Hello Troll! ;o)
Boy! Did you get it wrong! Sorry.
That's OK, I love you anyway.
Spidey
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 02:06:56 -0700, The Old Salt <TOS@SoCal3.net>
wrote:
>Hi there... I'm a troll !
>
>Well, I'm not really a troll, but I figure that if I dare to question or challenge any statements attributed to the
>groups overseer... some of her mindlessly adoring minions will immediately classify me as such. Oh well... :(
>
>So Spidey.... In one of your recent (July 9th in a Gene Pitney thread to be precise) pontifications you wrote:
> "... it's only natural that you begin to see top 40-type music come around again and again. How many copies of Pretty
>Woman does one person need?"
>
>The answer (although I'm sure you asked that rhetorically) is: As Many As It Takes !
>
>I was also curious as to your inclusion (and use of) the term "Top 40" but since you did not qualify it (ie "genre",
>"era", "style", etc) it is meaningless and therefore irrelevant. Just another one of those buzzwords you like to toss
>about, presumably to make yourself look Intelligent, authoritative, intellectual or possibly even knowledgeable.
>
>Before I qualify/explain "As Many As It Takes".... from comments you've made about "Wondrous Old Time Music"... one
>could deduce that much of the music in this group (and the 50s group) is not really "your" music. By that I mean (a) I
>don't think you were fortunate enough to grow up in the 50's and 60's (when Rock n Roll was really new)... (b) if you
>did, then possibly you weren't paying attention or (c) you grew up in some [possibly thrid world] country, other than
>the USofA, where R&R was banned and if/when you were finally allowed to listen to it... it dribbled in, in small
>censored quantities and/or way after the initial release.
>
>From your rather naive "how many copies" question one could easily arrive at the conclusion that, for you, as long as
>you have a copy... the quality, or whether or not it is the "original" release (the one you'd remember if you were
>really there) is of no significance [to you]. Heck... If it's not important to you then it shouldn't be anyone else
>either... right?
>
>Rock & Roll, starting with early Be-Bop and Rockabilly, spanned (approximately) the years from "about" the mid to early
>50's to "about" 1968 and during that time recording processes and techniques changed drastically. From cutting small
>grooves in a flat, circular piece of hard "wax" (henceforth the term "to cut a record") by a method not unlike the
>entire "playing a record" process in reverse to the advent of "tape".... there was no consistency and quite often the
>cut (then pressed to vinyl) record sounded better then the best (at the time) tape. Keep in mind that although many
>tunes were laid down on tape in multiple tracks... a lot of those recordings were originally released in monorail format
>due to stereo phonographs not yet being popular.
>
>Anyway... without delving deeper into the intricacies of early audio recording (which I'm sure you are fully versed
>in)... let's just say that, even within a year of a records initial public release... there existed (for sale) differing
>"qualities" on the market. This could have been due to a myriad of factors... over pressing, tapes losing iron oxide,
>etc, etc.
>
>Over the ensuing years, with 50's style music (which actually included most of the 60s and which is now commonly
>referred to as "oldies") continuing in popularity, there came hundreds of "compilations" and "best of" (type) offerings.
>Some of them were "licensed", some purely "pirate". Some came from authorized copies of the original masters while
>others (the old K-tel offerings come to mind) were "usually" (not always) abysmal 4th or 5th generation reproductions
>which made you wonder why the song ever sold in the first place. There were hit songs recorded by two or more groups
>within days of each other... both bragging that they were the original recording group (leaving the now grown up teens
>to remember which version played at their Junior Proms). There were single (re 45rpm) versions vs. Album versions...
>mostly with only slight variations but enough to drive the purist crazy. Lastly there were the inevitable re-recordings
>when either (a) the original artist felt they could have done it a little better and/or (b) with multi track masters
>originally released in mono.... that would be re-released as "stereo" (or "faux" stereo) or simply re-mixed to emphasis
>some previously hidden portion of the audio spectrum.
>
>So... if you're a "purist" you want the "version" that (a) is the one that your mind tells you is the version that you
>grew up with, or fell in love with, got laid to, etc. Also... you want to "eventually" end up with the best (out of
>dozens if not hundreds of offerings) "sounding" version you can find.
>
>However... if you're an audio "enthusiast" while the above described original may be what you want but your goal is more
>oriented towards such things as "dynamic range", pure silence in those silent areas and, if a stereo or multi-track
>version is to your liking, then it can't be one of those that has been so "mickey moused" and/or over engineered that
>even someone with a tin ear can tell that it's not "original".
>
>And that my dear, since the odds of downloading your perfect version on the first try is astronomical, is why you just
>might want 40 copies [of Pretty Woman]. While Pretty Woman was your choice, it's not, for many reasons, the best example
>for this argument but, I've personally heard enough varying versions of it so that it does, like almost all music of the
>so-called "50s generation" or The Oldies, fit my explanation.
>
>You might wonder why I feel that this is not "your" music. It's quite simple really (based on what you wrote)....
>
>I did grow up in that era. I remember how all portable record players had 1.5" spindles which magically fit the only
>records we were interested in. Sure, there were times when we had to beg our folks to use their phonographs to play some
>of the very early EP/LP (3-4 track) releases from Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent and some of the other early rockers. I
>remember how that "sinful" Wake Up Little Suzie" came out in time for my 8th grade graduation during and how Bobby
>Darin's "Splish Splash" marked the point at which I learned that people did things slightly differently than the birds
>and bees :)
>
>I remember, in '57, thinking how silly grownups could be when all the goody two shoe Christians got Buddy Knox's Party
>Doll banned from half the radio stations because of the line "..making love to you". Somehow I don't think it bothered
>you at all.
>
>And, above all...
>
>I remember almost crying and everyone waking around in a daze when we woke up to the terrible news on February 4th,
>1959. Were you there? Did you cry too?? I doubt it.
>
>I was there and I was part of it (and "it" became part of me. !
>
>People my age might [now] refer to this as "my" music, or "our" music or, in general using the widely accepted term
>"oldies" (as in "oldies but goodies" or "golden oldies") but I guarantee you that no one who was part of that music, or
>for whom that music was part of would ever refer to it (as you did) as "old time music" much less describe it as
>"wondrous". To us, of and from that era, "old time music" might have been (or is) music from the 20's and 30's.
>
>No doubt you also think that everyone, back then, wore rolled up jeans and a T-shirt with a pack of Luckys in the sleeve
>or skipped around in a stupid poodle skirt and that we spent all our waking hours hanging out in some pink and white
>(decorated) "malt shoppe".
>
>The next time you feel the need... try to realize that there are many people who do not subscribe to your apparently
>self-centered and myopic views of music that (except for collecting it) you apparently know little about (or didn't
>experience first hand).... or the next time you whine, someone might offer you some cheese to go with it.
>
>Old Time Music my ass !!!
|
|