tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post8696091062658947877..comments2023-04-03T07:08:03.903-04:00Comments on ninetymilewind: 3 More Reasons Why The CD Deserves To Diechromeheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-23735791530025791642008-02-10T21:23:00.000-05:002008-02-10T21:23:00.000-05:00Yeah, I weas in a bilious mood when I wrote that. ...Yeah, I weas in a bilious mood when I wrote that. There's always going to be good music.Tad Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138111543341593946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-69205185124824501502008-02-10T17:03:00.000-05:002008-02-10T17:03:00.000-05:00Thanks for your insight Tad. You raise a good poin...Thanks for your insight Tad. You raise a good point about the commercial music of the 1950s. It was often brilliant and timeless in its innocence and simplicity, and a great deal of it will survive longer than expected. I would still say that some artists did have cultural importance in the early 1970s-- Jackson Browne excelled, and James Taylor created a few masterpieces, as did Paul Simon, Stevie Wonder, Tom Waits, John Prine, Steve Goodman, Joni Mitchell, Steely Dan and others recorded great, durable work in that period. Disco killed the mid-70s entirely, and that's the period that most people think of when they talk about that decade. But in the late 70s The Clash, Steve Forbert and Elvis Costello came along (among others), and I think these artists took themselves and their work very seriously. When New Wave and Glam Metal hit in the 80s there was once again a lot of vanity schlock, pretentious music that was nowhere near as good as the simpler eras. If you follow certain lengthy careers you can see, for example, the effect that the disposable mid-70s trend had on the work of The Rolling Stones ("Miss You" is garbage), Elton John (all of his mid-70s work), David Bowie, and others, who completely caved in to the notion that music was only something you dance to. I suppose there are examples of art, endearing commercialism, and garbage in each decade. I hear an awful lot of music these days that just wasn't worth the trouble of recording. But, because it's so easy to record and so cheap to deliver it, it gets recorded.chromeheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-27876667500591942312008-02-10T16:11:00.000-05:002008-02-10T16:11:00.000-05:00Craig -- great post. I came here directed by my ol...Craig -- great post. I came here directed by my old pal Marvin Bell, Nathan's father, to look for your Nathan Bell interview, and will go on to read that, but got distracted right away by the first post. One disagreement, along the same lines as Stuart's. Here's something from awhile back on <A HREF="http://opusforty.blogspot.com/2007/08/idle-thought-on-music.html" REL="nofollow">my blog</A>:<BR/><BR/>Has it ever struck anyone that in the era before 1960, no one making popular music of any sort thought of their work as having any lasting cultural or aesthetic importance, and they produced so many masterpieces that will live forever--and in the era after 1970, everyone making popular music thought of their work as having lasting cultural or aesthetic importance, and hardly any of it does?<BR/><BR/><BR/>The Lomaxes were recording for posterity -- I don't think any of the great musicians they recorded, like prisoners singing work songs at Angola -- or even Leadbelly -- thought of themselves as playing and singing for posterity.Tad Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138111543341593946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-10019943094578600752008-02-06T01:39:00.000-05:002008-02-06T01:39:00.000-05:00Thanks TLL. I can also "hear" those fragmented sa...Thanks TLL. <BR/><BR/>I can also "hear" those fragmented samples, although to many people this is like claiming to "see" auras. There's an irritable feeling associated with digital listening that I must acknowledge even if I sound like a fruitcake. It makes me jittery. <BR/><BR/>We are currently stuck with this sampling technology, but that doesn't mean it won't change. Physics is remarkable-- light is particle and wave-- there will be undreamed of solutions to this problem.<BR/><BR/>The reason I wish the death of the CD is so there can be progress. Right now this is a war of attrition. There will be no winners as long as corporations have a stake in preserving a product that fails to deliver. I believe consumers, although fickle and by no means philanthropic about the arts, are ahead of the curve. They've decided that for convenience, nothing beats a little compressed file that can be zipped around the Internet at nearly the speed of light. In one sense this represents a return to CONTENT-- why ship this little packet all over the globe unless it's, well, worth hearing! I'm actually encouraged by the effect that portability has had on people who love to share cool songs. I'm in favor of this. All that remains is for someone to develop a way in which a file of some sort can be saved on a permanent medium and played back conveniently with the full spectrum of sonic range. Hey, we went to the moon for Crissake...chromeheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-39312882247463030182008-02-06T01:11:00.000-05:002008-02-06T01:11:00.000-05:00I'm one of those people who will miss liner notes ...I'm one of those people who will miss liner notes and lyrics in the CD jewel cases. Being a player myself, I intently follow who the players are on my favorite artists CD's, and I treat my CD collection like a museum. Ever see the movie "Diner?" Remember the scene where the guy reprimands his wife for filing an album incorrectly? To a gentler degree, that "guy" would be me. <BR/>But it's true, digital can never match analog, even if we were able to download a full WAV or AIFF file. In the realm of physics, it's an impossibility, because of the difference in the nature of digital and analog. Analog reproduction is a smooth curve, digital reproduction is thousand of small steps trying to emulate that smooth curve, and I believe even if you can't always hear it depending on the quality of the playback source, there is a component to feeling real sound waves, like listening to live music, that virtual can never replace.<BR/>It is a crime that so much opportunity was squandered in the amount of money that the industry made off of CD's. One wishes that human nature would have been more conscientious when large amounts of money were made, but as you point out Craig, there are those who deeply care about music and those for whom it is just background noise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-5498058114472438482008-02-05T22:49:00.000-05:002008-02-05T22:49:00.000-05:00Thanks for your comments TomI agree this is a sad ...Thanks for your comments Tom<BR/><BR/>I agree this is a sad situation. The industry's denial of the CD's shortcomings has resulted in music delivery being behind the curve. There's no reason why a WAV file can't be sold for download other than the fact that most consumer's don't want them, and the industry has not proven their marketability. <BR/><BR/>As far as albums vs. single songs, the consumer has been ripped off so many times it's almost impossible to win this argument in a room full of music buyers. So many artists cashed in at the peak of their popularity and made that flaccid multi-platinum disc that the consumer got stuck with, and now they don't believe in the concept of the "album as art". Their mindset is sound bytes, compressed data, single songs, fast edits in films, it's the attention span thing again...<BR/><BR/>It may be that the artists themselves have to win this case. Some downloads require you to buy the entire "disc", not just one song, but this is very unpopular with consumers. Yet, many of us feel as you do, that some CDs must be listened to in their entirety to really appreciate the work. Examples abound-- Van Morrison's "Astral Weeks", Cat Stevens' "Tea For The Tillerman", the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper", Dylan's "Blond On Blond", Joni Mitchell's "Blue". If more artists took the approach that a CD was a concept work (to his credit Sufjan Stevens does this) I think the consumer would "get it" again. But as long as most artists are just taking pot shots at Clear Channel, stabs at mega-hits, why bother to own a whole CD full of the crap that didn't make it?<BR/><BR/>There will be two solutions for this, I feel certain. There will evolve a high-quality audiophile standard for certain artists who think as we do. And there will be the ever cheapening disposable compressed media. There will always be people who care deeply about the art of music, and there will always people who just want to jog with their favorite songs playing in the headphones.chromeheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-53764064534902059202008-02-05T21:45:00.000-05:002008-02-05T21:45:00.000-05:00i have two problems with the (ultimately inevitabl...i have two problems with the (ultimately inevitable) conclusion you've drawn...<BR/><BR/>yeah, you're right. the CD will ultimately die. and while i won't miss the media itself, what i will miss is the concept of a collection of songs presented as a unit, sometimes thematically connected, sometimes not...people buy songs now, not albums - and while that makes sense from an economic standpoint, i just can't imagine only owning "at seventeen" while not having given "tea and sympathy" or "in the winter" or "when the party's over"...people's ever-narrowing focus will narrow even more than it already is, if that's at all possible.<BR/><BR/>secondly - are CD's as a medium of music delivery going to be replaced by...MP3's?<BR/><BR/>granted, the old 16 bit, 44.1KHz sampling rate wasn't ideal...but at the time the standard was adopted, it made sense, considering the technological limitations at the time. now, fault can be doled out for failing to upgrade over time...but what's replacing the CD as we speak is an overly compressed, low bitrate medium that's inferior to the already-inferior compact disc.<BR/><BR/>from a sound quality standpoint, we're going from the frying pan into the fire...and we're losing out on what made the concept of the album so attractive to me, personally, as a consumer.<BR/><BR/><BR/>i agree with you, with regard to the CD's demise being only a matter of time...but what appears to be replacing it scares me a little, frankly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>'course, maybe some enterprising upstart over at Apple just might introduce a means to download full-bitrate .wav files for - dare i say it - a slightly higher price?<BR/><BR/>hey, it could happen.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151659678377130701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-59684085530545435442008-02-05T14:16:00.000-05:002008-02-05T14:16:00.000-05:00Thanks Jim. I have to admit I only watched about 5...Thanks Jim. I have to admit I only watched about 5 minutes of the debut episode of "Hit Men" . I know these guys and they are just having some fun at their own expense, but the show puts a dufus face on Music Row.<BR/><BR/>As for John Rich in his fur coat, it further demonstrates how out of touch some of these "celebrity" artists really are. To set the record straight, the furs John now wears are faux fur (after his apology to PETA for wearing a real one on the CMA Awards). Of course, this still doesn't explain what the "fur look" and country music have to do with one another to begin with. Kenny and John seem to think that rappers are country, too. And why not bring Dee Snider in for further dilution? If everything is country, then country is nothing.chromeheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-66404973092774223492008-02-05T12:32:00.000-05:002008-02-05T12:32:00.000-05:00Hi Craig - I have to admit everything you say is c...Hi Craig - I have to admit everything you say is completely true. Thanks for really telling it like it is in these posts. It really sickens me to see what the music business has become.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to hear your thoughts in a post about some of the attempts by Nashville that I think are helping bring down the business as well - particularly shows like "Hitmen of Music Row" and "Gone Country". <BR/><BR/>When I see John Rich strutting around in that fur coat, trying to get Dee Snider of Twisted Sister to write a country song and telling Julio Iglesias that someone like him is the bridge Nashville needs to reach the latino market I'm thinking "What have we become"?<BR/><BR/>Taking all these celebrities, throwing them into the "machine" of current Nashville songwriting with writers who really should know better and it just makes me sick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-63443179464411886412008-02-04T19:13:00.000-05:002008-02-04T19:13:00.000-05:00Thanks for your comments Stuart.The cost of CD man...Thanks for your comments Stuart.<BR/><BR/>The cost of CD manufacturing has also gone down in BOTH the inflationary sense and in actual dollars. Also, keep in mind that the only reason the price is still $17.95 is because consumers have rebelled. The story about Trent Reznor being appalled to discover that his latest NIN CD was retailing for $25 in Australia spurred him into his latest experiment with "pay what you want" concept. But I agree that music is, and always has been a bargain at these prices if it's good.<BR/><BR/>The initial windfall when the CD was introduced was astronomical. The prices were fixed and jacked up in collusion with retailers like Walmart. Many of us got rebate checks a few years ago in the successful class action lawsuit filed by some consumers. If the courts recognized some fraud, who am I to disagree...<BR/><BR/>I agree there was plenty of crappy music in the days of the LP. I was making a point that there are far more "disposable" tracks issued because a CD can hold 75 minutes of music, and because they're so inexpensive to manufacture. I do believe that the ratio of quality to crap is currently off the scale compared with music of the past. <BR/><BR/>Here's a quote from the International Herald Trbune from 1996, the year this whole thing began to backfire :<BR/><BR/><I>"Now, a CD can hold 78 minutes of material, and labels are filling up that space with whatever previously unreleased tracks they can find in their catalog closets.<BR/><BR/>Added value is another recurring theme. Paul Verna, review editor for Billboard magazine, said, "The CD being longer allows people to just put more information on there, in order to give the customer what they're paying for — more quantity if not quality."<BR/><BR/>But that view is not shared by some critics. John Alroy, who manages a Web site called Wilson and Alroy's Record Reviews, says fans are being exploited by "ridiculously overpriced" boxed-set packages.<BR/><BR/>"I can't imagine a bigger rip-off," he said. "Novices pick up what they think is an entertaining greatest-hits collection and instead get smothered with a pile of out-takes and second-rate alternate versions, while die-hard fans shell out a big pile of money to sit through a bunch of hits they're sick of already just so they can have the complete catalog."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, and I forgot to mention remixes. How long before you can just buy Taylor Swift singing consonants and vowels and program her to sing any song you write?chromeheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-78997812645782153632008-02-04T18:16:00.000-05:002008-02-04T18:16:00.000-05:00I'd have to differ with some parts of your analysi...I'd have to differ with some parts of your analysis here Craig. First off, the cost of the CD has barely changed over its lifetime. Twenty five years or so have gone by and the cost in real dollars has actually gone down, which is quite unlike any other form of entertainment that I know of.<BR/><BR/>Even when you include the price jump in music when CDs were introduced, the cost of commercial music still seems cheap. In the 1960s, you could buy a piece of vinyl for 3 bucks on special (hopefully that piece of vinyl had some decent music on it). Now you can buy a CD on special for about 11 bucks. To put this in perspective, a movie ticket was a dollar, my ticket to see Jimi Hendrix was eight bucks, and my mom's Chevy Impala cost 2700 bucks out the door back in the 60s. So today's CD is actually a bargain.<BR/><BR/>Of course, a better bargain is free. And that's what most music is now. Free. You can't compete with free. And that's why the music industry is dying.<BR/><BR/>There is a lot of nostalgia about the "great music" back in the old days. From my perspective, almost all of the music from back then was as junky as the stuff today. I mean, do you remember Fabian and Bobby Sherman? Or maybe the shlock rock of the Moody Blues? Big sellers back then made crappy music. Big sellers now make crappy music. I don't see a big shift in quality.<BR/><BR/>There is a difference in that today's modern record companies won't even bother to have someone on their label who doesn't have the potential to sell big. But the indie labels have happily taken over that space.<BR/><BR/>I agree that CDs have bad sound quality, but that's an issue for audiophiles not the buying public. The public listened to cassette tapes for years without complaint. CDs are way better than cassette tapes. And they are better than mp3's, which the public has been happily acquiring for free.<BR/><BR/>Keep writing. Cheers, StuartUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02483604051344597674noreply@blogger.com