• 01-16-2008, 12:38 PM
    melvin walker
    Has the changes in popular music has an effect in how we buy audio equipment today?
    The great musical arrangers are no longer around such as Paul Weston , Nelson Riddle , Henry Mancini , Gordon Jenkins etc. The great musical scores are a thing of the past
    example : Laura , Stella By Starlight , As Time goes By etc.

    The beautiful lush strings and background music is only a memory another example Jackie Gleason , Percy Faith , Mantovani etc.
    Broadway with great composers and lyricists such a Lerner and Lowe , Rogers and Hart Hammerstein , George an Ira Gershwin etc.


    The singers Sinatra , Cole , Crosby , Day , Ella , Sarah , Como etc.
    The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
    Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
    The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

    The LP appeared to capture that sound , tube equipment softened it , and speakers of that era played it.
    Rock , Country , Rap ,etc just appear not to work out. The new audio equipment is at home with the changes that has taken place over the past decades. What do you think ?
  • 01-16-2008, 12:54 PM
    johnny p
    I think there are a lot of powerful scores out there. Pans Labrynth is one example, but there are many.

    Old equipment isn't out of date because of the changes in music, it's like cameras, even respected photographers have picked up digital cameras. The technology is better now, and you can get better equipment than you could 3 years ago.

    That's just the way it is.....
  • 01-16-2008, 01:53 PM
    melvin walker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by johnny p
    I think there are a lot of powerful scores out there. Pans Labrynth is one example, but there are many.

    Old equipment isn't out of date because of the changes in music, it's like cameras, even respected photographers have picked up digital cameras. The technology is better now, and you can get better equipment than you could 3 years ago.

    That's just the way it is.....

    The question , was not comparing old equipment with new equipment. Cameras are video , humans see better than they hear. Even the big cats eyes are not as specialized as humans , they see better at night, we can see colors and we also have three dimension , not so with cats, also it is easier to fool the ears than the eyes.
    Are you comparing Pans Labrynth with Gershwin , Porter , Rogers , Berlin etc. ? John Williams is more recent he very much could be compared. Who are the others ?
    Music can be played on old , new , good or bad audio equipment.

    The names listed in the previous post are creators of musical scores and arrangers of music not photographers.
  • 01-16-2008, 02:47 PM
    mlsstl
    You could take your laundry list of composers and complain that none of them wrote like Mozart, Vivaldi or Bach. They wrote "popular music" in their day.

    You can select well known artists and composers from any particular period in time in history and you'll find they didn't write and sing like the people before them nor the people afterwards. There is nothing surprising there.

    And of course, musicians have always changed their works to use the instruments available to them. The invention of the microphone, speaker and tube amplifier changed the way popular music was played and sounded. The vocal skills that were necessary for a singer to be heard without amplification in a concert hall diminished in importance when mikes, amps and speakers arrived on the scene.

    Before that, around 1700, a fellow named Cristofori changed the music world when he invented the modern piano. Prior to that, keyboard instruments were not capable of playing very loud. Afterwards, composers and artists changed the way they wrote and played music.

    And I'm sure there were people who complained about those changes in music due to the piano just as others bemoaned that amplified speakers in theaters were causing a loss of skills in the music world.

    While our favorite artists (or their styles) may not be as popular as they were years ago, I'm happy with the way things are today. I can listen to pre-Cristofori harpsichord music if I want or post-Cristofori piano music by great composers. I can listen to my collection of Ella Fitzgerald or I can listen to Thea Gilmore or Lucinda Williams. I happen to like 'em all. Big Band? Not a problem - Artie Shaw is right there on my music server just waiting for me to press the play button, as is the latest Gogol Bordello album.

    And they all sound great on my stereo.
  • 01-16-2008, 02:55 PM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melvin walker
    The great musical arrangers are no longer around such as Paul Weston , Nelson Riddle , Henry Mancini , Gordon Jenkins etc. The great musical scores are a thing of the past
    example : Laura , Stella By Starlight , As Time goes By etc.

    The beautiful lush strings and background music is only a memory another example Jackie Gleason , Percy Faith , Mantovani etc.
    Broadway with great composers and lyricists such a Lerner and Lowe , Rogers and Hart Hammerstein , George an Ira Gershwin etc.


    The singers Sinatra , Cole , Crosby , Day , Ella , Sarah , Como etc.
    The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
    Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
    The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

    The LP appeared to capture that sound , tube equipment softened it , and speakers of that era played it.
    Rock , Country , Rap ,etc just appear not to work out. The new audio equipment is at home with the changes that has taken place over the past decades. What do you think ?

    Times change, Music changes and so too does equipment.

    However, you need to keep in mind that audio equipment handles different genres of music differently... eg... Klipsch has a strong reputation for Rock, B&W for classical, Monitor Audio for Pop etc.... so equipment of today is quite diverse in sound. Thus, if you look hard enough, you can probably find some products well suited for the style of music you like.
  • 01-16-2008, 03:07 PM
    melvin walker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ajani
    Times change, Music changes and so too does equipment.

    However, you need to keep in mind that audio equipment handles different genres of music differently... eg... Klipsch has a strong reputation for Rock, B&W for classical, Monitor Audio for Pop etc.... so equipment of today is quite diverse in sound. Thus, if you look hard enough, you can probably find some products well suited for the style of music you like.

    Excellent point. Who would have thought that Klipsch would would work so well with rock. Paul Klipsch in 1940 developed the Kilpscchorn in a different time for very different music. Your first statement I totally agree with and your last statement is also excellent.
  • 01-16-2008, 03:22 PM
    melvin walker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mlsstl
    You could take your laundry list of composers and complain that none of them wrote like Mozart, Vivaldi or Bach. They wrote "popular music" in their day.

    You can select well known artists and composers from any particular period in time in history and you'll find they didn't write and sing like the people before them nor the people afterwards. There is nothing surprising there.

    And of course, musicians have always changed their works to use the instruments available to them. The invention of the microphone, speaker and tube amplifier changed the way popular music was played and sounded. The vocal skills that were necessary for a singer to be heard without amplification in a concert hall diminished in importance when mikes, amps and speakers arrived on the scene.

    Before that, around 1700, a fellow named Cristofori changed the music world when he invented the modern piano. Prior to that, keyboard instruments were not capable of playing very loud. Afterwards, composers and artists changed the way they wrote and played music.

    And I'm sure there were people who complained about those changes in music due to the piano just as others bemoaned that amplified speakers in theaters were causing a loss of skills in the music world.

    While our favorite artists (or their styles) may not be as popular as they were years ago, I'm happy with the way things are today. I can listen to pre-Cristofori harpsichord music if I want or post-Cristofori piano music by great composers. I can listen to my collection of Ella Fitzgerald or I can listen to Thea Gilmore or Lucinda Williams. I happen to like 'em all. Big Band? Not a problem - Artie Shaw is right there on my music server just waiting for me to press the play button, as is the latest Gogol Bordello album.

    And they all sound great on my stereo.

    Your musical history, is complementary. I can only add that we Americans create a music that is American. Broadway , and Music for Hollywood. Great music halls such as Avery Fisher Hall , Carnegie Hall etc.

    I think that we both can agree , we would both not wish to see the great composers , singers, and arrangers forgotten and also the pioneers of American audio such as Avery Fisher . Saul Marantz , James Lansing etc.
    The question is has the differences in music effected audio equipment. Remember the harpsicord was available to only the wealthy and so was the piano.
    Recorded sound made music available to the average citizen. So there is a difference.
  • 01-16-2008, 03:25 PM
    JohnMichael
    Melvin intersting thoughts. I listen to a lot of music you mention. Sarah, Ella and Frank on vinyl in my collection is played frequently. I listen to a lot of Gershwin by many artists as well as the young Joshua Bell and Michael Tilson Thomas. Recording technique has changed through the years as has technology. My system is fairly neutral and allows me to enjoy music from many periods.

    I find it intersting to listen to an early classical composition and then compare it to what modern composers are doing today. Music like equipment has evolved. Tastes evolve as they have in any art. I have listened to music or examined a painting and not liked it. Then at another time I find I can enjoy the art or the music. Music for instance I have found that as my system has improved so is my enjoyment of a broader base of music.

    When I think of music, recording and reproduction When one evolves I think it must push the others to new levels. As music became more complicated, dynamic and wider in frequencies the recording systems needed to be improved to capture the improvements which drove the home stereo to higher levels.

    I think the lush strings of the past were not only the taste of the musical public but of importance to those recording the music. Certainly some older speakers were lush sounding which contributed further to the sound.

    Yesterday I played "Rhapsody in Blue" on vinyl and later dropped Godsmack into the cd player. Two different types of music from different times. Both sounded good to me and conveyed the music.
  • 01-16-2008, 04:03 PM
    bobsticks
    Absolutely the popularity of certain genres of music has changed the nature of some equipment. Fortunately we live in an era of almost endless possibilities and one can alter or customize their system to optimize their priorities, although admittedly this can be costly in both time and money.

    I was about to attribute this to Buckley, but I think it was William Rusher that said--" The youth have always had, and probably will always have, a natural hankering for a less demanding, more accomodating world--a world in which the charms of irresponsibility are not so harshly penalized." The penalty for the Ipod generation, of course, is a reduction in sound quality...although I think it's a premature generalisation to attribute a complete and willful ignorance or apathy to that.

    I'm proud to announce that the things of the past shall not be forgotten. The greatest thing we have going for us is the lessons and stepping stones of the past, both in accumulated knowledge and cultural experience. Most young people learn this sooner or later.

    Melvin, may I suggest Diana Krall's Live In Paris? While you may find that Ms. Krall is not to your favor, you'd be hard pressed to convince even yourself that she and her magnificently talented band are anything short of reverent for the music of years gone by. There are many other examples of this, but as this product is available at any department, discount or video store, the mass availability of it tells me that it does not fall on deaf ears

    It's out there, one must just reach out and grab it.
  • 01-16-2008, 04:04 PM
    bobsticks
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JohnMichael
    Yesterday I played "Rhapsody in Blue" on vinyl and later dropped Godsmack into the cd player. Two different types of music from different times. Both sounded good to me and conveyed the music.

    JM, you're full of surprises...
  • 01-16-2008, 04:34 PM
    mlsstl
    Quote:

    Recorded sound made music available to the average citizen. So there is a difference.
    I'd disagree with that statement to the extent that music has always been available to the average citizen. Mozart wrote many of his operas for the common folk - operas were the mass entertainment of the day back then. The only catch is that you had to go to the theater to see the performance. Church music for centuries was a way of communicating the liturgy to the common folk in an enjoyable way. People have gone to dances and concerts for probably as long as man has made music. People even learned to play musical instruments for their own enjoyment.

    The advent of recorded music didn't expose people to music for the first time, it simply made it available in the home. People could listen at their convenience even if they didn't play. Prior to that even rich people had to have live musicians if they wanted music.

    One catch is that as something becomes more commonplace, we tend to take things for granted. Many people probably don't appreciate music as much as they might have in the old days, but that is also true for things like cars, TVs and telephones. Welcome to the modern world and just think what its going to be like as we continue down the road of increasing technology.

    That said, Ella Fitzgerald and her kin will no more be "forgotten" than Mozart or Bach have been forgotten. Sure, they are not going to get a lot of air time on the radio or TV, and their million seller days are long gone, but that is life. The people who care about that music have it available. Young people here and there will continue to discover the magic that music has to offer, but it is likely not to be on the same widespread level as during their heyday. (Even then there are exceptions. Tony Bennett experienced a resurgence of popularity with the young crowd a few years back.)
  • 01-16-2008, 04:40 PM
    JohnMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bobsticks
    JM, you're full of surprises...




    The local audio/music store staff used to refer to me as the towns oldest headbanger. I would have a recording of music by Erik Satie and a cd by Disturbed. Heavy metal helps me work out my inner rages.
  • 01-16-2008, 05:14 PM
    Rich-n-Texas
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bobsticks
    JM, you're full of surprises...

    Yeah, full of surprises. Just when I thought I had him hatin' on somedody he gets all diplomatic 'n sh!t...
    :incazzato:
  • 01-16-2008, 07:05 PM
    frenchmon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bobsticks
    Absolutely the popularity of certain genres of music has changed the nature of some equipment. Fortunately we live in an era of almost endless possibilities and one can alter or customize their system to optimize their priorities, although admittedly this can be costly in both time and money.

    I was about to attribute this to Buckley, but I think it was William Rusher that said--" The youth have always had, and probably will always have, a natural hankering for a less demanding, more accomodating world--a world in which the charms of irresponsibility are not so harshly penalized." The penalty for the Ipod generation, of course, is a reduction in sound quality...although I think it's a premature generalisation to attribute a complete and willful ignorance or apathy to that.

    I'm proud to announce that the things of the past shall not be forgotten. The greatest thing we have going for us is the lessons and stepping stones of the past, both in accumulated knowledge and cultural experience. Most young people learn this sooner or later.

    Melvin, may I suggest Diana Krall's Live In Paris? While you may find that Ms. Krall is not to your favor, you'd be hard pressed to convince even yourself that she and her magnificently talented band are anything short of reverent for the music of years gone by. There are many other examples of this, but as this product is available at any department, discount or video store, the mass availability of it tells me that it does not fall on deaf ears

    It's out there, one must just reach out and grab it.

    Oh I love Diana Krall..But I love Eliane Elias better! Ever heard of her?

    frenchmon
  • 01-16-2008, 07:59 PM
    bobsticks
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frenchmon
    Oh I love Diana Krall..But I love Eliane Elias better! Ever heard of her?

    frenchmon

    Nope, but I'll keep an eye and an ear out. Thanks for the recommendation.
  • 01-17-2008, 05:02 AM
    noddin0ff
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melvin walker

    The singers Sinatra , Cole , Crosby , Day , Ella , Sarah , Como etc.
    The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
    Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
    The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

    We'll if I remember my History of American Pop Song course I took 25+ years ago...it was advances in audio technology and sensitivity of amplification that allowed this new breed of intimate crooner's to come into being. Prior to their era, amplification and recording was not as sensitive, therefore for a singer to be heard they really had to belt out a tune, sacrificing dynamics. IOW, it is precisely the advance in electronics and heightened dynamics that allowed intimate recordings. And this is how it goes, new technology - new creative styles to take advantage of new possibilities.

    Now, as soon as technology advances to the point of time travel, then maybe those that chose can climb in and go back and live forever in the past...
  • 01-17-2008, 05:44 AM
    Feanor
    2 Attachment(s)
    More importantly than music
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melvin walker
    ...

    The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
    Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
    The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

    The LP appeared to capture that sound , tube equipment softened it , and speakers of that era played it.
    Rock , Country , Rap ,etc just appear not to work out. The new audio equipment is at home with the changes that has taken place over the past decades. What do you think ?

    Music per se has likely influenced what enthusiasts what buy. Beginning in the '50s with the growing influence of rock & roll and subgenres, I would propose that dynamics, (macro and micro), took on a greater importance. (This is what the Brits started to call "Pace, rhythm, and timining" or "PRaT", even though these terms seem more appropriate to describe performance rather than reproduction.) Lushness is not major priority with many people today, though tube equipment amongst audiophiles is a more popular than at any time since the widescale introduction of solid state.

    The other factor today is the most enthusiasts are looking for duel-purpose, music and home theatre equipment, that this is no doubt an even bigger factor. HT demands digital signal processing, "DSP", and hence appropriate receivers or pre/pros. And again for HT, dynamics is more important than smoothness for the majority.

    As for my own instance, I have both a stereo music system and a multichannel HT system. The latter, unfortunately I would say, is pretty typically modern one. What I'd really like would be a multichannel music system like my stereo system that has tube and smoother-sounding components.

    By the way the OPPO has landed :cornut: So yesterday I listened to a couple of M/C pieces on my HT setup. With good recordings M/C certainly delivers realistic sense of ambience that stereo cannot -- sorry, folks, no real debate is possible on this point. Now if only my HT system was as nice as my stereo.
    ...
  • 01-17-2008, 06:30 AM
    GMichael
    Sniff sniff... I get so worked up in side when I see our little family pull together like this.
  • 01-17-2008, 07:00 AM
    Rich-n-Texas
    Just more of the same 'ol same 'ol IMO.
  • 01-17-2008, 07:20 AM
    melvin walker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by noddin0ff
    We'll if I remember my History of American Pop Song course I took 25+ years ago...it was advances in audio technology and sensitivity of amplification that allowed this new breed of intimate crooner's to come into being. Prior to their era, amplification and recording was not as sensitive, therefore for a singer to be heard they really had to belt out a tune, sacrificing dynamics. IOW, it is precisely the advance in electronics and heightened dynamics that allowed intimate recordings. And this is how it goes, new technology - new creative styles to take advantage of new possibilities.

    Now, as soon as technology advances to the point of time travel, then maybe those that chose can climb in and go back and live forever in the past...

    It was the advance in technology that changed pop music forever. The microphone eliminated the tenor in pop music. pop singers using the microphone was able to become more intimate , to appear to sing to the individual. Bing Crosby was the first
    major pop singer to take advantage of the new technology. Other singers notably Frank Sinatra improved on this new form of singing , and pop music would never be the same.

    Baritones became the kings of pop music , the tenor would not appear again until Elvis Presley 40+ years later.
    Today music is much less intimate reverting back to the days when intimacy was not used. Technology has improved , it has allowed those with little ability to prosper.
    Popular music overall has gotten away from composition and melody. The song has taken second place to the singer.
    Example " Stardust " has been recorded over 2400 times more than any other song. " Laura " over 1000 times.

    There are few standards being produced today. Home entertainment systems is more
    video than audio. Surround sound is more about effects than audio quality. I am speaking in general. Bose systems are examples of gimmicks rather than quality of sound.
    Ipod I have read is inferior in quality to CD's , but it is new and we are seeing CD's began to take a backseat to Ipod's. Quality is no longer the issue , newness is.
    It appears audio is moving into a new era .So has pop music, At one time the Academy Awards held it's breath when the music award was presented.
    Recently the Awards thought of removing that category from the Awards , because of the low quality of the music that has become forgettable.
    What songs have won the awards for the best music in the last five years ?
  • 01-17-2008, 07:32 AM
    markw
    Time to up that prozac drip, old man
    Cheez, mel. You were doing so good until you had to up your BS factor.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mel walker
    Popular music overall has gotten away from composition and melody. The song has taken second place to the singer.
    Example " Stardust " has been recorded over 2400 times more than any other song. " Laura " over 1000 times

    You're getting lost in your own BS again.

    "Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their album Help! (1965). According to the Guinness Book of Records, "Yesterday" has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 3000 recorded cover versions, the first hitting the United Kingdom top 10 three months after the release of Help!. BMI asserts that it was performed over seven million times in the 20th century alone, probably cementing the song as the most performed composition of all time. "Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th Century, in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners - despite never being a UK number one single.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_(song)

    And, it's been around less time than the songs you mention.

    Times change. Technogies change. Tastes Change. You don't.

    Take this little intrusion into your own personal "reality" as a little warning. don't make me do a line-by-line analysis on your posts again.
  • 01-17-2008, 08:08 AM
    GMichael
    So much for that group hug I was planning.
  • 01-17-2008, 09:02 AM
    Groundbeef
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melvin walker
    Today music is much less intimate reverting back to the days when intimacy was not used. Technology has improved , it has allowed those with little ability to prosper.

    So says you. Just because you don't enjoy a genre of music doesn't make them of "little ability".

    I think if anything, technology today has allowed many more people to become involved in music. Think of all musicians of yesteryear who were denied the opportunity to produce/distribute music because someone in an office in NY or LA didn't "like" them or the music.

    Now with the advent of technology, small musicians can play, record, and distribute on YouTube, MySpace, etc without needing "approval" from snobby, elitist, blowhards such as yourself Mr. Walker.

    Just like 50 years ago, if you don't like the music thats on, turn it off.
  • 01-17-2008, 09:05 AM
    Groundbeef
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GMichael
    So much for that group hug I was planning.

    I thought you were all hugged out after the Christmas party. Geeze, even Santa had to tell you to back off.
  • 01-17-2008, 09:22 AM
    GMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Groundbeef
    I thought you were all hugged out after the Christmas party. Geeze, even Santa had to tell you to back off.

    Don't let Santa fool you. Didn't you see what he was packin' for me after that hug?