|
| Headline | little bit of new album info |
|
Page:
[1] [2] [3] |
| Author | Comment |
mog
Oct-15-2010, 03:19 GMT
Unknown
 | Oh, one important point I forgot to make: even if our technological capacity has expended without believe, the time we have to pay attention to something remains the same. There are still 24 hours in a day.
It is good to have 4000 songs on iPod, but do you have more time to listen to the stuff ? You know, I could suscribed to 45 podcasts if I wish too. I won´t have time to listen to them. So...
I remember one of my friends who had made a MP3 CD for his family trip when it was popular. He said to me: ´wow man, I put 6 hours of music on it ! We made hundreds of Km and not once the disc had a chance to start over again.´
So...great to had 6 hours on a single disc, but in the end, you have a restricted time to devote to it.
On the other hand. one can point out that it is great to play whatever music you are in the mood for without to make a mess in your jewel cases. |
| | |
Klausi
Oct-15-2010, 08:06 GMT
Germany
 | What about the aspect of sound quality?
People buying Longplayers today are convinced that the sound is better than on CD. And MP3 means a reduction of musical informations which must have an effect too.
What I can say definitely is that the quality of a 45 single was better than the same song on the 33 album. Lp`s with more than 50 or 60 minutes are also a problem (The S&G CP 81 was on two albums).
If you want to hear frequencies below 40 or 30 Hz, you still need speakers like big cupboards. (Or one big and too small ones).
And headphones are not a good solution too.
I am 52 (Not a B-52...). |
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 10:47 GMT
USA - United Staates America
 | Well Bodo,it doesn´t Surprise me that you couldn´t hear the difference between cassettes and CD´s because the record companies made little to no effort remastering catalogue releases in the early days of the medium. The average buyer assume he it was on CD,it should sound superior to it´s vinyl counterpart. This usually was not the case. The companies in an effort to meet demand for product just slapped the existing tapes onto the CD´s without an attempt to clean the tapes. Bookends is a good example. The first CD release was a shocker. The LP sounded infinitely better! Things have improved of course with genuine remastering taking place,but how many times will we be forced to re-buy there recordings? |
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 10:53 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| And unfortunately,movie studios have learned nothing from the digital dilemmas faced by the music companies in their transition to the newer mediums. I´m a movie collector as well and the quality of early DVD´s was often deplorable. It got better eventually,but they them repeated that trend with Blu-Rays. Don´t get me started on Blu-Rays :-( |
| | |
mog
Oct-15-2010, 12:25 GMT
Unknown
| LOL !!!! Blue-Rays: here is one thing in which I did not jump into, a DVD being fully satisfying for me.
Sound quality is a good point. We tend to forget that MP3 is a mix between convenience and loss in quality. Maybe it can explain a certain regain in interest for LP´s...people so accustomed listening to music on MP3 and little headsets are suddenly surprises how things can sound on a LP.
For me, LP´s will always be inferior to a modern CD for the simple reason that there is a direct contact between two parts, the needle and the disc. Still, I can be beautiful to listen to.
It makes me thing that I realized that there is not, in my book, a Simon record that seem extraordinary in terms of quality sound. For the most part, they are all well-recorded, but nothing comes up in my mind as a ´wow, what a sound!´ on my audio system, which I can have for other CD´s.
|
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 12:54 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Yes Mog,I agree about the sound of Paul Simon´s albums. You can buy a CD of an album,say Peter Gabriel´s So album from 1986 and it had a vivid rich,dynamic sound-just perfect for the 1980´s CD generation. That same year of course Paul Simon´s Graceland was released. Now Graceland is perfectly recorded,but nowhere near as sonically vibrant. His recording style is much like Paul Simon himself,unnervingly precise,but not the least bit ostentatious. Graceland is listed in a book I own as an album to use to test your audio system. It´s a well engineered album. I think he just prefers the more natural sound,unenhanced by studio and digital manipulation. Songs From The Capeman 11 years later in my opinion is a fantastically produced album. I Love the sound of the drums and especially Paul´s vocals sound superb there. I think Graceland has aide better than So too by the way. Honest not flashy I think... |
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 13:04 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Sorry,that was meant to say ´Graceland has aged better than So´. My opinion anyroad. About blu-rays -it´s all a matter of proximity. If I sit 10 feet or more from my screen and compare the DVD and blu-ray versions of the same movie,I really can´t tell a great deal of difference. Note a bit closer and the DVD honestly starts to look like VHS to my eyes. That all depends though on whether or not the mother been capably transferred to the High Definition medium. |
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 13:11 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Wow,I apologise for the many spelling errors I´ve been making tonight. I´m posting from my phone and forgetting to check what word the T9 dictionary has selected. ´Move´ not ´Note´ ´Movies´not ´Mother´ being but two. Sorry. |
| | |
mog
Oct-15-2010, 16:13 GMT
Canada
 | I have never been struck by Graceland as a extraordinary records in terms of sounds/audiophile. Also, the 2004 remasters have brought very little in my view.
Part of explanation is the fact that Graceland was made during analog period + recorded in locations that did not have maybe as much quality materiel than in NYC (theory of my own).
It is true that I thought about SFTC as one that shines in Simon´s constellation in terms of sounds, maybe followed by YTO. Surprise could have sounded better I think.
For the remasters series, we saw a big improvement in the early solo records. |
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 17:22 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Well Graceland did use some digital recording. Hearts And Bones was a full digital recording. The South African studios used to record the basic rhythm tracks were probably not digital as you say,but once back in New York,to make the vast editing processes easier to manage,the tapes were converted to the digital domain,and at least some of the overdubs were digital as well. It´s a classic ADD/AAD recording. Diamonds and Al may actually be full DDD as they were both recorded in New York. As I said earlier,it is an extremely well engineered recording and when you think of the work that´s gone into it,truly amazing really. As the album was predominately an analogue recording,there´s very little hiss. Graceland sounds fine,probably better than it should actually. If I could remaster Graceland,I´d keep the mix exactly as it is,but would boost the high end frequencies overall,just to make it sizzle a little more. I don´t believe I´ll be called on any day soon though:-) |
| | |
mog
Oct-15-2010, 19:47 GMT
Canada
| Hey - you know a lot Ian.
Are you sure you are not Roy Halee ?!! |
| | |
Ian
Oct-15-2010, 22:07 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Yeah,I´m a complete pratt sometimes. I re-read my posts just now and come across as some ´know it all´ even to myself:-( Recording and music composition etc is just something I´m interested in,and there´s no limit to the catalogue of useless and boring information I´ve amassed. I apologise. |
| | |
Forum guest
Oct-16-2010, 00:21 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Man, I can´t wait to at least hear the name of this album and a small sample. If it ranks up there with Graceland... This is going to be pure awesome! |
| | |
Bodo
Oct-16-2010, 11:16 GMT
Austria
 | Hm? I do not see why it should rank up with Graceland. I also do not believe so.
Paul always said that this is his best album, whenever he released some new material in the last years. Well, why should he compose and write songs, if they aren´t better than his previous songs...? An artist always develops - for himself.
The other thing is:
I do no expect an album with many upbeat/happy/dance songs - we already know that Love in hard times and Question for the angles are included. So my expectation is an album of quiet songs. But I could be complete wrong. |
| | |
Ian
Oct-16-2010, 12:11 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Well Bluegrass music is usually upbeat I think. The band that recorded with Paul said that while they are a bluegrass band,Paul´s song(s) are not bluegrass at all. Not bluegrass,but probably uptempo. I´m wondering whether ´Questions For The Angels´ will be the same version we know,or a New recording. Wasn´t ´Father And Daughter´ a slightly different mix on ´Surprise´ than it was on the single? |
| | |
|
Page:
[1] [2] [3]
|