tube fanatic Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Not all artists are pleased with the popularity of MP3s: http://www.audiostream.com/content/neil-young-hates-mp3s-and-so-do-we Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.H.E. Droid Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I would assume that someone of Neil Young's stature would have control over his own music, so he's certainly free to not allow anything other than CD's and vinyl LP's to be published of his own music. Apparently he's willing to take the cash for those shxx MP3's of his songs so where is the real problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang guy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I would assume that someone of Neil Young's stature would have control over his own music, so he's certainly free to not allow anything other than CD's and vinyl LP's to be published of his own music. Apparently he's willing to take the cash for those shxx MP3's of his songs so where is the real problem? The problem is that too much liberty is taken with the remastering of many of the classics. Many of those artists have passed away. Is that any way to honor the memory of a great artist, or pay tribute to a masterpiece? Another problem is that he is talking about the deterioration of the industry quality not declaring war and boycotting it. Frankly, I don't find your statements quite as provocative as you think. You seem to me to be the type of person who tosses his milkshake on the floor and stands back and watches to see how others react. It does stimulate a reaction, but sooner or later people discover what you are up to, and the focus turns right square back at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderbender Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess it really depends on what system/devices you are listening to music on..... On my main system I listen to mostly vinyl.... Through out my house ( three systems) I pipe itunes via wifi and keep everything in lossless format on a two terabyte drive, no comparison to mp3's .... even in my office with a $150 reciever and BA booksheves. Buttttt For what they were originally intended ( strictly supposition on my part), MP3's are fine... ipods while running on the treadmill, driving down the road with my big ole noisy SUV.... for those such purposes I can't tell a difference Same reasoning that as a photo hobbiest I shoot everything in RAW (lossless) format. Save as a Photoshop and a TIFF file and then only convert down to a JPG to post pics on facebook, email, etc. All just tools, chose the right ones.... Unfortunately to many of us are just that "Tool's" LOL and use my good german carving knife to pry off the lid off a bucket of paint!!! ( She knows who she is!!!!) Seriously, there is a whole new generation that has never heard anything better than a "hot"MP3 through ear buds, and will never know the difference! Crying shame!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgds Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Seriously, there is a whole new generation that has never heard anything better than a "hot"MP3 through ear buds, and will never know the difference! Crying shame!! Yah I know what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artarama Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thanks for the link Tube. I would have missed that. In the interview with MTV Niel said: "It's all about the bottom and the beat driving everything, and that's because in the resolution of the music, there's nothing else you can really hear. The warmth and the depth at the high end is gone." - Neil Young. This is true with many recordings, new and old. The fault of the recording engineer in my book, or who ever makes those kind of decisions. Regardless of the purpose or use of MP3's the result is a new generation of music consumers that have little exposure and even less reverance for a quality recording. Itunes is stepping up the bit rate of the music they offer. The quality of sound cards in most computors are improving. Imagine if the average consumer of audio became interested in great fidelity and started to demand it in the equipment and music they purchase. Man.... could there be a resurgance of interest in Hi-Fi in the younger generation (or two) BTW, "Le Noise" sounds great as a itunes download and converted to lossless. I don't have the vinyl to compare, but it is certainly worth a listen. And worth every penny of $1.29! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet_Hollow Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Other shames: - People in remote parts of the world that have never heard music at all, or music beyond their folk genre. - Fussy gear-head types that have never been to a formal ochestra or choir event. - Fussy audiophile types that have never been to well dialed-in live audio performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I would assume that someone of Neil Young's stature would have control over his own music, so he's certainly free to not allow anything other than CD's and vinyl LP's to be published of his own music. Apparently he's willing to take the cash for those shxx MP3's of his songs so where is the real problem? I dont think he said that there wasnt a place for Mp3s only that they do not have the quality of higher res digital or vinyl. I wouldnt get my panties in a bunch over it! BTW Bob Dylan / Wilco / the Beatles/ etc etc have all said pretty much the same thing. For what it's worth, Neil does make sure that all of his music is released on viny. Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtrp Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Just to play 'devils advocate' here. How many people can actually hear the difference (or care to, for that matter) between an MP3 recording and a lossless version of the same track? 1 in 25? 1 in 50? Maybe. I seriously doubt 1 in 50 would even be able to explain, in extremely rudimentary terms the difference between lossless and MP3. Now consider this. Just because the recording is an MP3, does that make the actual content less enjoyable? Given the popularity of iPod, I would say the answer is absolutely not. And even if (and that is a big IF in my opinion) the quality of recordings has diminished, just look at what we have gained. I would trade 1970's style 'quality recordings' in vinyl only for todays miracles of cheap, fully digital solid state, ease of use, accessibility and portability any day of the week and twice on Sunday when it comes to my music. And as my closing argument, I went into Barnes and Noble the other day and happened to stumble across this. http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Moon-Immersion-Box/dp/B004ZNARH4 A box set that contains just about every single mix-match recording, re-master, SACD, 5.1, quadiphonic, Stereo, Live, DVD-A, Blu-Ray audio / visual, making of documentary, forwards and backwards playback anyone could possibly imagine for Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon. To the contrary of modern recordings being of 'poor quality' I would say there more quality versions available of many recordings today than there ever has been in the history of recordings. The quality of modern recordings have improved by leaps and bounds, except now consumers have more selection available to them. I don't have to buy the vinyl or buy the cd or buy the cassette. I can get a 96kb MP3 version in minutes for free from the internet, or I can shell out $30 for the SACD 5.1 / Stereo re-master version. God bless Neil Young, but I think when it comes to his quality recording opinion, that guy shot up too much horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 With all due respect I think your incedence of good hearing is off a bit. Now if you like bass and thump an mp3 is fine but for more nuance and warmth in the mids or lack of shrill in the high end you need to move past the mp3 If someone can't tell the difference, more power to them go with an iPod or cell phone and be happy. Josh Ps I wouldn't call dark side of the moon a modern recording Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtrp Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Ps I wouldn't call dark side of the moon a modern recording Fair enough. But every mix, remaster, quad, SACD, etc are certainly modern in comparison to the orignal release. And once you've heard it, the 5.1 SACD version blows the original stereo version away. In '73, you were limited. The vinyl LP, the FM radio or perhaps the concert. Now I have multiple selections and many artists are headed in this direction. Pearl Jam just released a Brenden O'Brien remixed / mastered version of Ten. Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds have their RCMH concert on Blu-Ray in full DTS-Master Audio. Modest Mouse The Moon and Antarctica 10 year anniversary release on CD and vinyl that was mixed / mastered by the artist themselves with new material. White Zombie also put out a different mix of most of their songs with each single they released. Point being, Neil Young might have some strange yearning for simpler times and a recording / distribution menu consisting strictly of LP or FM radio, but me and the rest of the 21st century are overjoyed with the selection and diversity out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderbender Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Let me start by saying that the way we perceive music, art,food,wine..... Is very subjective and until we are educated in some of the finer points and have had time to compare " Boonesfarm tickle pink" tastes just great. That being said, pop music will always be that ( for the masses). There are a lot of companies and engineers taking great pains to remaster all of the old favorites. Steve Hoffman has nailed it with his Blue Note, etc series of jazz releases and in many cases equal or rival the originals. I am fortunate that I have the despots able income to buy several copies of my favorite music and in about 80-85% of the case a mint original release still kicks but over any format new release..... But that's my perseption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t-man Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 maybe off topic, but now that my gear has gotten better, I can hardly stand listening to the CDs I once used to love from the 80s/90s. Talk about terrible recordings. I don't blame the MP3 revolution, it's the studio mix engineers. I admit, I love rocking out to bands like Van Halen, Queen, Kiss, ZZ top, etc... But I gotta say, those old CDs sound like pure POOP - especially Van Halen. I would gladly pay for remasters of all my old stuff if I knew they would sound good. I'm not finding myself relearning to enjoy music that is recorded well instead of music I truly like to have fun with (: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.H.E. Droid Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I would assume that someone of Neil Young's stature would have control over his own music, so he's certainly free to not allow anything other than CD's and vinyl LP's to be published of his own music. Apparently he's willing to take the cash for those shxx MP3's of his songs so where is the real problem? The problem is that too much liberty is taken with the remastering of many of the classics. Many of those artists have passed away. Is that any way to honor the memory of a great artist, or pay tribute to a masterpiece? Another problem is that he is talking about the deterioration of the industry quality not declaring war and boycotting it. Frankly, I don't find your statements quite as provocative as you think. You seem to me to be the type of person who tosses his milkshake on the floor and stands back and watches to see how others react. It does stimulate a reaction, but sooner or later people discover what you are up to, and the focus turns right square back at you. I wonder how many more "remasters" of Dark Side of the Moon we need. Much of the problem is that for some people, music is art, and for others, it is a commodoty to be bought and sold. Music publishers have been pushing poorly mastered drek for more decades than I can remember. Some have higher standards. I think in Neil Young's case, he needs to make sure the quality of his works in published form meet his standards. That's about all he can do. Ultimately, the market decides, and there is still a market for carefully recorded music. As for your personal attack, that says more about your character than mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtrp Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I wonder how many more "remasters" of Dark Side of the Moon Apparently, there is a never ending thirst for 'drek' as you call it in the HiFi world of audio enthusiasts. I absolutely love the SACD 5.1 mix of DSOTM and listen to it quite frequently, along with some Diana Krall offerings and even some Bob Dylan. On the other hand, check out Alice in Chains SACD 5.1 mix, which I consider the ultimate SACD trainwreck. But hey, you win some and you lose some. Again, the point being, I like having the choice. I can choose to get cheap-as-dirt MP3's or I can shell out for the 6 disc, ultra-special-double-triple-quad-stereo-SACD-wing-ding-collectors mix. I just don't know what Neil Young is complaining about. If it is all the recording engineers fault, then there had to have been plenty of piss-poor recordings in his day too, because people don't change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why aren't serious recordings automatically available in SACD Hybrids, or in a lossless format online? The Monk Project, for instance, or the Beatles remasters, or the most compelling new soundtracks, or Yo Yo Ma's Bach Suites? Some reordings from the '50s and '60s are better than some recordings of the present day. If I were to list the "great" recordings (as to audio quality), very few would be of the last decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtrp Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why aren't serious recordings automatically available in SACD Hybrids, or in a lossless format online? The Monk Project, for instance, or the Beatles remasters, or the most compelling new soundtracks, or Yo Yo Ma's Bach Suites? The consumer demand isn't there. They aren't selling millions of copies of SACD's every month, unlike Apple iTunes, which sells hundreds of millions worth of MP3 music every quarter. Which all comes back to another point I made earlier: How many people can actually hear the difference (or care to, for that matter) between an MP3 recording and a lossless version of the same track? 1 in 25? 1 in 50? Maybe. I seriously doubt 1 in 50 would even be able to explain, in extremely rudimentary terms the difference between lossless and MP3. And if the average consumer doesn't know about the difference between MP3 and lossless, you can bet your bottom dollar they surely don't know (or care) about the difference between full lossless and multi-channel SACD. It should change at some point though. Stereo has been around for decades and it is only a matter of time before it gets replaced with something like full multi-channel or 'HD Stereo'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why aren't serious recordings automatically available in SACD Hybrids, or in a lossless format online? The Monk Project, for instance, or the Beatles remasters, or the most compelling new soundtracks, or Yo Yo Ma's Bach Suites? The consumer demand isn't there. They aren't selling millions of copies of SACD's every month, unlike Apple iTunes, which sells hundreds of millions worth of MP3 music every quarter. Which all comes back to another point I made earlier: How many people can actually hear the difference (or care to, for that matter) between an MP3 recording and a lossless version of the same track? 1 in 25? 1 in 50? Maybe. I seriously doubt 1 in 50 would even be able to explain, in extremely rudimentary terms the difference between lossless and MP3. And if the average consumer doesn't know about the difference between MP3 and lossless, you can bet your bottom dollar they surely don't know (or care) about the difference between full lossless and multi-channel SACD. It should change at some point though. Stereo has been around for decades and it is only a matter of time before it gets replaced with something like full multi-channel or 'HD Stereo'. Illustrated by the sales you are probably right. However I think that many can tell the difference but they just do not care enough about the difference to sacrifice ease of purchase, ala carte purchases, and portability. Also for what it is worth. I didn't read the original linked Neil Young post until just now. I had read another report that was much more in depth as to his perspective and wrongly assumed that the link would be covering the same ground. In the linked post he comes off as somewhat of a luddite. In the report that I read his speech or talk revealed a number of things. The one that grabbed headlines was that Steve Jobs was a vinylphile. He (Neil Young) also stated that he had talks with Jobs about developing a much higher res digital player that could accommodate larger digital files. So he wasn't anti digital only anti MP3. FWIW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 the storyI read is here http://news.yahoo.com/neil-young-steve-jobs-listened-195913242.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDJohnson Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 maybe off topic, but now that my gear has gotten better, I can hardly stand listening to the CDs I once used to love from the 80s/90s. Talk about terrible recordings. I don't blame the MP3 revolution, it's the studio mix engineers. I admit, I love rocking out to bands like Van Halen, Queen, Kiss, ZZ top, etc... But I gotta say, those old CDs sound like pure POOP - especially Van Halen. I would gladly pay for remasters of all my old stuff if I knew they would sound good. I'm not finding myself relearning to enjoy music that is recorded well instead of music I truly like to have fun with (: I agree with all you state. To let you know, I did just get a remastered Van Halen Fair Warning from the library that sounds good. The library is a great place to check out music from! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.