Music, Formats, and Accuracy – What Really Matters?

Yeah, I love those memories -- except that I remember playing the original version of Susie Q, by Dale Hawkins, in our old crackerbox high school gymnasium in 1957!!! I was the DJ for the sock hops.

The natural reverb in that big old box was so cavernous that you had to work hard to figure out just what you were listening to. But it was all marvellous nonetheless. (Little known fact -- legendary session guitarist Jame Burton played the stinging lead guitar on the original verson. Hawkins sang and played rhythm guitar.
 
Yeah, I love those memories -- except that I remember playing the original version of Susie Q, by Dale Hawkins, in our old crackerbox high school gymnasium in 1957!!! I was the DJ for the sock hops.

The natural reverb in that big old box was so cavernous that you had to work hard to figure out just what you were listening to. But it was all marvellous nonetheless. (Little known fact -- legendary session guitarist Jame Burton played the stinging lead guitar on the original verson. Hawkins sang and played rhythm guitar.

---- WoW, just WoW! ...I wasn't even a school back then! ...I was still with my Mum. :)
...And I was listening to her, singing sweet melodies to my ears. :yes::thmbsp:

_______________

P.S. Are you from the First World War generation? ;) ...Nah, second one; probably born around 1940.
 
Last edited:
I listen to music for the music. A lot of early psychedelic Rock (Cream, Hendrix, The Doors and Deep Purple) was mixed and/or recorded poorly (listen to Ginger Baker in the mix). Those are great musicians and classic songs and the recording is not going to stop me from listening.

I do avoid some recordings at times because of listening fatigue (ie. Joe Satriani "Not of this Earth" w/piercing drum machines). Listening fatigue really drains my energy.

Joe Satriani "Not of this Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC4k4lq9wAc

Weak recordings -
Cream "I feel free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVcIer_4OnA
Cream "We're going wrong" (Drums to one side which was common on Cream recordings. Stellar drumming)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vf7WBF97o
Deep Purple "Speed King"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sGy_-p_sVE
The Doors "Take it as it comes" (on 4-track)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp_tjYszBmQ
 
Last edited:
...But on the other hand there were some excellent recordings from the fifties and sixties.
...Mostly Jazz ones. ...Few Classical ones too. ...Mercury, RCA, Capitol, Riverside, ...?
 
LOL. WW I was a little before my time (!!) I was born in '42. And yes, there are definitely some good jazz and classical recordings from the late '50s and '60s. Legendary freelance recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder recorded many fine jazz LPs for the Blue Note, Savoy and Prestige record labels. Many prominent jazz musicians of the time insisted on recording in his studio. John Coltrane's A Love Supreme was apparently recorded in Van Gelder's studio. Orrin Keepnews, as producer, was responsible for most of the fine Riverside jazz releases. And big labels like RCA and Columbia brought their engineering and production expertise to their major jazz releases. I remember listening to a copy of Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain on Columbia in the early 1960s, on a good system (which belonged to some rich kid in my university dorm) and being very impressed with the clarity of the music. You could hear all the instruments in Gil Evans' amazing arrangements. I think Columbia called their recording process "360 degree sound."

Rock releases in the early 60s were not so great. I don't think anybody felt back then that rock music deserved careful engineering and production. Also, the volume and distortion of the electric guitars and basses was such that a lot of engineers didn't have a clue how to record the music properly. The engineers just thought it was noise and treated it as such. I had respect for Cream, but to me, most of their recordings just sounded like mush. I think things got better generally in the late '60s and early '70s, partly because record companies began hiring young engineers and producers who had an affinity for rock music and understood what rock required.
 
Nashville, with its "countrypolitan" sound did some swell recordings in the 50s and 60s. The Everly Brothers partly (re-recorded) Greatest Hits from 1964 in Nashville is a real winner.

Henry Mancini benefited from some great recordings. The old "Pure Gold" RCA CD is stunning on just about any system.

Stan Kenton is another cat who seemed to have some of the best engineers. "Back to Balboa" was played in an empty hall and the reverb will jump off your turntable.
 
Personally, I feel the music, format, and accuracy are all tied together. The music is what evokes the emotional impact for an individual listener. The format determines the accuracy to which that emotional impact is delivered. While MP3 is convienent for some, it audible drawbacks may cause some a loss of emotional impact.

I have to disagree with this. The music comes first. I don't care if it's on a boombox.

Last night I was listening to Jewel - Pieces of you on a $30 MP3 player and some Sennheiser headphones. The songs on that album are so sad, it was hard not to tear up. I was completely engaged by the music.
 
I don't think that many people would dispute that fidelity/accuracy/clarity plays a part in the average listener's enjoyment of music. The question, though, is "how much a part"? My earlier point was that folk music, acoustic blues, doo-wop, old school R&B and garage rock (among other genres) are not enhanced substantially by an increase in fidelity. And to hypertone's point, a particularly expressive vocalist, wrapping himself/herself around a really good lyric, doesn't need ultra high fidelity to deliver the goods. That's not to say that a listener might get some additional satisfaction upon hearing subtle harmonics from guitar strings on a particularly good folk blues recording -- or upon hearing the slight emotional catch in a vocalist's throat -- but the fidelity doesn't really "make" the music. If I was going to assign percentages, it would be something like 85% - 90% for the performance and maybe 10%-15% for the quality of the recording.

On the other hand, if you're listening to classical music, ensemble jazz, certain kinds of prog rock or even techno, listening pleasure is derived from the specific sounds of the instruments (or treatments), the various blends of the instruments, stereo separation and so on. The listener delights in the articulation of a good acoustic bass, the crisp presence of the ride cymbals, the deep pounding of a kettle drum and the various studio enhancements which are common in contemporary pop and techno music. If you're not hearing much of that, you may well find the music flat and insipid. So I would regard percentages here to be much closer to 50/50, i.e., 50% for the performance and 50% for the rendering.

This is all quite subjective, of course, but that's the way I think of it.
 
People listen for different reasons. I like to listen to creativity. If it's creative, purely genuine and/or one-of-a-kind I want to hear it. Most musicians will want to hear almost anything that's played on their instrument for curiosity and/or enjoyment. Just like an artist: they will look at anything that is drawn well no matter how it's done.

I always liked listening to my Dad playing Herb Albert, Fifth Dimension, Simon/Garfunkel in the 60's. Those recordings had something about them that were really tangible and gave off a good vibe. (I think Cream and early Doors were originally done in mono?)
 
Music first for me. I did buy some recordings back in the day just because I'd read they were reference type audiophile discs but never really played them as I didn't actually like the music!:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
All good in da hood!
Craig.
 
I would rather re-experience the thrill of listening to The Beatles "All My Loving" on the mono Playtape system in my dad's VW Bus, than hearing anything on any audiophile system!!!
 
I don't think that many people would dispute that fidelity/accuracy/clarity plays a part in the average listener's enjoyment of music. The question, though, is "how much a part"? My earlier point was that folk music, acoustic blues, doo-wop, old school R&B and garage rock (among other genres) are not enhanced substantially by an increase in fidelity. And to hypertone's point, a particularly expressive vocalist, wrapping himself/herself around a really good lyric, doesn't need ultra high fidelity to deliver the goods. That's not to say that a listener might get some additional satisfaction upon hearing subtle harmonics from guitar strings on a particularly good folk blues recording -- or upon hearing the slight emotional catch in a vocalist's throat -- but the fidelity doesn't really "make" the music. If I was going to assign percentages, it would be something like 85% - 90% for the performance and maybe 10%-15% for the quality of the recording.

On the other hand, if you're listening to classical music, ensemble jazz, certain kinds of prog rock or even techno, listening pleasure is derived from the specific sounds of the instruments (or treatments), the various blends of the instruments, stereo separation and so on. The listener delights in the articulation of a good acoustic bass, the crisp presence of the ride cymbals, the deep pounding of a kettle drum and the various studio enhancements which are common in contemporary pop and techno music. If you're not hearing much of that, you may well find the music flat and insipid. So I would regard percentages here to be much closer to 50/50, i.e., 50% for the performance and 50% for the rendering.

This is all quite subjective, of course, but that's the way I think of it.

That's a great post sir; I enjoyed reading it and it rings right to my ears and soul. :thmbsp:
 
I find myself falling in with the rest of the group here. For me, it is the music first, but a good recording will grab my attention as well. However, a well recorded bad song is still bad. A poorly recorded great song is still a gem. I thought I would give it a test right now.

I remember about 10 years ago having to go to Phoenix, AZ on business. We had three down days, so I rented a Jeep and drove up to the Grand Canyon. Needed some music, so I bought a few CDs, one of which is Elton John's 'Madman Across the Water.' The song that got me was 'Indian Sunset' played though a decent car audio system as I drove through the reservation. Very emotional based on the setting and the history. Playing that song now, it sounds better here at home, but the emotional impact isn't quite as big as I type this based on the setting.

Music is emotion. The equipment delivers that emotion to you. I get more goosebumps from the performance than from the recording. However, put a good performance together with good audio... that's magic! :music:
 
Here's a twisted angle:
How much good does it do a blues fan to buy a $50,000 sound system to listen to Memphis Minnie?
 
For me, personally, yeah, it's mostly about the music. But I have found that I'm open to listening to a lot more genres of music on a good system than I would otherwise.

For example, I'm mostly a rocker. But I heard Julie Andrews on my Quads one day, and was simply blown away. I don't think I'd listen to the Sound of Music soundtrack in my normal listening rotation, but her voice, on that system, was utterly enjoyable.

What does that all mean? I gave up trying to figure it all out. I enjoy listening to music, and I enjoy listening to more types of music on different systems.

bs
 
Here's a twisted angle:
How much good does it do a blues fan to buy a $50,000 sound system to listen to Memphis Minnie?

I believe I get what you're saying, but I've recently thought a lot about how a good audio system can reveal impressive aspects of even lo-fi recordings, which enhances the listening experience.

Plus I think the typical person who's interested in hi-fi will have a reasonably large, and probably also varied, music collection. It seems unlikely there wouldn't be plenty of good recordings in there.
 
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>‏

Music first is a healthy mantra...
and mine for the most part.

That said, I rarely find myself longing to go home and crank-up the Hifi after enjoying a live music event. In turn, I don't hanker to go sit in my Cooper and listen to the in-dash radio after spending a few leisure hours in front of my turntable and valve amps. For that matter, as much as it is about what ever (musical piece(s) we are in the mood to hear, I can't say that I have EVER wasted any time wishing the album I just heard on vinyl would some day come out on a shiney, new CD...

Funny thing is, I guess at heart I am a true audiophile (in the best sense of the word, and proud of it), as well as a devout music lover because, I don't care to give up being closer to the musical event, even in so much as giving up a well chosen (last meter) mains cable on a modest piece of equipment that the common man (non audiophile) might consider to be of no consequence, or an outrageous, ridiculous, obsessive expenditure. No more than I would care to give up a centered box seat, in a grand hall, for something at the back, against a wall, under the mezzanine. I like creating, and enjoying a special place where music has the opportunity to unfold unfettered, have tone and colour that excite the palate and stirs the heart and mind, detail that draws one in, a place where the tunes and those who create them are held in some form of reverence, and savored. But most of all, I enjoy sharing those experiences.

Happy Listening!:beatnik:
 
The musicians I listen to have always given me music I enjoy. Gadd, Brecker,Bob James, Larry Carleton, etc. Going back to the 70's these people have always delivered. My system is average at best. It's quality people that do it for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom