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

[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.

[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]

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

First you must read it.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

[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'...

[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.

[melvin walker]

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 disappeared. 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 s

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

There are 17 year old that drive $100,000 + cars. There are also 17 year old that own very expensive audio systems. I have seen parents buying their 17 year old children $10,000 watches, what else is new.

No one is forced to listen to anything , I would suggest that you do a little research , and you will find R&B artist in the 1950's had a very difficult time getting their music played on radio. Artist such as Ray Charles because of payola earned less money because of that. You should also remember R&B artist generally did not appear on television and
none had TV programs, Nat King Cole was the first Black singer to have a TV program and he could not attract sponsors. His program was cancelled after one season , although he had excellent ratings.

Artist such as Frank Sinatra's music is played today. So is Cole's , Mathis . Como .and as well as popular artist of the 30's , 40's , 50's and 60's.
Standards live on as does classical music.
Music is learned , class plays a major role in what we listen to. The more affluent we are the more likely our parents played a role in the type of music we listen to.
Generally lower class people are exposed to music by their peers. On the other hand classical , jazz , broadway etc , parents generally play a role in exposing their children to those forms of music.
There are exceptions.

I have many hobbies audio is only one. I am not proud of being an audiophile, it is only another hobby. I enjoy music , that is why I am an audiophile. Audio equipment enabled me to listen better because of the equipment I used.