Quote:
I just discovered this from an
old thread that I haven't seen before.
I think Jude predicted the future with that statement. :X
Well, Jude's analysis is very balanced, well thought out, and makes sense.
We may not like Beats because of the principles that we believe it represents as a value and/or was founded on as a brand, but "Beats" or rather celebrity headphones in general were completely necessary and had to happen. Like Hollywood and popular music the image matters just as much, if not more so than the music itself because it creates a grand, enveloping world.
What if a headphone represented a generalization of the type of artist or genre it is meant to be listened to? Normally choosing a headphone based on its sound is pretty difficult, you have to either risk the buy/return process or trust the "house sound" stereotype; such as all sennheisers being warm and lacking treble or that akg's are mids first/treble second/bass last, etc. Any concept of "house sound" seems to be dead now with companies competing for every type of product available.
In that case is it right for the image of some stuffy classical music producer recommending a K271 to a hi-hop fan, when in reality it can't provide enough midbass?
Most big audio companies make headphones for the pop/hip hop genre, but its easier for the consumer to trust the Monster cable/Beats brand. Plus your getting approval from your idol that the music will sound as it was intended by the studio that produced it in a pair of beats headphones. Perhaps for a hip hop fan, the beats are the right way to go over trusting if some other brands equivalent answer to there genre will do.
The average consumer won't care about the headphones before the music and won't feel the urge to upgrade as often as we do either. They'll cut there losses at $300 and keep them for as long as they last