Has the changes in popular music has an effect in how we buy audio equipment today?

[johnny p]

Rich-n-Texas
This message has been deleted by E-Stat. Reason: Uncalled for attack.

This is what happens when I don't check in often enough..... I'm sure I missed a gem here!!!!


As far as the whole "morality" debate that has sprung from this, let me just say this. I don't agree with censorship in any way, shape, or form. I think the majority of today's music is absolute garbage, but I'll defend the rights of the people who produce it and perform it until the day I die. The fact there is a show called "American Idol" out there makes me cringe, but if it can be successful, and continue to gain sponsors, etc. let them have their times of glory. I'll surf the channel guide when one of the show's contestants drags through a horrendous rendition of the National Anthem before a sporting event, because it's my choice to ignore them!

13 year olds getting pregnant, more drugs in the schools, more nudity and violence and cursing on T.V. and in the movies, rappers glorifying all things bad, clothing depicting/glorifying sex/drugs/violence, and all of these other perils of modern life. I will try to educate and raise my son with the moral integrity I feel necessary, and I don't think it's the government, or anyone elses' job to raise my son for me.

13 year old girls getting pregnant you say????? Good. That's called learning a lesson the hard way.

[basite]

I once read where if you ignored the Nazi's it would not effect you. Should we ignore entertainers such as Pink Floyd ? Billy Joel and James Taylor ? Will they go away as the Nazi's did ? It took a World War to get rid of the Nazi's , what will it take to get rid of rock and rap ?

while I don't really like rap music, I do like rock.

I wouldn't really call Pink Floyd an entertainer. An entertainer would be something like robbie williams, or justing timerlake . Pink Floyd would more be like a Revolution (note capitol 'R').

We should not ignore what's new, we should try it out. If we happen to like it, we should find more of it, if we don't like it, we shouldn't bother about it.

I do agree that the Ipod has caused youngsters to listen to MP3's rather than to CD's or Vinyl Records. But in the meanwhile, the new genres like electro, house & techno, brings the youngsters in contact with vinyl, and has kept vinyl alive. So not all 'new' is necessarily inferior to the older things.


Also, the rock you hear on the popular radio stations today, is the popular rock, there are other, non-popular kinds and bands, who make exellent music, and exellent recordings. Ment to be played on high quality setups. the same with Rap, but less as with rock, there used to be Rap music (or hip hop), that was actually music, with a message in it. This message not being bad. Ok, it ain't miles davis, but it's definately better than many of the popular genres.

by the way, you say the young people like 'young' genres, but how did the young people like the popular music back then, in the 50's? and how did the older people like it then? I think it's kinda the same, back then the older people mostly liked classical music and blues (early blues), and thought they were better than Louis armstrong & Ray Charles. Why? because L. Armstrong & R. Charles were 'new popular music' back then.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[melvin walker]

while I don't really like rap music, I do like rock.

I wouldn't really call Pink Floyd an entertainer. An entertainer would be something like robbie williams, or justing timerlake . Pink Floyd would more be like a Revolution (note capitol 'R').

We should not ignore what's new, we should try it out. If we happen to like it, we should find more of it, if we don't like it, we shouldn't bother about it.

I do agree that the Ipod has caused youngsters to listen to MP3's rather than to CD's or Vinyl Records. But in the meanwhile, the new genres like electro, house & techno, brings the youngsters in contact with vinyl, and has kept vinyl alive. So not all 'new' is necessarily inferior to the older things.


Also, the rock you hear on the popular radio stations today, is the popular rock, there are other, non-popular kinds and bands, who make exellent music, and exellent recordings. Ment to be played on high quality setups. the same with Rap, but less as with rock, there used to be Rap music (or hip hop), that was actually music, with a message in it. This message not being bad. Ok, it ain't miles davis, but it's definately better than many of the popular genres.

by the way, you say the young people like 'young' genres, but how did the young people like the popular music back then, in the 50's? and how did the older people like it then? I think it's kinda the same, back then the older people mostly liked classical music and blues (early blues), and thought they were better than Louis armstrong & Ray Charles. Why? because L. Armstrong & R. Charles were 'new popular music' back then.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

A very interesting question. It began in the 50's R&B than rock and roll , The traditionalist
were very upset. Middle class America was alarmed. Older people as you put it listened to
Sinatra , Como , Patty Page , Frankie Layne , Nat King Cole , Andy Williams , Johnnie Mathis etc., not classical music.

Louis Armstrong was not an issue , Ray Charles was , and so was other Black R&B singers. For the first time young people listened to their own music , went to drive inns , had their own cars , bought Playboy magazines , and even had their own record players !
Times were changing.

There was James Dean , Steve McQueen , Elvis Presley , Marlon Brando , etc. They dressed differently and even smoked. And the girls used birth control and went to young men's apartments alone.

Audio was new , few people could afford audio equipment are even knew about components. Until the late 1960's the audio industry was quite small. The LP had just been introduced in the late 50's and so had stereo. Consumer Reports rated the AR speakers as the best small speaker system. AR lead speaker sales for several years after that.

The rest is history , times change and the more they change the more they remain the same. We are a much richer country than we were 40 years ago. People have more free time and money to spend enjoying it with.
We can as Americans agree to disagree , that makes us strong. We can respect all opinions no matter how we may disagree.
We audiophiles would argue as to which was best Marantz or Mac?. Lansing or Bozak.?
AR or KLH ? and even mono vs stereo , tubes vs transistors. Has it really changed.

The only difference today is that older people live longer , and with that they will collide with younger people.
Yes the " good ole days " You are all living in the "good ole days ".TODAY !

[noddin0ff]

The only difference today is that older people live longer , and with that they will collide with younger people.
Yes the " good ole days " You are all living in the "good ole days ".TODAY !

Live it, don't re-live it.

[basite]

A very interesting question. It began in the 50's R&B than rock and roll , The traditionalist
were very upset. Middle class America was alarmed. Older people as you put it listened to
Sinatra , Como , Patty Page , Frankie Layne , Nat King Cole , Andy Williams , Johnnie Mathis etc., not classical music.

Louis Armstrong was not an issue , Ray Charles was , and so was other Black R&B singers. For the first time young people listened to their own music , went to drive inns , had their own cars , bought Playboy magazines , and even had their own record players !
Times were changing.

There was James Dean , Steve McQueen , Elvis Presley , Marlon Brando , etc. They dressed differently and even smoked. And the girls used birth control and went to young men's apartments alone.

Audio was new , few people could afford audio equipment are even knew about components. Until the late 1960's the audio industry was quite small. The LP had just been introduced in the late 50's and so had stereo. Consumer Reports rated the AR speakers as the best small speaker system. AR lead speaker sales for several years after that.

The rest is history , times change and the more they change the more they remain the same. We are a much richer country than we were 40 years ago. People have more free time and money to spend enjoying it with.
We can as Americans agree to disagree , that makes us strong. We can respect all opinions no matter how we may disagree.
We audiophiles would argue as to which was best Marantz or Mac?. Lansing or Bozak.?
AR or KLH ? and even mono vs stereo , tubes vs transistors. Has it really changed.

today we think about what sounds best. Mac or Krell, or Mark Levinson, or Accuphase, or Gryphon, or Wavac, or something else? Thiel, Avalon, Wilson audio, Dynaudio, Or something else?

And you typed Ray Charles was 'an issue', but I come to think of him as a 'something new', in the positive meaning of the words. I don't think Ray Charles (or other R&B artists) should be labeled as 'issues', but more like 'artists'. Just as Sinatra or Nat King Cole brung something, they bring something too. And I think we should respect that.

Not that the 'older music' (just a way to put it, no negative feelings ), was bad from of then, but there just was more music to enjoy. not all the music is good, but there certainly is good 'new' music too.

Times keep changing, and while it does, we might just want to enjoy it.

just a few moments ago, I had a classical piece on: Shostakovich - symphony n° 13, originally 'released' in 1961. You should try that out if you can, tell me what you think about it

oh, and also try (as I mentioned in the other thread), Enrico Pieranunzi & Marc Johnson - Trasnoche.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[mlsstl]

Lest some think that resistance to musical change is limited to jazz or rock and roll, here are some interesting items about classical musicians.

Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians dismissed Rachmaninoff's music as "monotonous in texture ... consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes ..." and said his work was "not likely to last."

In 1705 Bach got in trouble with the church where he was organist for his "surprising variations and irrelevant ornaments which obliterate the melody and confuse the congregation" so he was reprimanded for his "strange sounds" during the services. (He was also accused of entertaining "a strange damsel" in the organ loft of the church though he later married her.)

In a similar vein, Prokofiev was not well understood by his teachers at the conservatory and his early orchestral works were very poorly received in the early 1900s.

One doesn't have to read terribly deeply into the history of music and the lives of many composers and artists to understand that the 20th century was not alone in failing to understand the incipient genius of many musicians sooner rather than later.

[melvin walker]

Live it, don't re-live it.

Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat it !

[GMichael]

Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat it !

Read it.
Remember it
Learn from it
But don't get trapped in it.

[melvin walker]

today we think about what sounds best. Mac or Krell, or Mark Levinson, or Accuphase, or Gryphon, or Wavac, or something else? Thiel, Avalon, Wilson audio, Dynaudio, Or something else?

And you typed Ray Charles was 'an issue', but I come to think of him as a 'something new', in the positive meaning of the words. I don't think Ray Charles (or other R&B artists) should be labeled as 'issues', but more like 'artists'. Just as Sinatra or Nat King Cole brung something, they bring something too. And I think we should respect that.

Not that the 'older music' (just a way to put it, no negative feelings ), was bad from of then, but there just was more music to enjoy. not all the music is good, but there certainly is good 'new' music too.

Times keep changing, and while it does, we might just want to enjoy it.

just a few moments ago, I had a classical piece on: Shostakovich - symphony n° 13, originally 'released' in 1961. You should try that out if you can, tell me what you think about it

oh, and also try (as I mentioned in the other thread), Enrico Pieranunzi & Marc Johnson - Trasnoche.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

In the 1950's Ray Charles was an issue as was Jackie Wilson , Fats Domino , Clyde McPhatter , Little Richard , Chuck Berry , Sam Cooke ,and many other Black R&B
singers.
No one compared R&B singers with Sinatra and Cole. This was a different time.
As a matter of fact Johnny Mathis was asked to perform with a big Show featuring R&B
Black singers , they were prepared to pay Mathis $50,000 per week.
Mich Miller the head of Columbia records popular music division , told Mathis that if he performed with any Black R&B artist , Columbia records would void his contract and he would not be able to work with any large record company.
Times were different. If you will note there was only a few Black singers that performed for a major recording label in the 1950's
if I remember correctly there was only three Johnny Mathis , Nat King Cole , Harry Belfonte and the Miles Brothers. Most Black recording artist performed for side labels.
The major American recording labels than was R.C.A. , Columbia , Capital , and Decca.
There was a few Black jazz artist that performed for the major labels Earrol Garner was one , Miles Davis did later both with Columbia.

[Groundbeef]

Hey guys, heres a filmography/autobiography about Melvin Walker!!! No joking, heres the tagline:

comedy about a naive man who comes out into the world after being in a nuclear fallout shelter for 35 years

Heres the link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124298/

I think you all will enjoy! Mr. Walker, shame on you for not clueing us in about you!

[melvin walker]

Hey guys, heres a filmography/autobiography about Melvin Walker!!! No joking, heres the tagline:

comedy about a naive man who comes out into the world after being in a nuclear fallout shelter for 35 years

Heres the link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124298/

I think you all will enjoy! Mr. Walker, shame on you for not clueing us in about you!

it appears sir that you are unable to discuss the issues. I am not the issue and neither are you. ! I don't know who you are and I don't care. What are you commenting on ?

[melvin walker]

Read it.
Remember it
Learn from it
But don't get trapped in it.

First you must read it.

[jrhymeammo]

I agree you are correct , I'm a douche bag!

Also, can we stop talking about what a great recording Dark Side of the Moon is on SACD? If it's a good mix, then great. But I think a 2ch Guy, like myself, is still allowed comment on SQ, right? Whatta hell are you guys hearing? Or maybe it's just what I'm not hearing. Ahh..who cares. I think most of here can agree that Melvin Walker is a douche bag.

Peace,

[noddin0ff]

First you must read it.

The printed text was so much better in the old days too. Todays text just doesn't compare...

Seriously though, learning from the past is very different from avoiding the present.

[melvin walker]

Also, can we stop talking about what a great recording Dark Side of the Moon is on SACD? If it's a good mix, then great. But I think a 2ch Guy, like myself, is still allowed comment on SQ, right? Whatta hell are you guys hearing? Or maybe it's just what I'm not hearing. Ahh..who cares. I think most of here can agree that Melvin Walker is a douche bag.

Peace,

I don't believe any other website would allow such language and disrespect for others.
It appears this one does.
What a pity.

[E-Stat]

Todays text just doesn't compare...

That garamond thing just doesn't cut it, does it?

Seriously though, learning from the past is very different from avoiding the present.

Awareness of the past is only valuable when one applies it to the present.

rw

[E-Stat]

"Melvin Walker is a douche bag."

Hey guys, lets play nice, huh? I've taken out one unnecessary post. Let's leave it at that. K?

rw

[melvin walker]

This is what happens when I don't check in often enough..... I'm sure I missed a gem here!!!!


As far as the whole "morality" debate that has sprung from this, let me just say this. I don't agree with censorship in any way, shape, or form. I think the majority of today's music is absolute garbage, but I'll defend the rights of the people who produce it and perform it until the day I die. The fact there is a show called "American Idol" out there makes me cringe, but if it can be successful, and continue to gain sponsors, etc. let them have their times of glory. I'll surf the channel guide when one of the show's contestants drags through a horrendous rendition of the National Anthem before a sporting event, because it's my choice to ignore them!

13 year olds getting pregnant, more drugs in the schools, more nudity and violence and cursing on T.V. and in the movies, rappers glorifying all things bad, clothing depicting/glorifying sex/drugs/violence, and all of these other perils of modern life. I will try to educate and raise my son with the moral integrity I feel necessary, and I don't think it's the government, or anyone elses' job to raise my son for me.

13 year old girls getting pregnant you say????? Good. That's called learning a lesson the hard way.

Like it are not your son will be effected by his environment. You are effected by poor taste and bad manners. If you live in a large American city it is unsafe to walk the streets at night. if your son attends a public are private school today he is exposed to bad langage ,
sex , drugs , etc.

The poor behaviour of others effect you. America has the second largest prison population in the world , paid for by you a tax payer. When a car is stolen , you pay for it with higher insurance rates. When someone steals a loaf of bread in a food market are steals a shirt in a department you pay for it with higher prices. The same when a burglary
occurs you pay for it with higher home insurance rates.

You may not agree with censorship , we use it to protect others , would you not want some censorship in the school your son attends ? Are should the students speak what they choose. Maybe your son doesn't attend a public are private school , are attend movies , are use a computer , are read books and magazines. If your son goes put to play he is at risk , are maybe he doesn't go out to play.

You can ignore all that , but the world will not ignore you ! It's sad but that's the world we all live in.
I wonder if the people killed and injured at the World Trade center felt the way you do ?
What happen there changed all Americans lives , like it are not.
We are a nation and we are dependent on each other.
Thomas Jefferson wrote " If men were angels we would need no laws , but men are not angels" We need censorship.

[melvin walker]

The printed text was so much better in the old days too. Todays text just doesn't compare...

Seriously though, learning from the past is very different from avoiding the present.

One learns from the past , that is why we have books. Experience is very expensive.
Than there are those that has an appreciation of the past.
They might collect fine cars , antiques , books , paintings , wines even audio equipment.

There are clubs that cater to that type of taste. There are many magazines that helps
locate and define past things.
One does not avoid the future when one discusses the past. There is a website that discusses men's clothing called Ask Andy.

The Ask Andy website discusses not only present clothing but clothing of the 20's, 30's
40's and 50's including the latest high end clothing of today.
Most of your high end men clothing books makes references to clothing of the golden years when men' s dress was more formal.
Example mens magazines such as Men's Vogue , Classic Style and the Rob Report has many discussions of the past. From cars to winter vacations.
The last Classic Style issue discussed Bogart and the history of the trench coat.
Stereophile magazine has many times discussed the history of audio.
I guess most members of this website could care less. Not all but most.

[noddin0ff]

Collect, catalog, appreciate, learn, study, acquire, wear, worship, become a fetishist of the past. More power to you, these are wonderful, and enriching hobbies. You mention pursuits that are a matter of taste. You can refine your tastes, become an expert in your tastes, and be a fair critic. But, the subject here is music, the enjoyment of which is a matter of personal taste. Did technology destroy music? That's like asking if plumbing destroyed water. Technology is just a conduit for expression.

I read your posts and I think, "here's a guy that likes simple vocal melodies, performed with control and grace." He knows what he likes, he knows some things he doesn't like. Then he makes leaps to sweeping generalizations. There's a lot I agree with. There's merit to classic forms, I do believe they speak artistic truths. I don't like misogyny in music. I don't think shock equates with art. But, I disagree in that I believe pushing the boundaries of and forms of expression does equate to art--even if that expression is offensive. I believe classic forms are foundations to build and experiment upon. Not all experimentation is good, but a few lemons doesn't indicate that the fabric of society is breaking up. If Huckabee gets elected...then maybe I'll start looking over my shoulder for the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

"EXPERIENCE IS EXPENSIVE", huh? You don't purchase experience. You get experience from confronting ignorance and learning from the encounter.

My motto: Convince me I'm right and you grow my ego. Convince me I'm wrong and you grow my knowledge.

(My corollary: I'm right until proven otherwise.)

somebody should remind me not to log in when I should be sleeping. It makes me ramble.

[basite]

In the 1950's Ray Charles was an issue as was Jackie Wilson , Fats Domino , Clyde McPhatter , Little Richard , Chuck Berry , Sam Cooke ,and many other Black R&B
singers.
No one compared R&B singers with Sinatra and Cole. This was a different time.
As a matter of fact Johnny Mathis was asked to perform with a big Show featuring R&B
Black singers , they were prepared to pay Mathis $50,000 per week.
Mich Miller the head of Columbia records popular music division , told Mathis that if he performed with any Black R&B artist , Columbia records would void his contract and he would not be able to work with any large record company.
Times were different. If you will note there was only a few Black singers that performed for a major recording label in the 1950's
if I remember correctly there was only three Johnny Mathis , Nat King Cole , Harry Belfonte and the Miles Brothers. Most Black recording artist performed for side labels.
The major American recording labels than was R.C.A. , Columbia , Capital , and Decca.
There was a few Black jazz artist that performed for the major labels Earrol Garner was one , Miles Davis did later both with Columbia.

yes, but why were they 'an issue'? I presume you mean 'issue' as 'a problem'...

[johnny p]

would you not want some censorship in the school your son attends ?

Of course I wouldn't want censorship in his school. (he's less than 3 months old, so it's gonna be awhile)

I wonder if the people killed and injured at the World Trade center felt the way you do ?

I lost a family member in the WTC, and I don't feel the need to justify my viewpoints based on his, although I believe he would concur with me about many things. But either way, I don't wish to discuss this topic.

[melvin walker]

yes, but why were they 'an issue'? I presume you mean 'issue' as 'a problem'...

Yes they were a problem. The music the Black R&B artist was performing was not the norm of that era. Their music was seen as a threat to middle class values. Black pop singers such as Nat King Cole , Johnny Mathis , Harry Belafonte , Bill Erskine The Mills Brothers etc. were not seen as threats

Most of the R&B music performed by Black artist was covered by singers such as Pat Boone , Gale Storm and other White performers. The major labels controlled most of the pop music played on radio , called payola.
The major labels did not hire Black R&B performers , as stated in an earlier post, they performed for side labels. Even Black jazz artist performed for side labels such as Miles Davis , Coltrane , Adderley , Peterson , Gillespie etc.

It was a different time. As for as high end audio , In the St.Louis area there were few Black audiophiles , only 13. Three doctors , three musicians , four postal workers , one federal judge , and two who worked in the private sector. I was one of those working in the private sector.
We all knew each other because. of the small size. None of us listened to R&B.
This was the 1950's. Things began to change in the 1960's with the passage of the civil Rights laws and the government put an end to payola.
A little history of the musical industry in America 50 years ago.

[basite]

Yes they were a problem. The music the Black R&B artist was performing was not the norm of that era. Their music was seen as a threat to middle class values. Black pop singers such as Nat King Cole , Johnny Mathis , Harry Belafonte , Bill Erskine The Mills Brothers etc. were not seen as threats

Most of the R&B music performed by Black artist was covered by singers such as Pat Boone , Gale Storm and other White performers. The major labels controlled most of the pop music played on radio , called payola.
The major labels did not hire Black R&B performers , as stated in an earlier post, they performed for side labels. Even Black jazz artist performed for side labels such as Miles Davis , Coltrane , Adderley , Peterson , Gillespie etc.

It was a different time. As for as high end audio , In the St.Louis area there were few Black audiophiles , only 13. Three doctors , three musicians , four postal workers , one federal judge , and two who worked in the private sector. I was one of those working in the private sector.
We all knew each other because. of the small size. None of us listened to R&B.
This was the 1950's. Things began to change in the 1960's with the passage of the civil Rights laws and the government put an end to payola.
A little history of the musical industry in America 50 years ago.

I presume other people did like it. Otherwise, Ray Charles wouldn't have been so rich. You can't force someone to listen to a particular genre, so if someone started singing R&B, it must have been because he or she liked it. and as it happened other people liked it too. That's why there are different genres, because people have different tastes.

It's not because R&B appeared that Nat King Cole, Sinatra, Coltrane and others suddenly dissapeared. Another genre just appeared.
besides, what would have happened if no one else started making music after the legends like Sinatra and such? We can't listen to Frank Sinatra forever you know, new things are welcome, and if I don't like them, I don't listen to them. But if I do like them, then what's wrong with that?

And be proud that you are an audiophile, it's not a common hobby (not everyone can pay it too ), so it's normal that there are less audiophiles. In fact, I'm only 17, and I'm an audiophile, guess how many 17 year old people actually are audiophiles? And which of them actually have a decent setup?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[jrhymeammo]

OK. My