|
|
Post by levon on Nov 21, 2013 2:33:44 GMT -6
The music business isn't separated from the economy we are in. There are so many factors that led to our current state of affairs, that pinning it on some musical dinosaurs is myopic. Much of what people think is shaped by the media. So, McCartney and Elton make some records, well, they're musicians, that's what they do. What the world does with it a different matter though. What they do now has no real effect on what any other artist might do, or whether there's money left to support new artists. In fact, it was the money generated by those huge selling artists that funded all that label development in the first place. Since we're talking about the music BUSINESS, looks at the facts. A company sells a product, someone can generate a certain amount of sales, forget their history, we're talking business. So, a company decides to promote a product, based on probable sales return on their investment. It has nothing to do with any other artist at this time. If the company can make some money, they'll do it, or they'll do it knowing there's loss involved, but as a loss leader for prestige reasons. When I read about how labels used to support artists and develop new acts, I have to sigh at the distortions that time and distance have created. I was IN the business during those times of label artist development, and believe me, it wasn't much different on the inside than it is today. It is true that by maintaining support, certain very good bands survived to make great music, but many more bands were ruined by the labels support of generic music that sells. That's how we got REO Speedwagon making millions, and the Clash dying on the vine. So, we're into it as artists, and the labels are into as a business. Did some of the people at labels begin by loving music, of course, that doesn't change how they got to where they are. It's a lot like politics, only a rare few survive with integrity intact. Someone like Rick Rubin is a good example, he's worked with many great artists and helped them recover and regain their lives, all the while making music that makes money. There has never been a safety net for artists. When I was getting started, NYC was crumbling, and there was no path to any kind of future stability. We made music anyway, and that became the Punk movement, and over 20-30 years, they were assimilated into the mainstream. The old, old guard have nothing to do with the success of anyone new today, (other than being an influence musically), it's entirely in the hands of new artists to figure out how to work within or without the forms the music business is taking. Saying that big name older artists like McCartney, Elton, Bowie are somehow taking up space better used by new artists is a straw man argument. Agreed, and that's what I was trying to say. Especially the last sentence. Where's the thumbs up smiley? |
|
|
|
Post by levon on Nov 21, 2013 2:38:06 GMT -6
I have my 13 song album pre produced, and as soon as i'm done this albatrostic(no such word) build of a studio, i'll be starting the finished recordings of it. It has 6 tunes that seamlessly melt intro's and outro's into one another, it's very much a part of the(self important rock star voice) musical statement i'm trying to make 8), i liken it to abby road, without all the stupidly great songs and talent lol. My stuff is an acoustic heavy rock funk thing. fortunately, i'm doing it for my enjoyment, if others dig it, that's a bonus 8) Yes, that's exactly my approach also. I still view albums as a unit. Too bad people don't 'have the time' to listen to an album anymore. It seems all they need today is 15 second bits. That's the length of their attention span. Not my audience,apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 21, 2013 10:35:10 GMT -6
Y'now, there are so many chemicals in foods that are common, hidden within the dna of corn and french fries, and a million other products, and between the air pollution, water pollution, and the ongoing Fukushima radiation of the oceans, I think some of the issues related to young people having less of an ability to concentrate than the generations before might be traceable to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 21, 2013 13:33:08 GMT -6
Initiative from one side of the political aisle here to remove music ed from schools...cut funding. Most of my adult life. Focus on college as "job prep school", too. Consolidation of radio ownership. Technologies competing for time/attention. And music playback becoming SO convenient....there's such a thing as too convenient. I literally don't have much of any time in my day that I can't listen to music...car, typing on this computer, walking the dogs, in the studio--then I walk in a store, and they're playing some oldies station, which at this point means the music of MY youth.
When it's available everywhere all the time...it becomes less valued. The less money and/or fame involved, the fewer people pursue....and certainly DIFFERENT people pursue...
I'm telling you, the era of pop recorded music is over. We will continue to listen for generations, but it's done. History will cap it at the turn of the century, IMO. I mean--there's still people going out dancing the tango or salsa, but you're not going to say that's a typical thing that average Joe does now.
I can speak to the vinyl thing...it's been a bit of an adventure for me over the last year or so--buying my first turntable since I was a kid. Hearing new vinyl pressings compared to old...old compared to WELL done 24/88+ remasters of said material...seeing that as soon as the nice remasters come out, the stores are flooded with vinyl copies from (I assume) people who held onto the vinyl because it was better than the crushed CD...but, NOT better than the new 24/192 or DSD remaster. There's a huge hipster douche factor to the whole scene. Lots of young kids who didn't grow up with vinyl...and of that age that they have no idea how good a CD CAN sound since the last two decades have been pummeled into dynamic submission for no logical reason. There's actually a gain staging factor to it--vinyl, even new vinyl which is really crushed (if a bit less so than the CD) still outputs such a lower level--the preamp raises it to proper line level for people who then feed it to an amp. CDs, being mastered by retards, typically output considerably HIGHER than line level signal, pushing whatever amp input over spec into distortion. When you actually gain match, the CD will sound markedly better--but, most people are not engineers, right? Gain staging? They put on CD. They put on vinyl. Vinyl sounds better. So, that's what they tout--not understanding technically why they hear that and how they can fix that (attenuate the output of the CD player before the amp).
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 21, 2013 15:40:34 GMT -6
It's still analogue, not digital. No matter how high res the playback, I think there are things we feel that can't be explained, and for me, there's a connection to the artist I don't get from digital sources. SACD's were close though, as are the high res files.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Nov 22, 2013 12:42:02 GMT -6
It's still analogue, not digital. No matter how high res the playback, I think there are things we feel that can't be explained, and for me, there's a connection to the artist I don't get from digital sources. SACD's were close though, as are the high res files. Yeah, but every playback system, analog included, alters the sound. Remember the ads... "is it live or is it Memorex?"... well, I always could tell the diff. :-) Or am I missing part of your point? |
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Nov 22, 2013 14:24:39 GMT -6
Initiative from one side of the political aisle here to remove music ed from schools...cut funding. Most of my adult life. Focus on college as "job prep school", too. Consolidation of radio ownership. Technologies competing for time/attention. And music playback becoming SO convenient....there's such a thing as too convenient. I literally don't have much of any time in my day that I can't listen to music...car, typing on this computer, walking the dogs, in the studio--then I walk in a store, and they're playing some oldies station, which at this point means the music of MY youth. When it's available everywhere all the time...it becomes less valued. The less money and/or fame involved, the fewer people pursue....and certainly DIFFERENT people pursue... I'm telling you, the era of pop recorded music is over. We will continue to listen for generations, but it's done. History will cap it at the turn of the century, IMO. I mean--there's still people going out dancing the tango or salsa, but you're not going to say that's a typical thing that average Joe does now. I can speak to the vinyl thing...it's been a bit of an adventure for me over the last year or so--buying my first turntable since I was a kid. Hearing new vinyl pressings compared to old...old compared to WELL done 24/88+ remasters of said material...seeing that as soon as the nice remasters come out, the stores are flooded with vinyl copies from (I assume) people who held onto the vinyl because it was better than the crushed CD...but, NOT better than the new 24/192 or DSD remaster. There's a huge hipster douche factor to the whole scene. Lots of young kids who didn't grow up with vinyl...and of that age that they have no idea how good a CD CAN sound since the last two decades have been pummeled into dynamic submission for no logical reason. There's actually a gain staging factor to it--vinyl, even new vinyl which is really crushed (if a bit less so than the CD) still outputs such a lower level--the preamp raises it to proper line level for people who then feed it to an amp. CDs, being mastered by retards, typically output considerably HIGHER than line level signal, pushing whatever amp input over spec into distortion. When you actually gain match, the CD will sound markedly better--but, most people are not engineers, right? Gain staging? They put on CD. They put on vinyl. Vinyl sounds better. So, that's what they tout--not understanding technically why they hear that and how they can fix that (attenuate the output of the CD player before the amp). Another thing too what people don't think about , record players are analog and DON'T NEED CONVERTERS . Nobody thinks about this . So when you play a record it has a HUGE advantage over any digital device , like a CD . All digital play back devices are really only as good as their converters . Most people have a basic , cheap , consumer , CD player . Well how good are the converters ?? Probably not that great . Then you play a vinyl record , which since its already analog and doesn't need to converter anything , you could say it has the best "D/A converter" built into it . So a basic record player has a huge advantage over most consumer CD players . Now get some High End D/A converter and compare that CD audio to a record player and that evens the playing field . How many people have High End D/A converters  Very few . So the vinyl record is gonna win . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 14:36:26 GMT -6
Ehem,
so the needle is no mechanic-to-electric converter that alters sound and dynamics....well, it does.
A lot.
The advamtage is not HUGE. Records have alot disadvantages when it comes to fidelity. Dynamic range. Noise and hiss. etc.pp. I am not nostalgic about this. And i loved the records in childhood and teen age. Like mother's milk.
If we talk good tape machines, ok, that's something else... but still magnetic to electric converter.
All somehow media formats with their own problems and kind of "lossy" in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 22, 2013 14:45:07 GMT -6
It's still analogue, not digital. No matter how high res the playback, I think there are things we feel that can't be explained, and for me, there's a connection to the artist I don't get from digital sources. SACD's were close though, as are the high res files. No, only vinyl from pre-80s and selected titles where people are really analog enthusiasts have never been PCMd. As a side note--DSD (SACD) doesn't sound better for digitally MIXED recordings, IMO. It sounds better at capturing and reproducing analog signals. Old tape to board mixes being remastered through analog gear into DSD conversion. I can't tell a lick of difference in a 96k recorded/mixed album on 96k or DSD. Re:playback converters...mind you, I have some really nice ones...BUT...no, it's actually NOT the case--you need a $2k turntable/preamp to better a cheap (modern) CD/DVD player, IME. And, what people don't get about DSD....is that a $125 Sony SACD sounds as good as the $1200 one I own. It (and double rate PCM to a lesser degree) were about democratization of fidelity--NOT snobbery. I got sick of my buddies with their $7k turntable/cartridge/preamps saying DSD didn't sound "much better"--RIGHT...it sounds marginally better on a $125 player IS the point. But, yes--my $1200 player improves CD FAR more than it does 88+ or DSD. In fact, I can't tell any positive improvement over the $600 player it replaced...which in turn, for DSD only didn't sound better than the $125 Sony. I literally have to keep spending MORE money because the industry won't move off Redbook. I would need to spend EVEN more if it moved back to vinyl. I know--because I recently sat in on some new 180gr pressings being played on a number of systems...and decided to pass...it wasn't until they broke well into the $2500 (preamp included) that it bettered the CD...not even counting that the 88+ or DSD beats the shit out of redbook as is-but they didn't have that set up to test. When I polled my "vinyl loving" friends about what to buy? $1000+ decks...$500+ preamps...OR 80% of them have some old whatever they got at a garage sale and just like the midrange focused sound (obviously)--playing them on little bookshelf speakers with 30wt amps...I "get" that--see my comments on the listening of a "side" or EP earlier in the thread. Also, I'm serious about the gain staging. It's not subtle. One of the reasons I have the digital player I do is it has a 32bit DAC that will attenuate without penalty. Bringing a crushed CD to 75% gain (about what the vinyl preamp puts out) makes a HUGE difference in the sound as it hits the discrete analog preamp section. You can't compare without gain matching...but, of course, most end users do....AND....they're gonna use some modern crushed up "remaster" CD to compare to the original vinyl? Now, of COURSE the vinyl sounds better....DESPITE it's being vinyl. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 22, 2013 16:21:58 GMT -6
I was in fact referring to SACD's being quite close to the original classic albums, which were all AAA. You are probably right about digitally mixed albums not being much different when put on vinyl. I disagree slightly about the price range though. I did a favor for a friend, and in return, he bought me a turntable. It's about the lowest end decent turntable you can get, the Pro-Ject Debut Carbon, ($399) with a Pro-Ject Tube Box Phono Preamp, ($600), and not one SACD or CD I have grabs my attention the way vinyl does. There's just something about vinyl that makes me want to listen, and something about CD that makes me use it as background music. I haven't had this much fun listening to mjsic in a long, long time.
|
|
Very few . So the vinyl record is gonna win . 