-
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 ?
-
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Old equipment isn't out of date because of the changes in music, it's like cameras, even respected photographers have picked up digital cameras.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.....
-
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Old equipment isn't out of date because of the changes in music, it's like cameras, even respected photographers have picked up digital cameras.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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
...
-
Sniff sniff... I get so worked up in side when I see our little family pull together like this.
-
Just more of the same 'ol same 'ol IMO.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
So much for that group hug I was planning.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
We're noticing a pattern here, Melvin. It would seem in your world that the history of music did not begin until sometime in the 1930s or so, and it looks like it ended someplace in the 1950s. It would appear that everything that happened before and since are irrelevant in your book.
Humans behave like humans; it doesn't matter at which point in history you look at their goings-on. It was guaranteed on the day that Bing Crosby became wildly popular in the US that at some point down the road he would forfeit his crown to other singers, other styles of music and other fads. The music that is immensely popular with the public right now is doomed to the same fate.
Certainly technology plays a part in that, but it has always played an important role as witnessed by the example I gave of how musical styles changed when the modern piano was invented some 300 years ago.
Sure, the invention of mikes, amps and speakers "changed pop music forever" but changing musical styles due to technology was true before. A couple of years back, the Brookhaven National Laboratory documented the age of several Chinese flutes as between 7,000 and 9,000 years old. They are the first known multi-note musical instruments. You think maybe these might have had a radical impact on the style and manner of the music played by our ancestors? I think one could state that the invention of these flutes "changed pop music forever." And there are certainly technologies in use today that were not available 10, 25 or 50 years that are having a permanent impact on how musicians make the music we hear today and will hear in the future. (And, as with any tool or technology, sometimes they are used wonderfully while at other times nasty things are done in the name of progress.)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
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 that's on, turn it off.
I agree you are correct , there is more involvement by musicians of sorts than before because of technology. Because of the advances in technology we have today gangster rap , advocating the killing of police , rappers calling Black American women *****es "n"
hoes, four letter words are the norm. Rock artist are musicians using all kinds of language
promoting drug use and using drugs , etc, etc, etc. Going on stage almost naked, holding their crotch.
Technology has advantages and disadvantages. There is penicillin and there is the atom bomb. There was a "Code of Decency'' in Hollywood once. Music companies controlled
much of the music we heard once. Today's technology and other factors has changed all that.
Just think there was a time when men treated women with respect and foul language was not permitted in front of children.
Times have changed with a little help of technology.
Your post was right on the point. It was excellent !
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
There are few standards being produced today.
I have a different take on the nature of the changes. Simply put, there are far more choices available today - both musically and for our entertainment time in general. I see that as a positive change. As for *popular* music, you are correct that it is by and large junk. I feel the same way about network television. I watch zero. None. Having said that, there are countless sources of good music and video that are not the *mainstream* product. The variety available for either pursuit is mind boggling - you just have to look. You are still thinking in a three channel television world when it is now a 200 channel broadband High Def video world. I love science based programs. Where there was once only Nova on PBS, now there is The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, etc. There's no reason to limit yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Ipod I have read is inferior in quality to CD's...
You're comparing apples and oranges. An iPod is a player and Redbook CD is a format. iPods can store music in an equal fidelity lossless format. That is yet another choice you can make based upon your preferences. Which do you prefer? Greater storage or greater fidelity? Take your pick.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I agree you are correct , there is more involvement by musicians of sorts than before because of technology. Because of the advances in technology we have today gangster rap , advocating the killing of police , rappers calling Black American women *****es "n"
hoes, four letter words are the norm. Rock artist are musicians using all kinds of language
promoting drug use and using drugs , etc, etc, etc. Going on stage almost naked, holding their crotch.
Technology has advantages and disadvantages. There is penicillin and there is the atom bomb. There was a "Code of Decency'' in Hollywood once. Music companies controlled
much of the music we heard once. Today's technology and other factors has changed all that.
Just think there was a time when men treated women with respect and foul language was not permitted in front of children.
Times have changed with a little help of technology.
Your post was right on the point. It was excellent !
Right, so Hip-Hop, and Slasher Rock define todays music? Please. Again, if you don't like them don't listen to it. I don't.
What about the countless other acts available? I suppose you don't like Pink Floyd because of some "alleged" substance abuse? They only held the longest streak on Billboard (so long Billboard changed the rules to knock them off).
Or what about that loser James Taylor, Billy Joel, and others?
A "Man" still treats women with respect. And people still swore back in the 50's. If you actually belived what you are posting, I suppose YOU call women "hoe's" and swear up a blue streak in front of the grandkids? Nahhhh, I thought not. People do what they like. And they have been doing it for years.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
Right, so Hip-Hop, and Slasher Rock define todays music? Please. Again, if you don't like them don't listen to it. I don't.
What about the countless other acts available? I suppose you don't like Pink Floyd because of some "alleged" substance abuse? They only held the longest streak on Billboard (so long Billboard changed the rules to knock them off).
Or what about that loser James Taylor, Billy Joel, and others?
A "Man" still treats women with respect. And people still swore back in the 50's. If you actually believed what you are posting, I suppose YOU call women "hoe's" and swear up a blue streak in front of the grandkids? Nahhhh, I thought not. People do what they like. And they have been doing it for years.
Are you implying that rappers are not men ? What are they ducks ? People used four letter words in the 50's but it was not on television are on records.
People are held in check by laws. No we cannot not do some of the things we like.
I may not listen to it , but the effects of the music today has changed the attitudes of our young people. They wear their pants low because they think they are imating convicts.
Rappers don't just call women B's and H's they treat them as B's and H's. Some women call themselves B's and H's.
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 ?
When Hollywood , television , and the recording studios gave up control look at what happen ? The inmates have taken over.
As you pointed out technology helped.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Are you implying that rappers are not men ? What are they ducks ? People used four letter words in the 50's but it was not on television are on records.
People are held in check by laws. No we cannot not do some of the things we like.
I may not listen to it , but the effects of the music today has changed the attitudes of our young people. They wear their pants low because they think they are imating convicts.
Rappers don't just call women B's and H's they treat them as B's and H's. Some women call themselves B's and H's.
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 ?
When Hollywood , television , and the recording studios gave up control look at what happen ? The inmates have taken over.
As you pointed out technology helped.
No, simply replying to your suggestion that "Men" today treat women like dirt. I was simply pointing out that "Men" don't do that. Sorry the distinction was lost on you.
As far as youth of today, its the same as it has been for 1000 years. Children are constantly trying to break out of the mold that their parents are/perceived to be in.
Unless your initials are JC, I'm pretty sure back in the day you felt your parents were "square" or whatever lexicon was in favor back in the 40's-50's.
Back then the trouble makers wore black leather jackets, and used motor oil to hold their "ducks" in shape. Or have you forgotten about that?
As far as Pink Floyd goes, you are literally off your rocker. I hope that someone lifts you back onto it before you catch a cold. Take a couple of hours, and take a listen to "Dark Side of The Moon". Its very good.
And why exactly would you want to ignore James Taylor? Or Billy Joel for that matter?
No more that 40 years ago people should have ignored Frank, Dean, and Sammy. After all, they were a bunch of drunk, mob affilated, womanizing dorks who could happen to sing. Sometimes not even do that very well. Ever hear Sammy sing "In the Ghetto"? What a train wreck!
BTW, GM, JM, or LJ, I do belive we have our first "Nazi" reference in this thread. Thats gotta count for something right?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I have a different take on the nature of the changes. Simply put, there are far more choices available today - both musically and for our entertainment time in general. I see that as a positive change. As for *popular* music, you are correct that it is by and large junk. I feel the same way about network television. I watch zero. None. Having said that, there are countless sources of good music and video that are not the *mainstream* product. The variety available for either pursuit is mind boggling - you just have to look. You are still thinking in a three channel television world when it is now a 200 channel broadband High Def video world. I love science based programs. Where there was once only Nova on PBS, now there is The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, etc. There's no reason to limit yourself.
You're comparing apples and oranges. An iPod is a player and Redbook CD is a format. iPods can store music in an equal fidelity lossless format. That is yet another choice you can make based upon your preferences. Which do you prefer? Greater storage or greater fidelity? Take your pick.
rw
You are correct there are many more options than there was 30+ years ago. The average young American does not watch the shows you outlined.
As a nation we finish last are near last in testing compared to other western nation including the Japanese.
Newt Gingrich , ex College History professor and ex Speaker of the House ,stated that the average young American does not know who the combatants of World War Two was.
I prefer greater fidelity . I seldom listen to my Ipod , which I was awarded by Direct TV
for buying a subscription.
My car has a 6 disc CD changer in it. Came with the car. My wife also has a 6 CD changer in her car , again it came with the car. Our third car has a 6 disc CD changer in it also. That was a BMW thing I guess , although the newer BMW's comes with Ipod connection , no CD's.
Technology is great I just recorded on my DVD recorder The History of the American Jews.
Berlin , Kern , Rogers , Porter , Samuel Goldwyn , Jack Benny , Milton Burl , Sid Caesar,
the list is endless and you know what they all proved that you don't have to dress like a thug , use four letter words , take drugs . and have babies out of wedlock to be a success in show business !
Times have changed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
The average young American does not watch the shows you outlined.
Nor did earlier generations of 'youts watch Perry Como and Lawrence Welk. No difference there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
As a nation we finish last are near last in testing compared to other western nation including the Japanese.
Every country (except maybe North Korea) has access to modern music and R&R. No difference there. If you're implying that R&R is responsible for lower academic performance, you'll have to find some real evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
That was a BMW thing I guess , although the newer BMW's comes with Ipod connection , no CD's.
That was a car thing, Melvin. Has nothing to do with BMW or Becker. No difference there either.
rw
-
Melvin, once again you seem to be laboring under the impression that only good things happened during the time span you relish.
I'm not fond of many aspects of modern culture, but you can't ignore that the first half of the 20th century had Al Capone (born 1899, died 1947), Hitler (b.1889, d.1945) and a host of others who didn't have much in the way of reverence for the best in humanity.
There were also scum and other troubled types in Hollywood and the music industry during that period of time, though the press was a bit more active in helping cover-up than they are these days. (For example, try giving a short bio of Judy Garland without using the word "addict." She was hardly alone.)
As for complaints about young Americans, don't forget it was Plato who wrote some 2,400 years ago: ""What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Seems to me humanity is still pretty much the same as its always been.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Nor did earlier generations of 'youts watch Perry Como and Lawrence Welk. No difference there.
Every country (except maybe North Korea) has access to modern music and R&R. No difference there. If you're implying that R&R is responsible for lower academic performance, you'll have to find some real evidence.
That was a car thing, Melvin. Has nothing to do with BMW or Becker. No difference there either.
rw
You will find that earlier young people did watch Perry Como. Mr. Como had one of the highest TV ratings of all time. Como was the number one recording artist in America for several years. Lawrence Welk was another story.
There are many reasons for the poor showing of Americans in testing. Hip-hop and rock has been of no benefit. Rap especially is anti-education. Not so with earlier forms of music.
Many Japanese , American and European cars did not come with 6 disc CD changers as standard equipment . High end BMW's did.
You might say the downside of American popular music started with Elvis. Although the music of Elvis seams quite tame compared to the rap and rock musicians today.
At least Elvis's music used no four letter words and did not put down women.
Elvis's dress though looked down on in the 1950's is far better than the dress of most young people today.
Times have changed !
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlsstl
Melvin, once again you seem to be laboring under the impression that only good things happened during the time span you relish.
I'm not fond of many aspects of modern culture, but you can't ignore that the first half of the 20th century had Al Capone (born 1899, died 1947), Hitler (b.1889, d.1945) and a host of others who didn't have much in the way of reverence for the best in humanity.
There were also scum and other troubled types in Hollywood and the music industry during that period of time, though the press was a bit more active in helping cover-up than they are these days. (For example, try giving a short bio of Judy Garland without using the word "addict." She was hardly alone.)
As for complaints about young Americans, don't forget it was Plato who wrote some 2,400 years ago: ""What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Seems to me humanity is still pretty much the same as its always been.
As usual you are correct , there was some bad people in the most violent century in the world's history , "The twentieth century". Let's give Hollywood a little credit there was the "Code of Decency " TV and the recording industry did try for many years to not allow the types that are so popular today. Elvis was not really excepted.
Again you are right Judy Garland had her problems and there was others. But remember these sorts was not excepted , many found themselves unemployed as was the case with Ms. Garland. Today's inappropriate behaviour is the norm.
They call them love babies today , in Garland's era that behaviour was unacceptable as well as drug use , which is excepted today.
No sir times are very different. Very different.
-
Hardly for me. I buy gear for the same reason that I bought gear originally. The communication of art. Popular music is about business. Major labels got R&D people tracking trends so they know what kind of band to sign and what group of people to market. They know what groups of people spend the most money on entertainment by race, religion, age, education. And they know how these people will see and/or playback their entertainment. Good for them.
-
Melvin I have to ask are these posts to make you feel better about the times when you were young? As you age and life begins to pass you by, as it will eventually to all of us, are you clinging to your glory days? Times change and we all reach a point where we can no longer change with it. Enjoy memories of your prime but do not deny others their time in the sun.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
No sir times are very different. Very different...
And again, I ask "what is to be done?". The same freedoms that have allowed you to amass the wealth to afford a variety of hi-fi systems and three luxury cars are the same ones that allow for this unacceptable behavior. It's the hallmark of a free and capitalist society---the right to be petulant. Fortunately for you and I, we need not concern ourselves
with other people's behavior. It effects us not (though apparently it may "affect" us).
BTW, I'm not sure you want to use the ogrish "ex-college History Professor" Newt Gingrich as a source, as he more closely resembles the Nazis which you denigrate than any significant voice of conservatism. The man is so congenitively dishonest he had to have three young male aides screw his pants on every morning while his wife lay dying in bed of cancer. Any sample group of "young Americans" he might've used would certainly be from the two to five age range, if only to prove his obtuse and fear-mongering assertion.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
You will find that earlier young people did watch Perry Como.
Not I and I remember the day. Too cheesy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Many Japanese , American and European cars did not come with 6 disc CD changers as standard equipment . High end BMW's did.
You should reconsider speaking on topics about which you lack the facts. I've had CD changers standard on my Hondas and Acuras since 1995. My current Acura came with a true 5.1 channel DVD-Audio system with satellite XM radio. Voice controlled at that. Yours most certainly does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
You might say the downside of American popular music started with Elvis.
Then again you might not.
rw
|