"Francis Xavier Holden" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:45:33 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

I happen to think Neil Young is part of the trinity of the three great
white men of popular music still alive - Bob, Van and Neil.

Only three?

Not that I have any problem with your choices, but what elevates them
above
the 100s of other pop musicians from the last 50 years?

They are still alive and producing quality work and live performances
that aren't reruns of recording sessions. Although Van's quality has
slipped a bit in the last 2 years or so.


Why not David Bowie,
Paul McCartney or Tom Waits (off the top of my head), for instance?

My second tier would be Waits, Nick Cave, Elvis Costello.

McCartney has no body of work to compare. Bowie is 3rd or 4th tier but
in those ranks there are a lot of others.

Are you talking about spread of time, just volume of what you perceive as
"quality" or both.
Whilst I'm an Elvis Costello fan, I'd have a hard time placing him above
McCartney, regardless of whether his latest album is any good. What he has
*already* achieved is hard to top.

One day we'll get over this devisive obsession of specifying "white" and
"black" /

I specify this because the same living artists in black music arent
around with a body of classy works and live performances.

But what *relevance* does skin colour hold?

Ray Charles is gone and in the last 10 years his output was to a large
extent a reprise, no surprises. Michael Jackson never fulfilled his
promise and schlocked out early in his career. Prince - still an
outside contender if he comes up with some new output. Assorted
rappers - to early to tell but no one looks like a stayer or
contender.

Stevie Wonder? I'm not as cheered by his later music, but I'd argue that
what he created in 1960s and 70s is enough for any lifetime of musical
achievement.

"John" wrote in message
om...
"JustMe" wrote in message
...
I think everyone here would agree that the concept behind
"Straight-line" is
to deliver the music as the artist intended, unsullied and uncoloured -
an
accurate reflection of the artist's work.

Just reading an interview with Neil Young (HiFi Choice, January 2005),
in
which he states,

"The analogue records always sounded better than anything else to me.
But I
compared the new vinyl versions, which are taken from a first generation
analogue master copy, and the best just got better. It's a really good
feeling."

To be fair and put this in context, he also speaks well of DVD-Audio,
but
it's clear that NY is one artist who sees vinyl as the source which is
closest to a "true replica".


But you are hardly likely to see an article that says CD is better
than vinyl and all this audio nonesense, is just that.... Are you?

Popularly accepted wisdom is that CD *is* better than vinyl. What would be
tough about pandering to the masses?

These types of mags only publish stuff that goes with there current
way of thinking.

Every magazine is produced as a commercial enterprise by a publishing house
with a stable of titles covering all sorts of diverse subjects. If an
individual title was unable to carve itself a popular niche and pay the
bills, then publishing would cease. If their way of thinking fits in with
enough readers, then they continue to publish.

That's capitalism though, isn't it?

I have never repeat NEVER seen a review or article that say.... Sounds
the same as the last one..... or similar words

When in my long years, that actually is the response I think when I
change something 9 times out of 10.
I just bother with them anymore.

Reviews on any subjective issue are, by definition, conceited and
irrelevant.
The only opinion that counts is the end user's.

It's still interesting to read what other people think though...

In article ,
JustMe wrote:
Popularly accepted wisdom is that CD *is* better than vinyl.

It's also accepted by anyone with the least bit of engineering knowledge.

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Popularly accepted wisdom is that CD *is* better than vinyl.

It's also accepted by anyone with the least bit of engineering knowledge.

Picks up handbag

Ooooooo!

Puts handbag down again

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:21:31 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

Why not David Bowie,
Paul McCartney or Tom Waits (off the top of my head), for instance?
My second tier would be Waits, Nick Cave, Elvis Costello.
McCartney has no body of work to compare. Bowie is 3rd or 4th tier but
in those ranks there are a lot of others.
Are you talking about spread of time, just volume of what you perceive as
"quality" or both.

Both plus live performances that aren't predictable. I suppose I
actually value a jazz or gospel esthetic in live performances, high
level of musicianship, quality material, attempt to reach a
"spiritual" dimension, transport audience emotionally, spiritually,
emotionally and in some cases bodily (dancing not astral travel).

Can I add here I wasn't trolling or even seeking to convince you and
others. I'm not sure I want to continue on back and forth but while
its civil and intelligent and I have time I'll re-visit every now and
then. Its a long way - I'm in Oz y'know. Its hot. And I have lots of
work to do and music to catch up on.

Whilst I'm an Elvis Costello fan, I'd have a hard time placing him above
McCartney, regardless of whether his latest album is any good. What he has
*already* achieved is hard to top.

Again not seeking to argue - I just don't rate Macca at all.

One day we'll get over this devisive obsession of specifying "white" and
"black" /
I specify this because the same living artists in black music arent
around with a body of classy works and live performances.
But what *relevance* does skin colour hold?

Its hard one but it makes some sense in music.

Ray Charles is gone and in the last 10 years his output was to a large
extent a reprise, no surprises. Michael Jackson never fulfilled his
promise and schlocked out early in his career. Prince - still an
outside contender if he comes up with some new output. Assorted
rappers - to early to tell but no one looks like a stayer or
contender.

Stevie Wonder? I'm not as cheered by his later music, but I'd argue that
what he created in 1960s and 70s is enough for any lifetime of musical
achievement.

Stevie is certainly one of the greats. Its just I don't hear much
about him live these days or new product. That is part of my
criteria.Its partly about the canon, party longevity, partly quality,
partly creativity and if still giving it out live.

I'm not trolling. It just started off as a side comment putting Old
Shakey in context then saying although I think Neil is one of the
trinity (Bob the Father, Van the Holy Spirit, Neil the Son) I don't
take his advice on HiFi.
...
Francis Xavier Holden
http://landownunder.blogspot.com/

In article , JustMe
wrote:
"John" wrote in message
om...


Popularly accepted wisdom is that CD *is* better than vinyl. What would
be tough about pandering to the masses?

Actually, I suspect that most people during the last 10-20 years haven't
even *thought* about 'LP versus CD-A' as they have had no awareness of LP
at all. Apart from the minority who have an interest in audio I suspect
that most people have simply used CD-A.

In the minority of those interested in audio, their views seem to me to be
more varied, but some magazines do seem to have a 'slant'. HFW being the
obvious example.

These types of mags only publish stuff that goes with there current
way of thinking.

Every magazine is produced as a commercial enterprise by a publishing
house with a stable of titles covering all sorts of diverse subjects. If
an individual title was unable to carve itself a popular niche and pay
the bills, then publishing would cease. If their way of thinking fits in
with enough readers, then they continue to publish.

That's capitalism though, isn't it?

Yes. But is that an excuse for magazines simply stating errors as if they
were factually correct? The problem is not that magazines sometimes express
opinions and preferences. The problem is when they 'back up' these with
incorrect statements about the systems involved, or present their personal
opinions as if they were 'facts' that everyone would agree with.

I have never repeat NEVER seen a review or article that say.... Sounds
the same as the last one..... or similar words

When in my long years, that actually is the response I think when I
change something 9 times out of 10. I just bother with them anymore.

Reviews on any subjective issue are, by definition, conceited and
irrelevant. The only opinion that counts is the end user's.

It's still interesting to read what other people think though...

Yes. However it does tend to mean that the subjective opinions given in
reviews are often - in practical terms - either useless or misleading. That
being the case, why read them? My concern about this is the way it may
mislead the 'innocent' who may accept the 'expert' opinions without
realising how unreliable or irrelevant a lot of 'reviewer comments' may be
to the reader.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Why not David Bowie,
Paul McCartney or Tom Waits (off the top of my head), for instance?
My second tier would be Waits, Nick Cave, Elvis Costello.
McCartney has no body of work to compare. Bowie is 3rd or 4th tier but
in those ranks there are a lot of others.
Are you talking about spread of time, just volume of what you perceive as
"quality" or both.

Both plus live performances that aren't predictable. I suppose I
actually value a jazz or gospel esthetic in live performances, high
level of musicianship, quality material, attempt to reach a
"spiritual" dimension, transport audience emotionally, spiritually,
emotionally and in some cases bodily (dancing not astral travel).

Can I add here I wasn't trolling or even seeking to convince you and
others. I'm not sure I want to continue on back and forth but while
its civil and intelligent and I have time I'll re-visit every now and
then. Its a long way - I'm in Oz y'know. Its hot. And I have lots of
work to do and music to catch up on.

If you were in Blighty, you wouldn't complain about it being hot - even if
it were summer here!

Whilst I'm an Elvis Costello fan, I'd have a hard time placing him above
McCartney, regardless of whether his latest album is any good. What he
has
*already* achieved is hard to top.

Again not seeking to argue - I just don't rate Macca at all.

Fair enough.

One day we'll get over this devisive obsession of specifying "white"
and
"black" /
I specify this because the same living artists in black music arent
around with a body of classy works and live performances.
But what *relevance* does skin colour hold?

Its hard one but it makes some sense in music.

I can understand the argument that music is formed from experience and that,
in different environments, being black is a different experience to being
white. I just wondered why you made the point of specifying. Maybe I'm being
overanalytical of your point.

Ray Charles is gone and in the last 10 years his output was to a large
extent a reprise, no surprises. Michael Jackson never fulfilled his
promise and schlocked out early in his career. Prince - still an
outside contender if he comes up with some new output. Assorted
rappers - to early to tell but no one looks like a stayer or
contender.

Stevie Wonder? I'm not as cheered by his later music, but I'd argue that
what he created in 1960s and 70s is enough for any lifetime of musical
achievement.

Stevie is certainly one of the greats. Its just I don't hear much
about him live these days or new product. That is part of my
criteria.Its partly about the canon, party longevity, partly quality,
partly creativity and if still giving it out live.

I'm not trolling. It just started off as a side comment putting Old
Shakey in context then saying although I think Neil is one of the
trinity (Bob the Father, Van the Holy Spirit, Neil the Son) I don't
take his advice on HiFi.

Didn't for one minute think you were trolling, just discussing.
I now understand your criteria for judging, which makes your choices easier
to understand.

Francis Xavier Holden wrote:



I happen to think Neil Young is part of the trinity of the three great
white men of popular music still alive - Bob, Van and Neil.

Ahem, Leonard Cohen?!

Rob

"JustMe" wrote in message
...
"Francis Xavier Holden" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:45:33 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:
Clip clop....


Stevie Wonder? I'm not as cheered by his later music, but I'd argue that
what he created in 1960s and 70s is enough for any lifetime of musical
achievement.


Agreed, though I'd like hear a bit more of Stevie's harmonica playing.
Especially Stevie and Toots Thielmans performing together. Stevie is most
definitely a world class harmonica player, it rocks!

Mike

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Francis Xavier Holden wrote:



I happen to think Neil Young is part of the trinity of the three great
white men of popular music still alive - Bob, Van and Neil.

Ahem, Leonard Cohen?!

Rob

Ah, laughing Len (-;