Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 21, 2014, 01:55:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Congratulations to Andrew Barker! RPGfan Editor of the Year and now Chief News Editor!
341130 Posts in 13942 Topics by 2222 Members
Latest Member: XanTehMan
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  RPGFan Message Boards
|-+  Media
| |-+  The Soundroom
| | |-+  Garth Brooks and The Beatles are technophobes.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Garth Brooks and The Beatles are technophobes.  (Read 4268 times)
D-Rider
Former God of RPGFan
Rainbow Club Member
Posts: 3688


Solitary One

Member
*

ChlamydiaBlues
View Profile

Ignore
« on: June 10, 2008, 03:23:57 PM »

Along with a few other fossils.

I don't grasp why any musician in this day and age would shirk away from digital distribution.  Bullshit artistic pretensions aside, I'd think that making your work easily available would lead to more exposure which would lead to more interest in your other work which would in turn lead to more sales.  But what do I know, I'm not a musician with more money than Jesus. :P
Logged

Losfer
The Pope
Posts: 3862


The friendliest man on the internet

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2008, 04:57:04 PM »

What about AC/DC releasing their new album solely through fucking Wal-Mart?

All these old musicians probably don't even know what the internet is.
Logged

SonicDeathMonkey
Posts: 792


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2008, 05:42:01 PM »

Quote from: "Losfer"
What about AC/DC releasing their new album solely through fucking Wal-Mart?


lol, lamest shit ever
Logged
Dincrest
Spectrum
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 12090


Stumpy McGunder- thumps

Member
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2008, 05:50:42 PM »

Some of the reasoning is just strange to me.  Garth Brooks makes it sound like everything he released was a concept album.  And sometimes consumers love that one song, buy the album, and the album sucks.  I think just being able to buy that one good song is sweet.  And previewing the others is even sweeter.  And I don't know what kind of math Garth Brooks is doing but the last I checked, $9.99 for an iTunes album download was cheapter than buying a CD for $15.99.

Then again, I always thought Garth Brooks was a pretentious wanker, so I'm biased.
Logged

Next bike-a-thon: Diabetes Tour-de-Cure 2015
Nemmet
Posts: 527

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2008, 06:59:46 PM »

How the fuck is wanting to keep an album intact pretentious at all? Have you never found one of the reasons you've liked an album to be its flow and pacing? Continuity and flow are important aesthetics, and I sure as hell wouldn't want that compromised if I put out some work of art where I strived for those factors. I certainly don't blame Radiohead nor The Beatles for this, because OK Computer and Abbey Road for example are two albums that I've always felt had a remarkable flow to them (and that's a massive understatement). They are not being unreasonable or pretentious in the least.
Logged
Adapheon
The original hobo with a shotgun
Posts: 464


Member
*

summersdemise@yahoo.com Kal+Imith
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2008, 08:49:33 PM »

Quote from: "Losfer"
What about AC/DC releasing their new album solely through fucking Wal-Mart?

All these old musicians probably don't even know what the internet is.


Well the Eagles did the same when their newest album came out and it sold like 7 million copies or something so it's not a bad idea. Might be an unpopular idea with some and AC/DC is nowhere near as popular as the Eagles but still it will probably work out for them in the end.

If I had a band I think my position would be against the shit quality that apple gets away with selling. Sure they have different options now but just give at least 192 kbps as the default quality.
Logged

Nemmet
Posts: 527

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2008, 09:34:34 PM »

^ That's another thing. The only options for buying iTunes music are either a shitty codec or an mp3 with a shitty bitrate. Brooks' quote makes so much sense here: "There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in the digital downloading world before we introduce our music to it." A form of digital distribution should not be embraced if it's only going to make the music available in terrible sound quality. If I were any artist, I don't care how much more money I could expect to make, I would never sell my music through such a limiting service. Trent Reznor took a huge step in the right direction by making the downloadable Ghosts I-IV release available in both FLAC and mp3 (with bitrates that actually made sense). It was also an amazing move for him to upload it to Waffles himself, since the freedom you get with a site like that is exactly the kind of thing music fans want with digital music distribution.
Logged
D-Rider
Former God of RPGFan
Rainbow Club Member
Posts: 3688


Solitary One

Member
*

ChlamydiaBlues
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2008, 09:50:46 PM »

Quote from: "Nemmet"
How the fuck is wanting to keep an album intact pretentious at all? Have you never found one of the reasons you've liked an album to be its flow and pacing? Continuity and flow are important aesthetics, and I sure as hell wouldn't want that compromised if I put out some work of art where I strived for those factors. I certainly don't blame Radiohead nor The Beatles for this, because OK Computer and Abbey Road for example are two albums that I've always felt had a remarkable flow to them (and that's a massive understatement). They are not being unreasonable or pretentious in the least.


If I can interrupt your foaming at the mouth rant a second, I'd like to point out that iTunes allows you to buy albums as a whole.  And I'd also like to point out that buying one song off an album doesn't lessen the "continuity and flow" of your proverbial work of art...it just means they don't care.
Logged

Tooker
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 9783


Member
*

king_friday@hotmail.com PeopleJohnT bigfatusername@yahoo.com
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2008, 08:51:47 AM »

Gotta agree with D-Rider.  Flow is all well and good, but many folks are just not that into their music.  They like a song, they want that song.  I love music, as I think a lot of folks here do, and I can think of a few albums off the top of my head with a flow I wouldn't want to break, but it's pretty rare.
Logged

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
—Kurt Vonnegut
Dincrest
Spectrum
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 12090


Stumpy McGunder- thumps

Member
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2008, 09:18:47 AM »

I look at my friends The Waffle Stompers.  They're a local ska band in my area that I'm buddies with.  They recently got on iTunes.  They're completely floored.  They're like, "WHOA!!!!  Little old us!?!?!?!  On iTunes?!?!?!?!?!  Incredible!!!"  For them, this means greater exposure than they could get otherwise.  I mean, yeah, they tour like madmen during spring break and summer vacations (they're college students who do want to get degrees) but their music on iTunes is great for their budding careers.  

And, hey, Fugazi is as indie/DIY/artistic visionary as you can get, and they sell their stuff on iTunes.  

Having played in local bands myself, if I had to choose between incredible sound quality but little exposure or okay sound quality and a fuckton of exposure, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat.  

As for album flow, there aren't many I can listen to in one sitting from beginning to end without getting kinda sick of it.  Weezer's blue album is one of those rare few; one of the best albums of all time IMO.  On the other hand, there are albums where only one or two songs are good and so I only want those one or two songs.  Example: Do You Call My Name is the only song that was good on Ra's From One album so instead of paying 10-15 bucks for the whole thing, I just paid a buck for the song I wanted.  

I love music as much as anyone here, but do I need audiophile quality?  Nope.  Even as a bassist, I don't need or even want audiophile quality in my amp.  I like to just plug in, play, and be loud enough to cut through guitars and drums.  I also tend to listen to a lot of local artists and since local bands don't have a shitload of money to afford a big name producer and a studio with Krell equipment, their demos don't exactly sound perfect in the first place.  I also prefer hearing music live than in the studio and since live environments are less controlled, the sound is far from perfect (especially in dives with incompetent sound engineers.)
Logged

Next bike-a-thon: Diabetes Tour-de-Cure 2015
daschrier
Posts: 1389

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2008, 03:47:21 PM »

I have nothing against technology, but I prefer a physical CD.
Logged
Prime Mover
Posts: 2804


All's fair in love, war, and the recording studio

Member
*

Shattre
View Profile WWW Email

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2008, 12:45:21 AM »

I do agree with the whole "album flow" thing, though. And it doesn't matter if you eventually end up listening to individual songs, but the first time, I always listen to an album straight through. It really defines how you approach the songs on future listens. Then again, I'm a huge concept album nutjob. I like listening to them and writing them. I like how hearing a melody at one end of the album, can fucking knock your socks off when it comes back later.

Probably one of the best examples is Quadrophenia by The Who, who sprinkle little snippits of "Love Reign O'er Me" all through the album, just to make you smile.
Logged


eelhouse.net
- order the new album

Currently Playing: Metroid Prime 2, Trails in the Sky, Bioshock: Infinite
Currently Listening to: Devin Townsend, Dream Theater
Watching: Star Trek: TOS, Slayers, Doctor Who (as usual)
Tooker
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 9783


Member
*

king_friday@hotmail.com PeopleJohnT bigfatusername@yahoo.com
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2008, 12:20:25 PM »

Quote from: "Prime Mover"
the first time, I always listen to an album straight through.


Glad to know I'm not the only one.  I do the same thing with video games - the very first time I load one up, I watch all of the pre-game things (you know, the company logos and other start menu lead-in stuff).  

I may never listen to that CD start-to-finish again, but I somehow feel I owe it to the artist to do it once.
Logged

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
—Kurt Vonnegut
Vanguard
Posts: 1550


I am America, and I hate JRPGs

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2008, 11:25:48 PM »

Warning: Long Post.

I think the digital age of music has ruined the idea of an album as a whole. Call it pretentious or whatever you want, but it really has. Certain albums just work as a whole and if you only listen to a song or two off it, the effect it has is lost. What's even more interesting is when an album is great, but the songs individually aren't that good. That may not make any sense to you, but I can give you several examples.  

Really what this comes down to is convenience. It's much faster to acquire some MP3s and sync them to your iPod/whatever then it is to drive to the store, purchase an album, bring it home, read the liner notes and give an in-depth listening.

The same thing happened in the switch from vinyl to CDs. Vinyl has a better sound quality hands down, is in the most pleasing format (huge album covers, extras galore, etc) but CDs were more convenient. You could skip songs, carry them around without fear of them getting ruined (as easily), etc. However, in the switch something was lost. Quality.

Likewise, in the switch from physical mediums to digital ones quality of sound has been compromised, quality of listening experience (I like albums, not regurgitated pop singles) and the physical connection of being able to look at an album while listening to it.

That all said, I'm not completely against digital music. It's allowed more music to be recorded and distributed than ever before. This is good for artists who would potentially never get any exposure because it's not "radio friendly." Plus, MP3 players give you instant access to your entire library of music. You can create playlists (which are essentially modern mix tapes), shuffle randomly, skip from song to song, or even listen to an album one at a time.  

Some companies have recognized that people want it all, convenience and the best quality. So they press vinyl editions of their albums and include a coupon for a free download of the album. This is the ideal situation. For roughly $15 you get the most aesthetically pleasing format, the best quality of sound, and the convenience of loading it on your MP3 player.
Logged

Thoren: Astronomers fucking love stars and shit. Whitman was a bitch.
Hidoshi: Walt Whitman could beat you with both dicks tied behind his back.
SonicDeathMonkey
Posts: 792


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2008, 01:17:45 AM »

Yeah i still buy vinyl all the time. I like the big cover art, mostly. Vinyl and mp3s are where it's at. Cds seem kinda stupid to me these days, though I still do buy them sometimes since i just bought Tha Carter 3 on cd, but that was so i could play it in the car >:)

I definitely disagree that the digital age has ruined the idea of an album, there is still a lot of album-based music being made these days. If some dumbass only wants to hear certain songs from those albums out of order, so be it, it's no one's loss. Artists who let the fact that some of their fans don't like to listen to whole albums all the way through affect the way they present their music are probably shitty or at least have shitty ethics.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!