royal Viking Star in 1989 when he was performing there. He invited me to join them when I told him I remembered his recordings from his old days at Command Records. Anybody ever hear of Enoch Light and the Light Brigade? And as much as I enjoyed him and his performance on the ship, I must say that the half dozen or so recordings of his that I own are not nearly as pleasing. He is supposed to be the jazz pianist's pianist but I just don't get it.

" There are things that rock musicians can do that classical musicians cannot"

One thing rock performers sometimes do at a concert that I've never seen any classical musician do is set fire to their instruments. Based on the way they play, had I been in the audience, I'd have opted for them to do that BEFORE the performance.

Well, you are certainly good at pouring water on fires you start, I'll give you that! :)

The fact that people identify themselves with the music they listen to is precisely why they get angry when that music is belittled. When you do so, you are belittling the person.
Some people take offense at that. My opinion is that if you don't like something, you're free to say what you want. That's the point of these boards. If you recall, "A Love Supreme" was my desert island recording and I have never wavered on that. I'd choose it over anything else. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change that one iota, just as your taste wouldn't change if I said I didn't like Beethoven's 9th... of course, that wouldn't be true! But I'd gladly leave it behind if I had to choose.

As for the cello, I don't agree that it's a "better" instrument than the flute but I prefer it. If I had become a classical musician instead of a jazz musician, I would have gravitated to the cello. Such a "human" instrument with a nice wide voice. The guitar in my opinion is the jazz "cello" if you will - several octaves available and predominately in the midrange frequency where the human voice is.

[rb122]

Well, all I can say is at least he tried! With Trane, you either have to accept it on its own terms or reject it out of hand, because what he's expressing on "A Love Supreme" is about as intimate an insight into the mindset of a person through music as I've ever heard. It's uncompromising, and simultaneously inspiring and disturbing. Even without knowing anything about Trane's personal life, it's like that instrument is a conduit into what his life is all about. It's about as personal an expression as you can get.

I'd already heard plenty of Coltrane's stuff before I put "A Love Supreme" on for the first time, and literally I got chills several times while listening to that album. When music becomes that transcendent, then you know it's got meaning. If someone doesn't connect with the music like that, then it's really their misfortune as far as I'm concerned. This intense bond between musician and listener is why "A Love Supreme" is so frequently cited among the greatest jazz albums ever made, even if you can name hundreds of other albums that have better precision, more logical progressions on the solos, more technical virtuosity, etc.

Also, Elvin Jones' drumming on that album is about as perfect and intuitive a rhythm as I've ever heard. That pretty much cemented his stature with me as the quintessential jazz drummer. I got to see him perform a club gig last year and it was just amazing (easily the most inspired rendition of "It Don't Mean A Thing" that I've ever heard). Gonna see McCoy Tyner as well in a couple of weeks.

It's obvious to me that you could wax eloquently for hours on this music as you have hit on some very real truths. When the listener can understand this music as a personal, naked statement of emotion rather than merely as notes on a page or in the air, they are well on their way to understanding what music is for me and what it was for Trane. When musicians (jazz musicians, anyway) stop searching and become complacent (or as we say, they become content with the sound of their own voice), the music stagnates. When we want to make a technical statement, the music stagnates. Without the emotion behind the music - and I mean HIGH emotional content, night after night after night - the music may as well have been left unplayed.

With the musicians I play with, we can always tell when one of us has a bad night. It's not flubbed notes, missed chords or timing errors. It's when we simply have nothing to say. Unfortunately, we keep saying nothing - gotta finish the gig and get paid! :). When we have nothing to say, we are emotionally not in the room. In that sense, it's simpler to play classical music. The notes are there for us to read and we are not required to bring anything to the table other than our technical ability. That certainly isn't simple but in my mind it's a lot more difficult when you are soloing and all eyes and ears are on YOU alone...and you play and play and play and emotionally move not a soul.

BTW, DMK's statement about classical players not being able to sustain a simple improvised solo over changes is spot on. They can sometimes play the notes but they aren't saying anything as I mentioned above. It's very difficult. On the other hand, the classical guitarists I know can play a lot of that things I would need about two years of constant practice to master! :) That said, there is an abundance of talent and skill in most all different forms of music. Whether we appreciate it or not, even rock music requires skill. As a guitarist, I can tell when another player has the tools, both technically and emotionally. The Jimmys (Jimis ?) Page and Hendrix can teach the world a thing or two about playing the guitar! There are others.

[skeptic]

" When we have nothing to say, we are emotionally not in the room. In that sense, it's simpler to play classical music. The notes are there for us to read and we are not required to bring anything to the table other than our technical ability."

You are entitled to your opinion of course but my opinion is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[skeptic]

One of my favorite kinds of music is Flamenco. I'll bet you wouldn't have guessed it. It's best when it's heard live. Not just the guitar, the whole thing. I heard some live in Madrid and it was wonderful. Madrid is a town that doesn't get going until about 10 PM. You go down into these little basement cafes, buy a pitcher of sangria (that's the cover charge) and sit for hours absorbed by the singers, the dancers, the castinets, the costumes, and yes of course the guitars. I've also seen it in San Juan with a Spanish troup using recorded music which greatly diminished it. Live and intimate is best. And I always look for recordings by Carlos Montoya.

But don't sell classical guitar short. It wasn't just for the latin/hispanic community either. Although I of course have a lot of guitar recordings of Granados, Villa Lobos, and Albeniz among others, there are many great transcriptions for guitar of music by Bach, Schubert, and even Paganini. Vivaldi taught and wrote for guitar. And of course, no collection of guitar music is complete without at least one recording of the Rodrigo Concierto de Aranjuez, possibly the greatest piece of music written for guitar. (I have both vinyl and cd recordings of Siegfried Behrend's recording with the Berliner Philharmoniker on DG.)

The acoustic guitar is a surprisingly difficult instrument to reproduce accurately on recordings and many seemingly good sound systems fall short in this regard. A fine guitar has a wonderful tone with rich sonorous undertones and close miking picks up the sound of fingers on the strings before and after they are plucked. (Not the equal of a violin but still a very good instrument.) And while somewhere down in my vinyl collection, I've got a recording or two of Chet Atkins, most pop and rock guitarists who play the dreaded electric guitar produce IMO an awful sound which at best is akin to Coca Cola versus fine Bordeaux when you get the real thing.

[skeptic]

You are fairly smart. Why don't you post more often?

"Beethoven's competative piece to Dvorak's Cello concerto is?"

There isn't any. Beethoven or anyone else. The Dvorak may be the greatest concerto ever written for any intrument. I like the Rostropovich recording best. Brahms came the closest but he needed a violin in there too. The Piatagorsky/Heifetz recording is by far my favorite of the Brahms double.

"Come to that do I prefer Beethoven's 5th piano over, say Rachmaninof's 2nd and 3rd Piano concertos? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. How would I go about comparing these to, say, Bach's Organ works?"

Agreed


"1. The violin is better than the cello."

Agreed. But the cello is still a great instrument.

" 2. Opera is a purer form of music than the Symphony."

I'll have to think about this one but a strong arguement can be made for it.

"3. The only good composer is a dead composer."

I can't think of one good living one right now. Of course, that wasn't true in the past.

"4. Italians write the best Opera's."

Absolutely one hundred percent correct. But they have a big advantage. Their language is music to the ears to begin with. German on the other hand has two strikes against it even before the first words are sung. (How could you have omitted Puccini from your all time opera greatest composers?)

"5. or not...."

NO Comment!

"There is no right and wrong when it comes to music - except in the eye of the individual beholder. What is music to my ears to white noise to another. Good."

Love of classical music is an acquired taste. In the McDonalds Coca Cola world, it is becoming exceedingly rare. However, if it weren't for my love of classical music, I would have no interest in sound reproduction as there would be no value IMO of accurately reproducing anything else.

"With that kind of variation of tastes we are assured a bright and musically varied future."

Don't be too sure classical music isn't dying. Schools no longer have funds for music appreciation classes. This segment of the market may be disappearing. If all of the great oil paintings in the world disappeared, there would still be cartoons. But as far as fine art was concerned, it would be dead. Take it while you still can.

[rb122]

" When we have nothing to say, we are emotionally not in the room. In that sense, it's simpler to play classical music. The notes are there for us to read and we are not required to bring anything to the table other than our technical ability."

You are entitled to your opinion of course but my opinion is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

No one knows what they are talking about unless they agree with you, eh? As a result, I think your POV goes well beyond elitism and into total self-absorption. But that's just my opinion, of course. I stand firmly by what I posted.

[jbangelfish]

We've hashed this around a few times and it's safe to say that not all of us will agree 100% of the time and some of us can never agree. I guess that's the beauty of human nature. At least we all love music in some form and can be very passionate as to why. I like the emotion that people can bring to a song whether they wrote it or not. Ray Charles sang and played with great emotion and he could be a joy to listen to. When music is so beautiful that it brings tears to your eyes or gives you goosebumps, that is what it's all about. Other music may make you happy, sad, make you feel like dancing or at the very least, tapping your foot.
Giving superiority to any genre is not so easy for me, classical is certainly complex and can be beautiful but many people hate it. Not much can be done about that I guess. I admire the new artists for being creative and for putting their emotion into their work while at the same time, putting on a very pleasant and listenable performance. Hearing someone or some orchestra play a very old classical piece can also be a very pleasant experience but my admiration for the performance is not the same as if they had written the piece. Can't help it.
Choosing one composer to listen to in the desert isle scenario, don't think I can do it. I'd give the most credit to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin, in that order for being the original creative geniuses and maybe the founding father's of classical music and I think their influence made for other creative geniuses right up to the present. Skeptic will surely disagree with that and that's fine. This is purely opinion.
If one instrument can be superior over all others, it must be the pipe organ. I don't think that there is a more complex instrument unless you want to include computer and electronic generated sounds which basically have no limit. The Aeolean/Skinner organ that Virgil Fox played for nearly 40 years has 10,000 pipes and is certainly an impressive instrument. Mr Fox to me was the greatest interpreter of music written for the pipe organ and the most talented organist of all time. I guess this doesn't mean that he was but he was to me.
I have an LP of his from the 70's entitled "Heavy Organ" which is a live album and I'm not really fond of live albums. There is some crowd noise that I'd rather not hear unless I'm there. It is interesting to hear what he has to say between each piece and at one point he speaks about music interpretation. He says there are those who say that the classics are not to be interpreted and should only be played exactly as they were written and goes on to say that these people lack talent and are full of crap. His interpretations of Bach and others are great performances in my view and probably more difficult than they were meant to be. I just found it interesting to hear what he had to say and he was certainly an extremely talented and gifted performer. What does anyone think about the interpretation view?
Bill

[skeptic]

You are as entitled as anyone to be 100% wrong.

[jbangelfish]

But who was this for?

[DMK]

"As someone who owns maybe two versions of my favorites and only one of other things I enjoy, please explain to me why I should own several."

I don't know that you should. For me though, it's different.

It might interest you to know that I deliberately sprang for the extra $10 to buy the deluxe version of "A Love Supreme" so that I could get more than one point of view of it, even if it was from the same musician. One of the things about music is the way the performer sees it. Sometimes one performer will see something no other performer has done before. And you are always looking out for something more interesting. I also own the Von Karajan redcordings of the Beethoven symphonies but mine are on CD. It's the versions recorded in the early 1960s. I think I read somewhere he recorded 4 different sets. I have another full set of the Beethoven on DG vinyl but I can't remember by who. I've got another full set on cd with Walter and several of those including the 4th, 5th, and 9th on vinyl. I'd bet I've got at least 15 different recordings of the 9th between cds and vinyls. Each has something different to offer although believe it or not, on the whole, the Von Karajan set is my favorite. I am not familiar with the Norrington recordings but wish I at least heard some of them. Is that the one with the London Symphony Players? If it is it got rave reviews. Of course, the best of all worlds is to have your favorite performances on the best sounding recordings. But life is not always so accomodating. Tonight I heard Artur Rubenstein's recording of the Greig piano concerto he recorded in 1961. Who thought when I first owned and heard that recording on vinyl in 1968 I would be listening to it on cd 35 years later. It's still a wonderful recording and performance. I just wish I could find a cd of Martha Argerich playing it. I'm sure it would be a killer too.

Believe it or not, I have access to a vast collection of jazz and pop and yes even rock recordings. It's not that I don't own them. It's just that I don't enjoy them nearly as much. And then there are many I don't much enjoy hearing at all.

Yes, the Norrington set is with the London Classical players, playing period instruments. It's a good set but different from the von Karajan version. Tempi is altered, pitch is A=430 which I find odd but maybe it isn't. I can't really comment on why I prefer the DG von Karajan but it just sounds more "right" to me.

[DMK]

But who was this for?

It was for all of us, interchangeably depending on who disagrees with him at that particular moment. :). I think it was for RB this time! He was being controversial.

[RGA]

It was for all of us, interchangeably depending on who disagrees with him at that particular moment. :). I think it was for RB this time! He was being controversial.

LOL, yes it's a wonder for someone to think they're so brilliant not to have learnt modesty or read Dr. Faustus. I'm amazed with all his money and self proclaimed god-like (forget the like) ability that he even wastes his time disccussing anything with the lowly dregs on these boards. Of course if you have a superiority complex then it makes sense.

But at least you can't say there is any grey area in his views. I love black and white thinkers.

[maxg]

"You are fairly smart. Why don't you post more often?"


I'll assume for the sake of it that that was not a sarcastic comment although it comes across as patronizing however it was meant.


"Beethoven's competative piece to Dvorak's Cello concerto is?"

There isn't any. Beethoven or anyone else. The Dvorak may be the greatest concerto ever written for any intrument. I like the Rostropovich recording best. Brahms came the closest but he needed a violin in there too. The Piatagorsky/Heifetz recording is by far my favorite of the Brahms double.


The greatest concerto ever written for any instrument....that is a broard sweep of a statement. How do you measure these things? Why are we looking at classical music like it is a competative sport here? Ah well - each to their own I suppose.


"Come to that do I prefer Beethoven's 5th piano over, say Rachmaninof's 2nd and 3rd Piano concertos? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. How would I go about comparing these to, say, Bach's Organ works?"

Agreed


That is a relief - I was beginning to think you had lost it completely...


"1. The violin is better than the cello."

Agreed. But the cello is still a great instrument.

" 2. Opera is a purer form of music than the Symphony."

I'll have to think about this one but a strong arguement can be made for it.

"3. The only good composer is a dead composer."

I can't think of one good living one right now. Of course, that wasn't true in the past.

"4. Italians write the best Opera's."

Absolutely one hundred percent correct. But they have a big advantage. Their language is music to the ears to begin with. German on the other hand has two strikes against it even before the first words are sung. (How could you have omitted Puccini from your all time opera greatest composers?)

"5. or not...."

NO Comment!


Actually all of the above comments were tongue in cheek, although there may be grains of truth in each of them. You are correct on the Puccini - one of the problems of trying to summarise 400 years of classical music into a post, although I have a weakness for both Verdi and Rossini more.


"There is no right and wrong when it comes to music - except in the eye of the individual beholder. What is music to my ears to white noise to another. Good."

Love of classical music is an acquired taste. In the McDonalds Coca Cola world, it is becoming exceedingly rare. However, if it weren't for my love of classical music, I would have no interest in sound reproduction as there would be no value IMO of accurately reproducing anything else.


I'm not sure it is really more rare now that it has ever been, except in certain geographical areas where, at times, Opera was THE major form of entertainment. Interesting side note : Whilst on holiday in Rome we were awoken in the early hours by workmen opposite the hotel on a building site, not by their machines, but by their singing various arias from Verdi (I kid you not). They werent too shabby either. Kinda restores your faith....


"With that kind of variation of tastes we are assured a bright and musically varied future."

"Don't be too sure classical music isn't dying. Schools no longer have funds for music appreciation classes. This segment of the market may be disappearing. If all of the great oil paintings in the world disappeared, there would still be cartoons. But as far as fine art was concerned, it would be dead. Take it while you still can."


I dont know what the situation is in the US as I live in Greece. Over here music has always been taught in private music schools anyway and not in the mainstream. In fact next to my office is a music school that is generally packed with a cacophony of kids in the process of mastering and murdering a variety of classical pieces. Fortunately they do not open their doors till the afternoon.

[rb122]

You are as entitled as anyone to be 100% wrong.

Well, I at least appreciate the fact that you don't hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself! But what happened to your admonishment to others about shooting the messenger when you have no valid argument against the message?

[rb122]

It was for all of us, interchangeably depending on who disagrees with him at that particular moment. :). I think it was for RB this time! He was being controversial.

I should think he would enjoy a little spirited debate and controversy. It's not as if he doesn't bring more than his share to this little table. If opinions could ever be "wrong", I'm going to have to come up with some doozies to catch up with him!

What I find truly heartbreaking is that when folks like Skeptic (correctly in my opinion) complain about the pending death of classical music, they don't realize that they themselves are pounding the nails in the coffin. By elevating classical music to something that transcends the average Joe and making it in his own words an elitist pursuit, it loses its appeal and validity to the mainstream. RGA made reference to the Dreyfus movie and THAT is the way to teach classical music appreciation, not to make it seem as though only educated snobs can understand it. Keep it simple to start and make it relevant and then you can move on to more complex material. Perhaps Skeptic WANTS to kill it which would make it even more of an elitist pursuit, I don't know.

I recall the Miller Lite beer commercial with jazz baritonist/tubaist Howard Johnson from several years ago. He was using "jazzspeak" to describe how he felt about the beer and he had a (white) interpreter. Everyone thought it was funny but I didn't. It depicted jazz as something you couldn't understand without someone to help out and it made it "jivey" and stupid. But the last thing I'd ever say to someone is that jazz is an "elitist pursuit". That would be the easiest way to turn someone off. Classical is dying and people like Skeptic are partially to blame, IMHO.

[rb122]

LOL, yes it's a wonder for someone to think they're so brilliant not to have learnt modesty or read Dr. Faustus. I'm amazed with all his money and self proclaimed god-like (forget the like) ability that he even wastes his time disccussing anything with the lowly dregs on these boards. Of course if you have a superiority complex then it makes sense.

But at least you can't say there is any grey area in his views. I love black and white thinkers.

I prefer gray thinkers. It tends to foster meaningful dialogue. And as bizarre as most of Skeptic's views on music are, black and white views aren't teaching him anything. But he does have the courage of his convictions. OTOH, he's now trying to kill off the audio industry along with the classical music industry because I've just read that classical is the only music worthy of accurate audio reproduction, according to Skeptic. Thankfully, that is far from the truth.

[RGA]

rb122

You bring up a HUGE point about teching classical music that I raised but didn't realize it. What Dreyfuss discovered when teaching classical music was that NO ONE could relate to the music. One reason why English Literature and Social Studies rank at the bottom of preferences for students is that student's think who the hell cares about something that happened 50 years ago let alone 300-500 years ago. I'm not a music teacher but the same thing applies.

Why do you think that most band teachers, at least in Canada, have something recognisable to modern audiences. For instance you're bound to hear one of John Williams movie themes such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars or Superman etc thrown into the student's playing because THEY ALL WANT TO PLAY it and the audience, Skeptic and purists aside, all want to hear it.

The reason these subjects fail students - not the other way around - is because we give them Social studies like we force brussel sprouts on people who hate brussel sprouts. We say stupid things like History is important because without a knowledge of history you're doomed to repeat it. Well we know it and we repeat it and kids see this and know the statements are BS.

To get interest in CLASSICAL music he pulled out all the current ROCK music that basically STEALS everything it can get from classical. This will then have a "Cool" factor perhaps where the teacher can present two passages and the class can hear for themselves what has been done to the piece.

This does not mean they're going to dump their Aerosmith collection for Verdi but they may come to appreciate, value or respect Verdi and not be put off to the idea of trying those classical buying for beginners from Naxos.

Just like rock there is a lot of classical that I simply don't like...and people that listen to classical who say they hate it often don't give it much of a chance - they relegate it to elevator Muzak.

I liked the end of that movie too where he had his completed little opus with all the traditional classical instruments and then some electric guitar, drums etc integrated into it. The movie was sentimental smaltz in the best possible light - and despite it's flaws I liked the film points about where music is valued compared to high school football. Pretty sad commentary.

[Woochifer]

You bring up a HUGE point about teching classical music that I raised but didn't realize it. What Dreyfuss discovered when teaching classical music was that NO ONE could relate to the music. One reason why English Literature and Social Studies rank at the bottom of preferences for students is that student's think who the hell cares about something that happened 50 years ago let alone 300-500 years ago. I'm not a music teacher but the same thing applies.

Why do you think that most band teachers, at least in Canada, have something recognisable to modern audiences. For instance you're bound to hear one of John Williams movie themes such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars or Superman etc thrown into the student's playing because THEY ALL WANT TO PLAY it and the audience, Skeptic and purists aside, all want to hear it.

I think it depends on the contemporary context. When I was in an orchestra, we always preferred to play the movie themes because we related to it and we liked it. Sure, the Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi pieces were more challenging and still fun to play, but for those of us who didn't go onto major in musicology or play professionally, we got the most joy out of playing more recent stuff like the John Williams marches. But, at the same time I think that people develop a broader range of music taste as they get older. Teenagers listen to certain types of music often for the image, coolness, and peer pressure aspects. Listening to anything more than 10 years old just conveys an aura of geekiness that doesn't play well with teenagers. I didn't start listening to jazz until I got to college, but now that comprises about half of my listening. So, it does evolve.


To get interest in CLASSICAL music he pulled out all the current ROCK music that basically STEALS everything it can get from classical. This will then have a "Cool" factor perhaps where the teacher can present two passages and the class can hear for themselves what has been done to the piece.

This does not mean they're going to dump their Aerosmith collection for Verdi but they may come to appreciate, value or respect Verdi and not be put off to the idea of trying those classical buying for beginners from Naxos.

There's a fine line between keeping it contemporary and keeping it cool. In the late-70s, we got stuck playing a piece called "Disco Strings" right at the time that the disco backlash was hitting high gear. We hated the piece and by the time we played it for a school assembly, the boos from the audience drowned us out throughout from the mention of the word "disco" onward. If a high school orchestra transcribed and arranged an overplayed Top 10 song from last year, you'd probably get a similar negative reaction.

And keep in mind that even professional orchestral players branch out and listen to other stuff. When the San Francisco Symphony was approached to perform a series of concerts with Metallica about four years ago, several of the orchestra members stated that they were long-time fans and listened to Metallica regularly, and of course loved the opportunity to do a full tilt rock concert with the band. Those concerts were later released on DVD and CD.

[skeptic]

" When I was in an orchestra, we always preferred to play the movie themes because we related to it and we liked it. Sure, the Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi pieces were more challenging and still fun to play, but for those of us who didn't go onto major in musicology or play professionally, we got the most joy out of playing more recent stuff like the John Williams marches"

Children prefer reading comic books to novels. Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. In other words it what is called THE DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY. Many people don't like that idea. They don't like thinking that they never developed their minds beyond the tastes of an adolescent. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....

[Woochifer]

Children prefer reading comic books to novels. Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. In other words it what is called THE DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY. Many people don't like that idea. They don't like thinking that they never developed their minds beyond the tastes of an adolescent. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....

And if you bothered to read the rest of the paragraph that you quoted, you'd find that I addressed those exact topics. Our tastes expand and evolve as we get older. At what point do I advocate ONLY playing simple, accessible music? I find nothing wrong with playing something fun to go along with the more challenging pieces. It's those self-righteous music teachers that have some kind of ideological crusade against modern music that make learning instrumental music painful drudgery, and drive music students away from learning how to play period. We know that vegetables are good for us, but I see nothing wrong with having dessert as well. I'm sure that even you will occasionally indulge in trivialities just because they're fun.

Go ahead and believe that society's going all to pot because they don't share your world view, but the reality is that art evolves, music evolves, life goes on, genres like jazz that were once derided as vulgar abominations become widely acknowledged as essential contributions to the arts. The world survived jazz, it survived rock and roll, it survived hip hop, and it will survive the next emergent music development that alienates the ears of older generations. You're welcome to believe what you want to about how ignorant and dumb the rest of society is, but unless you plan to completely cloister yourself in your own hermetic world, you're part of it.

[E-Stat]

Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. .. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....
Gee, some might suggest that of folks who believe that AR-9s and Cit 11s represent anything even approaching state of the art in audio today. I'm not sure if they could appreciate HP's system or not given the vast performance gulf.

rw

[skeptic]

It took many years and a lot of tweeking to get those AR9s to sound the way I wanted them to. When I first owned them they were disappointing. In fact they would have been very disappointing had I paid more than $500 for them new. Now they sound far better than I ever expected.

[DMK]

" When I was in an orchestra, we always preferred to play the movie themes because we related to it and we liked it. Sure, the Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi pieces were more challenging and still fun to play, but for those of us who didn't go onto major in musicology or play professionally, we got the most joy out of playing more recent stuff like the John Williams marches"

Children prefer reading comic books to novels. Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. In other words it what is called THE DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY. Many people don't like that idea. They don't like thinking that they never developed their minds beyond the tastes of an adolescent. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....

So what's your issue with modern classical music such as Shostakovich, Cage, Penderecki, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc? Classical music is evolving. ALL music evolves. There can never be another Golden Age of Classical where all the music sounds like Bach or Beethoven. Beethoven was an evolution of Bach and Mahler an extension of LVB and so on. Over 300+ years, your own favorite music has evolved to the point where you no longer recognize it. Do you consider Peter Ruzicka's string quartets music? Likely not. How about Edgard Varese? Do you enjoy the poignancy of Steve Reich's "Different Trains" with the Kronos string quartet? How about Terry Riley's "In C"? Anything by Phil Glass strike your fancy? Or how about even more avant garde composers such as John Zorn, Alvin Lucier or Mark Applebaum?

Most listeners simply refuse to live in the past as you do. Granted, a lot of people prefer the simpler forms of music such as rock... and let me tell you, a "trained" voice can't do most of the things rock singers can do. Dispute that if you can. Again, it's emotion rather than technique. The best musicians have a nice mix of technique and emotion but if I have to choose, I usually choose the latter. I may marvel at the facility of the technician but I generally find it less musical. I prefer creativity rather than being at the whim of the composer. But I enjoy both. With all due respect, perhaps it's YOU who have been dumbed down. Traditional classical music is wonderful and everything you describe it to be with the exception of all the comparisons you make to other musics. It is what it is, no more and no less. And what it is is another form of this fantastic stuff we call music. It is no better nor worse than anything else.

You'd cringe if you ever saw my music collection. The Ramones sit proudly next to Rachmaninov, Bach sits next to Bad Brains and Mahler snuggles up to bluesman Taj Mahal and is just a breath away from shock rocker Marilyn Manson and avant jazz trumpeter Raphe Malik. Why should I separate them? It's all music and it's all good. Whether YOU like it or not! Sorry, but you aren't allowed to dictate what is and isn't music to anyone but yourself. Face it, Skeptic - you're an old man in a young world. Same with me. But I choose to embrace the new with the old because both have a lot on offer. I would be cheating myself otherwise.

[DMK]

And if you bothered to read the rest of the paragraph that you quoted, you'd find that I addressed those exact topics. Our tastes expand and evolve as we get older. At what point do I advocate ONLY playing simple, accessible music? I find nothing wrong with playing something fun to go along with the more challenging pieces. It's those self-righteous music teachers that have some kind of ideological crusade against modern music that make learning instrumental music painful drudgery, and drive music students away from learning how to play period. We know that vegetables are good for us, but I see nothing wrong with having dessert as well. I'm sure that even you will occasionally indulge in trivialities just because they're fun.

Go ahead and believe that society's going all to pot because they don't share your world view, but the reality is that art evolves, music evolves, life goes on, genres like jazz that were once derided as vulgar abominations become widely acknowledged as essential contributions to the arts. The world survived jazz, it survived rock and roll, it survived hip hop, and it will survive the next emergent music development that alienates the ears of older generations. You're welcome to believe what you want to about how ignorant and dumb the rest of society is, but unless you plan to completely cloister yourself in your own hermetic world, you're part of it.

When I posted my response to Skeptic, I missed this one - not sure how. Good point, and one I tried to make but did less well, about having dessert with the "good food". Not everyone that listens to rock is a moron. Not even everyone that ONLY listens to rock. The music is fun, exciting, visceral, and often thought provoking. And I'm not sure the world is ignorant and dumb. I think it's faster paced... less free time to explore. I do so because music is my one and only passion. I like to hear new things. If I had to listen to only classical, I'd go bonkers! I could probably listen to only jazz but even so, I'd feel somewhat cheated.

You hit the nail on the head with your second to last sentence. Classical lovers thought early jazz was for idiots who thought swing was dumb who couldn't make any sense out of bebop who thought rock was only for stupid teenagers who hated hard rock who laughed at punk who despised disco who can't stand rap and on it will go forever. I wouldn't want it any other way. When all the world shares one simple personality, we can pick our one form of music.

[skeptic]

In a world gone insane with noise, music must bring me something beautiful but if it is not harmonious, it must at least be interesting. In an analogy with literature, pop music is like the pulp fiction the hack writers turn out several at a time which churns on the conrner news stands next to the girlie magazines. So called music which resembles little more that a random selection of tones without direction or purpose holds little interest for me as well. The thing about great music is that you not only can enjoy it over a lifetime, but far from getting bored with it, it becomes more interesting as you grow older and see more in it each time discovering nuances you didn't notice before. As for the performers, those who took a lifetime to study their instruments, music from both an historical and technical point of view, and achieve a command of it where technical considerations are secondary because they have been completely conquered, and the thoughtful interpretation of the composer's intent becomes the means of effective communication from the composer to the listener, create a sublime appreciation for music's true value. It speaks for itself and doesn't need to be hyped and I don't have to be told by someone else that it is something to be savored and treasured. The performer becomes merely a vehicle for this communication. The cheap commercial exploit of poorly conceived, poorly performed so called music is of no interest to me. You can call that anything you like. I don't care. I don't expect other people to see the world the way I do. I just offer my point of view and you can take it or leave it.

[RGA]

You can call that anything you like. I don't care. I don't expect other people to see the world the way I do. I just offer my point of view and you can take it or leave it.

It would be nice to believe this but you do expect people see the world the same way you do. We're all 100% wrong after all.

Your reference to literature makes more sense to me though. There is canonized literature that gets studied to the ends of the earth and then you have those doled out pop novels like this week's Britny Spears - a little of the old T and A has replaced a lot of music - possibly due to the advent of MTV - sex sells. The PACE of society has increased to fast food fast cars that can't drive fast because of the conjested roads, everyone is in such a bloody hurry they can't even wait to make a phone call. This does not make people stupid it makes their pleasure time 40 minutes (Maybe) a day.

Woochifer's comment is apt that older people generally shift their tastes and appreciate classical music. Perhaps it's because they have time to sit back and listen to a 3hours worth of music than 8minutes while they're rushing out the door to a rat race job they don't like. Ahh Death of a Salesman applies to this too.

Rock music typically has shoort duration 3 minutes give or take a minute. Movies like Armageddon come out that have not a single steady shot last longer than 2 or 3 minutes and somehting has to explode or a punchline met. Attention spans have decreased. As a student teacher I have gone into grade 7 and 2 classrooms and I have been stunned at the environment they're learning in as compared to when I went to school. ADHD? The question seems who hasn't got it?

I think a lot depends on WHERE in the world you live. I grew up in Vancouver BC a fairly large met city though nothing like a major US city. Moving to the island the pace is much slower. A year later I go back to Vancouver for a visit and felt like a country bumpkin in awe at the hurry to get nowhere.

But I would like to use your music stance and project it to movies just for a moment not as a direct analogy. Horror films would be reduced to the low man on the totem pole because generally speaking it has the least to offer as a genre. If I love the art film(which I do) when I see some Friday the 13th retread for the 50th time and given out my 50th zero star rating I could start to grumble at the entire genre of horror. Especially if these were the first 50 horror films I watched. A lot of people HATE classical music but if you ask many of these people they could not even tell you which piece or from whom they didn't like.

For the artsy people in the film world that hate horror films I like to offer up Nosferatu(The original or 1979 version), or Dawn of the Dead. The latter is one of if not the most gory films of all time horrifying and disgusting complete with decapitations, disembowelments, intestines splattered on the floor, arms being ripped off the list goes on and on. And nevertheless it's one of the best social commentaries on consumerism in America and a commentary on human nature at its core. And of course hollywood is remaking it this March and will probably take out the commentary and just ritz it up for new audiences.

The point of that was that different countries develop their own music from their heritage and i can't see how music can be looked at out of context. Gaelic music is a part of the heritage along with Canadian Folk music that speakes more to many Canadians or Welsh people than anything out of Italy or France. There is great music from Latin countries and from Africa that I may not get. Just as certain verbiage or humour goes over people's head if they're not from the country.

Rock music developed against the machine of government and exploded in the 60s largely due to a rather tyranical American government that was hopelessly out of touch with a large segment of people. When they continually try and propagandize their people to think and act a certain way you get a revolt. Peace revolts with music that had lyrics to fight their government. Look at the long list of Anti-Vietnam songs that came out. You simply cannot use Italian classical music when there are no words or the words are not in English to make points about the Vietnam War. The point was to fight back against the machine.

That is largely what MUSIC has turned into in the world of Rock and pop. Jackson Browne as one example is usually trying to get his message out through music. Will his music have the staying power of Beethoven? That is highly doubtful...but there is nothing wrong with the here and now...just as one of my English teachers once said "Nothing wrong with a pulp novel or any mystery novel - it's like eye candy you read once and it's done...the great books you go back and read and get things out of it again and again.

So on that mark Classical music is probably superior - add to the fact that most rock music lifts everything from classical and Jazz anyway is kind of telling. That however doesn't mean that some rock will last well into the future or isn't FAR more moving to present day audiences than any classical music could ever hope to achieve. And I don't mean sales here. I think of the impact that John Lennon's Imagine or power to the people must have had - and even today Sarah McLachlan's Angel is used heavily at funerals. Linda McCartney's for a start.

I think the mistake made is placing classical music expectations on rock. Completely different thing. You look at a horror movie and you don't go in expecting Lawrence of Arabia production values nor do you go in expecting great performances or a terribly complex script or for that matter for the plot to be even plausable. The only thing a horror/thriller needs to do is serve to perform as a roller coster. John Carpenter's Halloween scared me then it did it's job that it set out to do and it gets top marks. The sequals made me want to stick the knife in my own brain then it failed and gets the worst marks.

Even people like Gene Siskel that I gathered didn't care for Horror films could at least differentiate from a good one and a bad one. And if the critic could not at least do that - then he/she should not be a critic. Same for books and IMO same for music.

[E-Stat]

In a world gone insane with noise, music must bring me something beautiful but if it is not harmonious, it must at least be interesting... So called music which resembles little more that a random selection of tones without direction or purpose holds little interest for me as well. The thing about great music is that you not only can enjoy it over a lifetime, but far from getting bored with it, it becomes more interesting as you grow older and see more in it each time discovering nuances you didn't notice before..
At age 47, I am not too terribly different from you. While I prefer Sergei, Aaron, and Maurice to Ludwig, I do very much relate to complex musical scores. In fact, I believe that I am even more of a detail junkie than you. I am not satisfied with the limited capabilities of zip cord and RS interconnects. Having heard several very high resolution systems that defy simplistic evaluation criteria, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about said. Especially when they have never experienced what I have. Unlike you, however, I do find complexity in a number of popular musical veins. Such that bears repeating and reveals more detail with every experience.

rw

[Woochifer]

So on that mark Classical music is probably superior - add to the fact that most rock music lifts everything from classical and Jazz anyway is kind of telling. That however doesn't mean that some rock will last well into the future or isn't FAR more moving to present day audiences than any classical music could ever hope to achieve. And I don't mean sales here. I think of the impact that John Lennon's Imagine or power to the people must have had - and even today Sarah McLachlan's Angel is used heavily at funerals. Linda McCartney's for a start.

I don't know if you can call it superior out of hand, it just depends on what your own expectations are. The thing about musical evolution is that every genre exhausts its vocabulary to a point that a totally new set of musical structures need to be created. Baroque, romantic period, swing, bebop, fusion, prog rock, new wave, punk, etc. -- all of these genres at some point were supplanted because continued evolution in music necessitated going outside of the prevailing genre in order to keep music in general from stagnating.

If anything, the main contribution that classical music made to rock music is in the timing and key structure, since almost all pop music follows the western scaling that we take for granted but is not followed at all in some other world music forms (just listen to music that originates out of the Middle East -- completely different approach to steps between notes). Rock's main evolutionary precedent though is from American blues. Keep in mind that in the early days, bands like Led Zeppelin were called "heavy blues". The main contribution that jazz makes is in the improvisation, but rock music is much more structured.


I think the mistake made is placing classical music expectations on rock. Completely different thing. You look at a horror movie and you don't go in expecting Lawrence of Arabia production values nor do you go in expecting great performances or a terribly complex script or for that matter for the plot to be even plausable. The only thing a horror/thriller needs to do is serve to perform as a roller coster. John Carpenter's Halloween scared me then it did it's job that it set out to do and it gets top marks. The sequals made me want to stick the knife in my own brain then it failed and gets the worst marks.

Even people like Gene Siskel that I gathered didn't care for Horror films could at least differentiate from a good one and a bad one. And if the critic could not at least do that - then he/she should not be a critic. Same for books and IMO same for music.

That's a very common pitfall for movie critics -- they have a fixed set of expectations or preferences and don't waver from that in their ratings. Even if they don't like specific genres, I think a film critic has to at least understand them. Just as an example, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was one of the most widely acclaimed films a few years ago, yet so many of the reviews that I read displayed an unbelievable ignorance of its roots, which is in the Chinese "wu xia" stories. The reason why a lot of critics even bothered to review the movie was because of Ang Lee's art house pedigree. Had that film NOT been directed by Ang Lee, it probably would've been dismissed in much the same way that most American critics dismiss other films from overseas that features martial arts. Ironically, Crouching Tiger was a flop in Asia, with some critics over there calling it boring, derivative, and unoriginal. And to a large degree, anyone who's a wu xia movie junkie will be very familiar with all of the elements in that film. It adds a higher level of production value, but nothing new with regard to character archetypes and story elements.

Out here in SF, I think we got the absolute worst group of film critics anywhere in the country. I can't name one that I trust or respect for their depth of knowledge. The worst of these critics is on a crusade to pull Hollywood back to the Golden Age, and will pretty much slam any violent movie that doesn't star Russell Crowe or Tom Cruise, or any movie that depicts creatures or aliens. So, of course she goes out of her way to dismiss LOTR as nothing more than a video game, yet any movie that resembles a 50s Doris Day comedy, she will wax poetic about no matter how lame it actually is. It's when critics of any kind treat their reviews as a soapbox for their narrow preferences that they lose all credibility with me.

I actually liked both Siskel and Ebert, not necessarily because of their TV show but because they really show their depth of knowledge about a wide range of films in their print reviews and Q&A columns. Michael Wilmington, Gene Siskel's successor at the Chicago Tribune, I regard as one of the most knowledgeable film critics anywhere. He's more apt to like a film than not, but his reviews are probably about as thorough and well prepared as any that I normally read. If a film is based on a novel or short story, he will read it before reviewing the movie so he can make note of the origins. And he's one of the few critics that understands and appreciates genre pics, like horror and martial arts.

[RGA]

Woochifer

Well this thread has really strayed from cartridges :D

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.

Some films can be reviewed and some like to be anayzed and re-analyzed and over-analyzed. Not unlike a good poem that once analyzed ends up being less liked after the process.

My favorite movie is not hard to discern from my avatar. I'm not going to say best because these terms are subjective since best lists even in the high brow community don't have the exact same films on them. But, I was worried that when I started down my History minor focussing on Germany through the war (3 courses worth) that my favorite film would take some heat - and I'd like it less. Turns out the reverse happened because I found some things of minor intrigue that most moviegoers and critics would never key in on.

In fact Schindler's List takes a hit from many critics toward the end of the picture that I think is the strongest part of the film. Having the luxury of reading the Keneally novel and other arguements of popular opinion in Germany at the time allows me to know what changes to history were made, why they made them and how well it works. Though I still loved the film without ANY of that prior knowledge because it wasn't truly necessary.

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.

I was thinking of starting a site for film criticism - more like reviewing as a hobby. Look at James Berardinelli. His film history is weak but that's ok...he's young and working at catching up.

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. :rolleyes:

[rb122]

In a world gone insane with noise, music must bring me something beautiful but if it is not harmonious, it must at least be interesting. In an analogy with literature, pop music is like the pulp fiction the hack writers turn out several at a time which churns on the conrner news stands next to the girlie magazines. So called music which resembles little more that a random selection of tones without direction or purpose holds little interest for me as well. The thing about great music is that you not only can enjoy it over a lifetime, but far from getting bored with it, it becomes more interesting as you grow older and see more in it each time discovering nuances you didn't notice before. As for the performers, those who took a lifetime to study their instruments, music from both an historical and technical point of view, and achieve a command of it where technical considerations are secondary because they have been completely conquered, and the thoughtful interpretation of the composer's intent becomes the means of effective communication from the composer to the listener, create a sublime appreciation for music's true value. It speaks for itself and doesn't need to be hyped and I don't have to be told by someone else that it is something to be savored and treasured. The performer becomes merely a vehicle for this communication. The cheap commercial exploit of poorly conceived, poorly performed so called music is of no interest to me. You can call that anything you like. I don't care. I don't expect other people to see the world the way I do. I just offer my point of view and you can take it or leave it.

Perhaps you don't expect others to see the world as you do but you do denigrate those that don't. If your posts are any indication, you believe yourself superior to others simply because you love classical music and hate rock. You believe yourself superior because you have established a hierarchy of music in your mind. You elevate your opinions to facts. How many times have I read from you that something is a "proven fact" when it is nothing but your opinion?

Music without direction holds very little interest for me, also. It's just that I don't make that statement simply based on a piece of music whose direction has totally escaped me. You do. The mere fact that you can unequivocally state that music has no direction rather than stating you don't know or haven't found its direction is the personification of arrogance and makes your opinions even less credible.

Great music does indeed speak for itself. That's why you don't need to read music reviews from Schwann's or other sources, correct? You intuitively know what's good, correct? Classical may not need "hype" but you are giving it hype by putting it on a pedestal that is way too high. The hype you're giving it is negative and exclusionary. You are helping to kill the music you love. Either change your thinking or keep buying those nails for its coffin. While you are talking down to possible allies and pushing them away from classical music, I'll continue to try to offset what you are doing by explaining its relevance to newcomers - its relevance within the context of all forms of music. After all, a musical education that is incomplete is no better than skipping those last two semesters of engineering school.

[rb122]

So what's your issue with modern classical music such as Shostakovich, Cage, Penderecki, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc? Classical music is evolving. ALL music evolves. There can never be another Golden Age of Classical where all the music sounds like Bach or Beethoven. Beethoven was an evolution of Bach and Mahler an extension of LVB and so on. Over 300+ years, your own favorite music has evolved to the point where you no longer recognize it. Do you consider Peter Ruzicka's string quartets music? Likely not. How about Edgard Varese? Do you enjoy the poignancy of Steve Reich's "Different Trains" with the Kronos string quartet? How about Terry Riley's "In C"? Anything by Phil Glass strike your fancy? Or how about even more avant garde composers such as John Zorn, Alvin Lucier or Mark Applebaum?

Most listeners simply refuse to live in the past as you do. Granted, a lot of people prefer the simpler forms of music such as rock... and let me tell you, a "trained" voice can't do most of the things rock singers can do. Dispute that if you can. Again, it's emotion rather than technique. The best musicians have a nice mix of technique and emotion but if I have to choose, I usually choose the latter. I may marvel at the facility of the technician but I generally find it less musical. I prefer creativity rather than being at the whim of the composer. But I enjoy both. With all due respect, perhaps it's YOU who have been dumbed down. Traditional classical music is wonderful and everything you describe it to be with the exception of all the comparisons you make to other musics. It is what it is, no more and no less. And what it is is another form of this fantastic stuff we call music. It is no better nor worse than anything else.

You'd cringe if you ever saw my music collection. The Ramones sit proudly next to Rachmaninov, Bach sits next to Bad Brains and Mahler snuggles up to bluesman Taj Mahal and is just a breath away from shock rocker Marilyn Manson and avant jazz trumpeter Raphe Malik. Why should I separate them? It's all music and it's all good. Whether YOU like it or not! Sorry, but you aren't allowed to dictate what is and isn't music to anyone but yourself. Face it, Skeptic - you're an old man in a young world. Same with me. But I choose to embrace the new with the old because both have a lot on offer. I would be cheating myself otherwise.

Using an art analogy, I would much prefer a painter to create his own expression in art rather than to recreate one of the great paintings of the past. Lack of creativity stagnates any form of art. I prefer to live in the present, learn from the past and look to the future. Otherwise, to what do we look forward?

[skeptic]

Complexity in and of itself is not sufficient IMO to create interest or be great art. I lived in Manhattan for about 4 years and went to the Museum of Modern Art quite a few times to try to understand what it is that makes art, art. I must have seen the Guernica 20 times but I'll be damned if Picasso's paintings don't remind me of a schitzophrenic seeing the world through a kalidescopic prism, utterly fractured and incomprehensible. I can't relate to it. Ditto Jackson Pollack. Ditto everything else hanging there. My appreciation of art stops somewhere in the early twentieth century with Manet, Monet, Renoir and the rest of the French Impressionists. Almost the same with music however I do concede that there were post Romantic and even some modern composers well into the first half of the twentieth century whose music I enjoy very much. This includes Rachmaninoff, Copland, Gershwin, and even Stravinsky. It does not include Charles Ives. I cannot follow two or three different musical themes in different keys going simultaneously. Sorry but to me that is cacophony.

I don't have a clue what any of this has to do with films in general or horror films in particular but I do enjoy horror films to this day but they must be excellent. And in that genre I like the original Bela Lugosi Dracula, the original Boris Karloff Frankenstein, and Hitchcock's Psycho. As for Nosferatu, I like the German silent made early in the twentieth century best of all. A psychotic with a chain saw chasing a terrified woman doesn't amuse me.

I stopped going to movie theaters to see current movies a long time ago. For me the best movies were made mostly prior to the 1970s. I did enjoy The Red Violin however. Occasionaly I get dragged to movies against my will and better judgement. Among the worst I've detested having to sit through included Field of Dreams, Jurassic Park, Big, Gorillas in the Mist, and possibly one of the ones on my all time ten list of most detestible moveis, The French Lieutenant's Woman. If the film, recording, and sports industries had to depend on my money to survive, they'd all go broke. Hey, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. Think of all the gasoline we'd save if there were no live sporting events.

[Woochifer]

Woochifer

Well this thread has really strayed from cartridges :D

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.


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.


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.

[RGA]

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!

[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.

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).


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.)


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.

[RGA]

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.

[92135011]

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 ^_^

[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.

[skeptic]

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.

[Chas Underhay]

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?

[Chas Underhay]

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.

[rb122]

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!

[Chas Underhay]

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.

[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.

[Chas Underhay]

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.

[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.

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.

[Chas Underhay]

"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.

[rb122]

"
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?

[happy ears]

“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.

[Chas Underhay]

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