The same way that real musicians make music today, Poindexter, with musical instruments.
Blech. How imprecise and dissonant. The whole history of musical invention has been about the precise reproduction of specific waveforms. Thank goodness for the invention of computers which finally made that possible. (Although I've always found the electromechanical tone wheels of the Hammond organ kind of quaint.)
That's why all recorded music is bland compared to live music. Digital recording just lowers the common denominator even further.
I've seen live concerts and I've heard recorded music (obviously.)
You're 100% wrong. The acoustics and audio fidelity will always be better in the digital recording than in the live performance. Live, there's interference from other people, there's the trade-off between creating an acoustic space and creating a performance space. Maybe a jet flies overhead or something. It's impossible to get the same fidelity by being there in one seat out of 2000 or whatever as compared to a digital recording of even the exact same event as taken from the recording position most advantageous for clarity.
If you want the experience of seeing a show, then you should go to the show. If you want to use your ears to hear music, you should be going from digital recordings.
And let's not hear any nonsense about vinyl. Sure, digital sampling of waveforms tends to distort high-frequencies. But the frequencies that would be most distorted by digital sampling are well beyond the range of human hearing.
And the inertia of a record-player's needle has exactly the same effect on high-frequency playback, because the needle skips over high-frequency valleys like a car shooting over the ruts in a washboard road at 70 mph.
This is why folks like N'sync make millions selling their washed-up rubbish to the brainwashed and mindless drizzle we'd normally call the populace.
Remind me again who's being ignorant when they assert that N'Sync (for christ's sake) is the beginning and end of electronic music.
Most of the current generation is supercial to a previously unprecedented degree.
"Kids these days, with their damn devil music and their clothes! Shut off that noise and get off my lawn!"
Furthermore, music is about the production of 'wave-forms', not their reproduction.
Thank goodness for the invention of computers which allow the creation of infinite waveforms, not just what you can get from vibrating strings or columns of air.
Let's move on. No need for every thread to be hijacked into the usual 'how will crash squirm his way out of this crushing blow' circus.
That one made me laugh, I'll give you that.
Seriously, though. Nobody else is into Delerium? My friends and I used to do this thing in college we called "living stereo"; we'd use a portable CD player combined with a set of battery-powered wireless speakers shared amongst us to play techno as we walked around. Since nobody could see the speakers, and since it was in stereo, it was all but impossible for anybody to locate the source of the sound.
We never went into libraries or whatever, it was just fun to mess with people's heads in the cafeteria.
Fidelity has nothing to do with the quality of the music.
Oh, now we're talking about "quality"? Somebody stop those goalposts!
It's the performance that makes it human, as opposed to mechanical.
It's the same sound in both cases, Ringo, with different amounts of noise on top of the signal.
I like my signal-to-noise ratio to be high. You, apparently, take the opposite view. That's fine. Perhaps at your next concert you'd like to cram cotton balls into your ears; then you could have a really enjoyable experience, since apparently you like it better the less of the music you can actually hear.
If you hadn't noticed, the thread is about passion for music.
Oh, that's right. I missed that this was yet another thread for insufferable music snobbery. You're right that I can't possibly be someone who enjoys music unless I like exactly the same music as you, in exactly the same way, as chosen from an extremely narrow catalog of "songs I heard working at the dinosaur quarry." Gosh, would you like to tell me that my hair is too long, now, Grampa?
As I read through this thread, I recognized absolutely none of the names you guys mentioned. Makes me sad to think I'm the only one here who knows who Michael Collin and Byron Strippling are.
I don't know if it's your intent, but you've reminded me very much of the two complains of the snobbish music lover:
1) I don't recognize any of the musicians you like; you must not have any taste in music.
2) You don't recognize any of the musicians I like; you must not have any taste in music.
Again, I'm not saying you're a snob, but it's super-easy to fall into snobbery when talking about music, I've noticed.
mainly, i like it because it feels more substantial than cd. i enjoy listening to it, collecting it, and just looking at it more. the quality is very different than cd, some say better. sound is good -- sometimes amazing for what records you can pick up for next to nothing. it's got this whole hunting through bins, finding the amazing bargain appeal, kind of a subculture of geeks in basements. hard to explain, but if you ever get into it, you know.
I just spend last Saturday picking up weird junk at the local university surplus auction (like a new old bike! woot!), so believe me, I have a sense of what you're talking about.
I guess the thing is I'm not really someone who listens to music for its own sake. It's just something to put on while I do something else, like it is for about 99% of all human beings, I suspect.
So I'm a big fan of my iPod, I guess.
Anyway, neat turntable. It reminds me a lot of the turntable my dad has and hardly ever uses any more; I think it was also a Technics. And it had that same kind of spaced-dot pattern along the edge of the platter that you would use to fine-tune the speed control.
Lots of burnished knobs and switches, neat stuff. I don't think my dad has any really great records for it but it was an impressive feat of machinery to me at a young age.
Hey thanks, Jad. I'll take a look when I get back home tomorrow.
I've been listening to "Spacemusic", a podcast from a guy in Rotterdam called TC, and it's essentially what you would expect; ambient electronica, drum'n bass, what he calls "space music". The Hearts of Space guy on NPR calls it the same thing.
Also, Im into soundtracks a lot. John Williams is among the best currently.
Try and grab Basil Poledouris's soundtrack to Conan The Barbarian. It's one of the best soundtracks I've heard all year. (And you know? The movie is totally awesome, too.)
One thing that's amazing is that the Conan soundtrack was clearly the musical inspiration for a hundred fantasy RPG soundtracks; for instance "Theology/Civilization" clearly inspired the "marketplace" music you hear in a lot of games.
That would make Basil Poledouris, of all people, the most influential film composer of the 20th century - and he gets no credit. John Williams is a tosser next to this guy.
Also - Enio Morricone. His scores to the Man with No Name movies never leaves my iPod.
Which is how different from talking? More technical, yes, but not anything 'fundamentaly' new.
Hrm, I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about what he was doing with his mouth; but the rhythms that he's doing - the breakbeats - that, in my view, are a fundamentally new thing in music.
I mean, new back in like 1970, when breakbeat music seems to have first developed from guys cutting funk breaks on their turntables.
Eh, I don't know that much about Western music history, and even less about the music of other cultures, but the modern breakbeat really seems like it doesn't have historic precursors, which is weird because, like Shlomo proves, you can do it with your mouth.
™ Version 4.2