Pink Floyds Recordings are Best in the world.
Sep 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM Post #32 of 56
Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why is it unimportant? And how do you know its unimportant


Because musical quality trumps everything; audio quality is merely a bonus.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 7:17 PM Post #33 of 56
Quote:

Originally Posted by basic-chanel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Because musical quality trumps everything; audio quality is merely a bonus.


I fully agree with this! Not everyone shares my sentiments though, and even if they did there is still room to say that Pink Floyd's recordings are the best in the world.....they certainly were at one point, maybe for some still are.

My thread about the view of Pink Floyd on head-fi being skewed has a lot to do with the fact that I feel at least here, people can often prefer sonic quality and studio sheen to emotion and musical content.

That being said, I think Pink Floyd are great songwriters and have some really wonderful things to offer.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 10:53 PM Post #34 of 56
Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Many of Floyd's seminal recordings were made at the very peak of analog recording. Are they the epitome of what great analog recording can be? Not always, but there can be no doubt that they sound vastly superior to 99% of modern recordings. IMO the late 70's were the absolute pinnacle of recorded music. Nothing sounds that good, and I'm afraid it never will again.

Why? There used to be professionals called "producers" and "engineers" and "mixers" who were skilled in the lost art of making a RECORDING.

Now, you've got the artists trying to be recording engineers, putting everything recorded on crappy mikes they can afford onto a friggin' laptop, using Pro-Tools to mix and then sending the result off to be compressed to hell and EQ-ed to death.

The art of recording, producing and mixing albums is a lost art. Everything today sounds exactly the same (wasps buzzing in a tin can set at maximum volume). What is there to mix, when everything is slammed to the maximum? Everything starts to sound like the medium that was used to make it (i.e. Pro-Tools on cheap laptops) rather than an event actually happening.

It's sad.


this is true on a general level, however there are notable exceptions.

first thing you should do is track down a copy of Iva Bittova and Vladimir Vaclavek's beautiful masterpiece Bile Inferno. not only is the sound quality jaw-droppingly good, but the music quality will blow your mind.

even if you're not a huge fan of Czech indy rock.
tongue.gif
 
Sep 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM Post #35 of 56
Good Music can be ruined by awful sound quality, check out some of the so called remasters from the last ten years, to name a couple.
The first remaster of DSOTM was awful.
The remaster of Simple Minds - Live In City Of Lights was also pitiful.
They somehow managed to make it sound like a bad studio job, removing almost all crowd noise and atmosphere.
Mind you they sometimes get it right, Big Country's - Live At The Barrowlands remastered album is excellant.
 
Sep 15, 2008 at 11:22 PM Post #38 of 56
Quote:

Originally Posted by basic-chanel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hardly; good music is good music, regardless of how it was recorded.


That's kind of a blanket statement, don't you think? I would be respectful of both opinions if I wanted anyone to take me seriously. I'm sure some musicians would even disagree with this statement.
 
Sep 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM Post #39 of 56
I honestly cant enjoy a mahler symphony if it was recorded in terrible mono sound.....i know that makes me miss out on some major works , but i just feel that sonic quality is a part of the enjoyment of such works. And I'm not dismissing ALL mono recordings, jsut ones that are very old and horrible.
 
Sep 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM Post #42 of 56
R.I.P Richard Wright, a sad loss to Pink Floyd and the world.

B.T.W he thought sound quality mattered, after all if it did'nt we would all still be listening to wind up gramaphones or even wax cylinder recordings would'nt we?
Nice to see that at least some folk here have respect for others views!

I believe both sound quality and music quality are equally important, this is My point of view and i've a right to express it, or am i to be told what to think by someone else?
 
Sep 16, 2008 at 12:41 PM Post #43 of 56
Quote:

Originally Posted by basic-chanel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hardly; good music is good music, regardless of how it was recorded.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iniamyen /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's kind of a blanket statement, don't you think? I would be respectful of both opinions if I wanted anyone to take me seriously. I'm sure some musicians would even disagree with this statement.


If the quality of the recording is so bad it obfuscates the good music that has been recorded then surely that will diminish you're enjoyment?
 
Sep 16, 2008 at 3:58 PM Post #45 of 56
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamora /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If the quality of the recording is so bad it obfuscates the good music that has been recorded then surely that will diminish you're enjoyment?


If a recording isn't listenable, then don't listen to it.
smily_headphones1.gif


However, I do think the acquired skill of listening through the equipment/recording to find the music is well worth pursuing. Then only an aspect of one's enjoyment is diminished--hopefully a minor one, compared to what one gains from the music.

For example, this is how I "discovered" Armstrong's Hot 5&7s and Charlie Parker, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top