Shape of sounds to come?
Posted by: BigH47 on 01 March 2009
During the U2 interview on the BBC Culture Show, the band said that, as most of the music is received by ear buds type earphones, may be they should mix their next album using them.
I guess they are not talking £300+ e(n)tymotics type, but more like the £5 "supplied with" types.
That should improve things
I guess they are not talking £300+ e(n)tymotics type, but more like the £5 "supplied with" types.
That should improve things
Posted on: 01 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
It is not as if the few recordings I have heard of U2 were exactly models of quality already.
Perhaps things can only get better in this case?
Unlikely that I would buy any U2 recordings, so the only way I will hear anything from them is via Absolute Radio on Medium Wave, where the basic recording quality is completely masked by the standard of the amplitude modulation broadcast ...
ATB from George
Perhaps things can only get better in this case?
Unlikely that I would buy any U2 recordings, so the only way I will hear anything from them is via Absolute Radio on Medium Wave, where the basic recording quality is completely masked by the standard of the amplitude modulation broadcast ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 01 March 2009 by BigH47
The point is it may not just be U2 "Others are Sure to Follow".
Posted on: 01 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
But it all sound equally fine on Absolute Radio!
Dear howard,
The trouble is that mainstream pop artists, simply do not care about quality, but only earning loads of money.
It seems to me that the output of most modern pop artists is unsuitable to high quality high resolution replay equipment.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think not ...
ATB from George
Dear howard,
The trouble is that mainstream pop artists, simply do not care about quality, but only earning loads of money.
It seems to me that the output of most modern pop artists is unsuitable to high quality high resolution replay equipment.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think not ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 01 March 2009 by John M
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
But it all sound equally fine on Absolute Radio!
Dear howard,
The trouble is that mainstream pop artists, simply do not care about quality, but only earning loads of money.
It seems to me that the output of most modern pop artists is unsuitable to high quality high resolution replay equipment.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think not ...
ATB from George
I agree for the most part George, but I have heard a few of late that seem to have taken the time to properly record/engineer and master for those of us who take the time to properly listen - notwithstanding your individual taste in music - I would suggest
Mudcrutch (Tom Petty's new project)
Lindsay Buckingham (of Fleetwood Mac fame) A Gift of Screws
The Bad Plus (not exactly pop)
John Mayer
Neil Young - Prairie Wind
But for the most part, I agree with you. I can hardly listen to new music due to the pumped up dynamics and redlining levels. I prefer etymotics fancy earplugs to their earphones in these instances.
John
Posted on: 01 March 2009 by BigH47
I think you could easily not include those artists in the "pop" genre per se. For sightly more sophisticated taste I would guess.
Some of the other stuff would sound crap on any form of replay apparatus I suspect.
Some of the other stuff would sound crap on any form of replay apparatus I suspect.
Posted on: 01 March 2009 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
The trouble is that mainstream pop artists, simply do not care about quality, but only earning loads of money.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think not ...
George, you are very, very wrong.
1. There are plenty of pop artists who care deeply about quality.
2. While nearly everyone enjoys making money in their respective line of work, there are very few pop artists who care, as you say, only about earning loads of money. But the myth that those who do so are legion has always been fashionable. In reality, they are very much the exception.
3. That said, there has always been more crap than cream in every single form of human artistic expression, but it's rarely the result of artists who don't care about quality, but, rather, the result of insufficient talent.
4. It's incorrect to assume that music which sounds bad to your ears was, therefore, made by those who "do not care about quality, but only earning loads of money." The fact is, music that sounds bad to your ears was most likely made by someone who cares very deeply about the quality of their music.
Best,
Fred
Posted on: 02 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Fred,
It still sounds horrible to my ears, whatever the reasons! I accept that speculating about why it sounds horrible to my ears probably has produced the wrong conclusions. It still sounds horrible to my ears though, whatever the reasons!
ATB from George
It still sounds horrible to my ears, whatever the reasons! I accept that speculating about why it sounds horrible to my ears probably has produced the wrong conclusions. It still sounds horrible to my ears though, whatever the reasons!
ATB from George
Posted on: 02 March 2009 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
It still sounds horrible to my ears, whatever the reasons! I accept that speculating about why it sounds horrible to my ears probably has produced the wrong conclusions.
The wrong conclusions, yes, but why impugn their artistic integrity? I'm sure you would not want that done to you.
It's always been a mystery to me why so often when someone doesn't like a work of art they disparage the motives of the artist ... why can't they just say, "Not my cup of tea" and leave it at that?
Best,
Fred
Posted on: 02 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Fred,
I think that a few more making a better attempt to achieve euphonious results, with memorable tunes and treatment there-of, good performance quality, with particular attention to good vocal intonation, and clean, clear, and well balanced recording [as that is mostly how pop music is listened to] would lead me to a less cynical view of their motives.
I can accept as I did in my first post on the subject that my view applies to [and continues to] only the majority of pop artists.
I believe the punter is being ripped off on many levels by these people and the people who are promoting them.
ATB from George
PS: In terms of impugning my own artistic integrity, I really don't mind, as I am now entirely inactive. Nothing left to impugne! But I did give up playing and teaching, because I felt that I could no longer play as well as I once could, and did not want to wait for enough of a decline in performance quality that those who once gladly fixed me to play no longer wanted to. Better to finish when the finishing was the annoyance and not the declining playing!
I think that a few more making a better attempt to achieve euphonious results, with memorable tunes and treatment there-of, good performance quality, with particular attention to good vocal intonation, and clean, clear, and well balanced recording [as that is mostly how pop music is listened to] would lead me to a less cynical view of their motives.
I can accept as I did in my first post on the subject that my view applies to [and continues to] only the majority of pop artists.
I believe the punter is being ripped off on many levels by these people and the people who are promoting them.
ATB from George
PS: In terms of impugning my own artistic integrity, I really don't mind, as I am now entirely inactive. Nothing left to impugne! But I did give up playing and teaching, because I felt that I could no longer play as well as I once could, and did not want to wait for enough of a decline in performance quality that those who once gladly fixed me to play no longer wanted to. Better to finish when the finishing was the annoyance and not the declining playing!